Funny,you consider your poll valid,as it may well be,I will not dispute that, but yet,any other be it the PGC,WCO,or anyone that does not agree with you,that offers,facts,and/or statistics,of data,that has been collected over time,is nothing but crap or lies to you.
thats not a true statement of me mike, i just dont listen to alot of bull. and thats what it is to me and it looks like alot of hunters feel the same way, we know are deer and the land we hunt on what they eat where they hide ,we know.in the end its all good, each side will do what is best for them, thats all thats to it.
no crying here at all, just feel bad about all those young hunters out there, but would you look at those numbers climb gal.boy oh boy that tells the story, about hunters that has have enough, gal, remember your poll 2 days ago when you said 3 percent is good to go on, guess we can really go on this one, sorry i feel for ya.
well lets see gal, here is the facts on the poll, LOW DEER POPULATION, i think its safe to say it is low across the state , cause thats why we had heard reduction remember even the pgc said deer numbers needed to be brought down and they were,becouse of habitat, etc.so in fact it is very fair, to have the poll, and with 3 choices, but you have to stop and think for awhile, cause now i think they know we went to low, thats why they are trying to limit doe permits in certain wmus, you can try to spin it how ever you like, but the hunters seen thru it,maybe to help you out i will ask the mods to stop the poll, it seems there are a few of you guys and girls loseing sleep over the facts which is EVIDENCE of your last post 1:18 am.sorry and quit biting your nails ,over this , mods please end the poll i dont want people missing work over this, my shoulder is still here for ya, gal..lol.
"By the way, WMI confirned that the deer harvest estimates and population estimates were statistically valid."
The METHODS are valid but the PGC is using data from a poor sample (low harvest reporting rates). Fortunately they still go to locker plants all around the State. The hunters that don't report their kills are a real problem, obviously. I crunch numbers for a living and sampling is critical. This is a case where the PGC is at the mercy of the hunters, and we are letting them down.
i am glad to see we still have alot of smart hunters out there who can see thru bull, and now with the pgc limiting some wmus with lower doe tags , maybe finally they can move on in the right direction, cause we all know that pa can and has supported many more deer then there is today.
You do understand why the PGC is making the changes, right? It has nothing to do with complaining (smart?) deer hunters. Due to the lower deer numbers of the past several seasons, habitat has improved to the point where some higher deer numbers can be tolerated. Not the numbers of the past, but higher than recent years. It's obviously not a perfect management system, but changes will always have to occur in order for it to work. As someone else said, we the hunters have failed the PGC in regards to giving them the most accurate data to work with, so I believe they do the best they can with what they get.
The question tries to relate 2 different issues that aren't related. License buyer totals are not related to the deer population, so your question could have two correct answers.
As was pointed out, when the deer population was at it's highest we were loosing license buyers. When the herd was being reduced we were loosing license buyers. And while we have a reduced herd we had an increase of license buyers. So the two issues aren't related, hence the two possible correct answers.
I'll also note that in the last USFW study put out, PA was just above the average in license sales with 27 states loosing more license buyers then we were. The average nationwide loss was 1.4% and PA was only at 1.2%.