Cornelius08

"If you want to pull your hair out compare the regeneration results for each WMU with the PS deer densities in the 2005 AWR and see if it makes any sense."

Pgc needs hung by their nads. That is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. This needs brought to the legislators attention in detail before they ever DREAM of giving pgc a fee increase. Its clear the intent is to hose us. PERIOD.

bluebird2

Now that is a classic example of double talk. They said the same thing at least twice in that sentence just to confuse the issue and make it difficult to understand. They did the same thing with breeding rates by adding the coefficient of variability which few hunters understand. They have been constantly changing how they report things in the AWR in order to make any reasonable comparisons. That is why they won't provide either OWDD or PS deer densities.

Cornelius08

YEs bb, they think the "dumb hunters" wouldnt notice such things. LIke how they gave us a still "fair" rating although they hosed us by dropping us by 15% in 2A and is well down into the "poor range".

Wouldve been much more noticable had they simply lowered us and given us the rating of poor! Now they can do it more gradual. They dumped us into a lower ranking percentage, yet didnt label us with that Poor tag yet. NExt year, they can point back and saying we declined but were still "fair" we are already below fair in numerical rating...What happens next year if they can manufacture a simple 1 or 2 percent decline and we are further yet below.

And one year ago, we were in absolutely in NO DANGER of having a poor habitat rating. It was fair, and well up into the fair rating percentagewise, closer to "good" on the scale than "poor". They changed the system and this is rediculous. Among the best habitat in the state and thats a fact. Even by pgc's screwed ranking we were 8th last year, and the percentage waseven on an increasing trend!!! Untilthis year? SIXTEENTH in the state from 8th and going to what basically amounts to poor?! Despite having so many fewer deer and the fact the effects of 69+ dpsm didnt give us a poor rating ever! AND NOW???? The habitat didnt degrade at all in that time, and likely improved if anything, yet implementing some rediculous change designed to screw us instantly made slaughtering even more deer in 2A a very likely possibility.


Even though we have our lowest herd size here in a long time, what are the odds of a responsible allocation lowering when our rating is now basically graded poor?

Pgc can go straight to hell as far as Im concerned.

bluebird2

Here is another example of the PGCs incompetence. They base the doe tag allocations in the change in DD from one year to the next.

But they admit that they don't know if their estimate is correct until they get the harvest dat from the year when the antlerless tags were issued. After claiming the herd in 2g increased by 40% from 2006 to 2007, but after 2007 they revised it to a 6% increase, but they didn't reduce the allocation in 2008.

bowtruck

oh my pgc is out to get you all of us oh my ah thats horriable i now get it that corn and bb my eyes have been opened

Cornelius08

You arent looking at this from a hunter perspective and you arent gonna lie and tell me otherwise if you dont want to see what is there. When the hunting is at its worst and all indications according to pgcs newest scam pulling is that its going to get even worse hunters might want to take notice. The fact you dont speaks volumes. [:'(]

BTW, it doesnt matter if your eyes are opened or closed if your head is planted up your backside.

bowtruck

who says hunting is at its worst maybe you old corny and your wifey ,BB

Cornelius08

Its at its worst and getting worse. Even if you didnt think it was at its "worst" it IS nondebatably getting worse as the herd is reduced further for no reason. Pull your head out and get a breathe of fresh air sick homo.

bluebird2

Well I finally have to disagree with Cornelius. Deer hunting was at it's worst around 1910 when they had to stock deer in order to establish the herd.
but according to the harvest stats buck hunting is the worst it has been since 1979 when we harvested around 117K buck compared to 122K in 2008.

bowtruck

first off you must have a love for the homo and beard thing maybe you are the ill one
next i think hunting is good atleast in pa dont get much time to go elsewhere