personally i am happy with the fishing and satisified with seeing the bigger healthier deer in the woods.  I don't see any reason for getting work up about all this things change you just have to live with it.

The trout fishing is better but you have to be fishing to see that not sitting at a computer complaining about it.

Quote :

frank1 wrote : Quote : Also, the big decline in trout stamp sales only shows that less people are fishing.  Nothing more than that.  Spin it as you want.  I have found no difference in the quality of my fishing experience. Can you explain how you reached that conclusion ,when 97,653 more guys stopped buying a trout stamp than stopped buying a general license. and his  claims about the B/D ratio are completely contrary  to what the PGC says about 2G.

Because many trout fisherman go on the first weekend and that is it.  It costs $15 bucks and many are choosing to forgo that weekend but still fish the rivers and lakes on occassion.

What is the B/D that the WCO claims and how does it compare to the PGC's?  

There are less baby boomers NATIONWIDE.  The difference is, they dont have our deer program.  Thats why our hunter decline according to usfw national numbers compared to pgc license sales from 2001 to 2006 show that we are declining at OVER TWICE the rate of the national average  OVER TWICE.

4 percent decline average nationally.
Nearly 10% decline in same time period here.

Also, there COULD be more big buck, and might even have been the first few years of the program, however the total reduction ever since has eliminated much of ar's effects, by killing way too many does that have to birth those buck, and also killing too many bb due to the far too many antlerless tags.

I think ar can work, but its being countered by extreme hr that will not allow it to reach much of its potential.


I also see very little comparison between fishing and hunting retention.  Kind of like comparing football and golf.  

--Last edited by coburn on 2008-06-10 13:03:06 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote :  Personally, I can't understand why anyone thinks interest in hunting wouldn't decrease as the herd was reduced by over 40% and fewer hunters are harvesting a buck each year and most hunters are seeing a lot fewer deer.

I can agree with you that some will lose interest if thier expectations are unrealistic.  But many other factors are involved.

But, the trend is national for fishing and hunting.  Nothing new there.  We will continue to lose some hunters but with the deer herd in stabilization mode in most areas we will be setting a precedent for future generations in regards to realistic expactations.

So, in the short term many will blame thier lack of interest on the PGC.  The young ones just entering our sport will not be able to blame a lack of game because they never hunted inflated numbers.  I guess we will see if the trend continues in the future and and if so who some will blame then.

"The young ones just entering our sport will not be able to blame a lack of game because they never hunted inflated numbers"

Dont worry, Im sure the rest of us will keep them educated as to what made the hunting so poor!  Also, you may be correct, they may not complain, they very well may just quit after a few days of nothing but counting birds!  

--Last edited by coburn on 2008-06-10 13:07:50 --

Quote :

Coburn wrote : I think ar can work, but its being countered by extreme hr that will not allow it to reach much of its potential.

Welcome aboard first off. Please keep it coming.

Remember the goal of AR's is not big antlers.  It was to improve the age structure of our male herd, improve the B/D ratio and to close breding windows.

Actually, intensive HR will help to reach the goal of shrinking the breeding window and improve the B/D ratio.

I believe because of Pa's intense hunting pressure on our bucks, we have sort of reached a plateau at this point on what AR can accomplish further.  Unless we begin to limit the buch harvest further with a shorter season or specific antlered tags by drawing per unit.

Quote :

Coburn wrote : Dont worry, Im sure the rest of us will keep them educated as to what made the hunting so poor!  Also, you may be correct, they may not complain, they very well may just quit after a few days of nothing but counting birds!

That is part of the problem.  We all as responsible stewards of our wildlife need to explain to them the benefits of the current deer numbers in some areas and how it benefits all wildlife.

To talk of the good old days with a deer herd out of balance with it's habitat is irresonsible if you want to ensure the future of our sport.

It is about our attitude, not thier's.

Again.  Welcome....

Quote :

frank1 wrote : The more adult hunters quit due to lack of  deer the fewer younger hunters will be recruited. Furthermore, even if an adult walks around with a big smile after a day of not seeing deer, the kid will still realize that deer are few and far between and that hunting isn't as exciting or  enjoyable as it would be if they had seen a few does.

Hmm..  Could spend some time scouting for higher deer numbers, could drive a little to some find higher deer numbers,  could go squirrel hunting on Saturdays in October and bag a limit, could take them youth turkey and pheasant hunting, could participate in the early rifle season where deer numbers are higher etc...............

I think it comes back to the not so dedicated hunter blaming the PGC for there own lack of motivation or willingness to adapt.  Feel sorry for our young hunters with mentors that do not go the extra mile to ensure our future..

go to forest county , ask any resident, ask any hunter, and you can even buy a tee shirt with a picture of a doe on it stating
endangered specie.

Quote :

notime wrote : go to forest county , ask any resident, ask any hunter, and you can even buy a tee shirt with a picture of a doe on it stating endangered specie.

Come to Washington County were deer are everywhere.  It is my backyard but guess what, I did not hunt there in the 80's cause the deer were not there.  I drove north.

What is the difference?

Quote :

frank1 wrote : Thats kind of funny since the buck harvest in Washington Co. was 1,308 in 1981 compared to 1,400 in Elk Co.

The comparison you make is true for 81.  I started my hunting in 86 where the kill in Washington county was overshadowed greatly by many of the northern tier counties where I made the annual pilgrimage too.  

Look at Allegheny county where I live.  A deer kill very low at the time.  I did not hunt there either, I drove to were the deer where.

less hunters due to less deer i dont disagree with that.  But over all the woods is looking healthier and it will be able to support more deer you just have to give it time.  Changes don't happen over night.  I figure give the PGC a chance in time things might work out. The halth of the forest is not just the deer herd it the plant diversity and all other animals are just as important.  Personally I could care less how many deer were harvested in 1987 thats 20 years ago you can't go back and you can't change the past.  I do thing the management units are to large and the deer herd needs to be managed at a smaller scale like the old county system.  

--Last edited by Flyfisher on 2008-06-10 17:00:08 --