Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,335 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For you folks that study these things, PA put out there 2014 hunter survey. No major shifts...similar to the 2011 hunter survey.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/porta...unter_survey_-_report_-_statewide_results_pdf


For comparison, here is their 2011 survey.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/porta...er_survey_-_preliminary_statewide_results_pdf


Here's the 2014 archery survey. Surprised only 1.4% are lady bowhunters. I thought it would have been higher.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1418000/2014_archery_hunter_survey_pptx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,989 Posts
Only 21% dissatisfied with APR's.. Reflects what I've seen and heard from the guys I've hunted with since 1976 and from guys in surrounding camps in one of the largest deer hunting counties in PA. A large percentage of hunters in PA love APR's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,771 Posts
I've been satisfied before, doesn't mean I LOVE her Bucko! Bucko...you took one question and ran with it. Did you even consider some of the other very eye opening percentages in that survey, I can tell you a whole bunch stuck out that told me PA is not in a LOVE fest with their deer hunting. But hey, you took the one question and squeezed it...I mean I only saw 62% were satisfied, where you saw a whole bunch love it!! funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,989 Posts
I've been satisfied before, doesn't mean I LOVE her Bucko! Bucko...you took one question and ran with it. Did you even consider some of the other very eye opening percentages in that survey, I can tell you a whole bunch stuck out that told me PA is not in a LOVE fest with their deer hunting. But hey, you took the one question and squeezed it...I mean I only saw 62% were satisfied, where you saw a whole bunch love it!! funny.
Munster taught me how to post numbers, he was a master at it and you and others sucked it right up as gospel.

That number is the exact same way he posted numbers from the Michigan Survey, how come you never questioned him??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Munster was also wise enough to thoroughly sift through all of the MI-DMU 045 data.

Then come to the realization that the data may have a flaw, (QDM/Taxidermy data added.)

Then he took it upon himself to question the MI-DNR about the flawed data.

What stinks to high heaven is that it took a freedom of information act request before anyone would come clean about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,989 Posts
Munster was also wise enough to thoroughly sift through all of the MI-DMU 045 data.

Then come to the realization that the data may have a flaw, (QDM/Taxidermy data added.)

Then he took it upon himself to question the MI-DNR about the flawed data.

What stinks to high heaven is that it took a freedom of information act request before anyone would come clean about it.
And the significance of this great conspiracy was literally nothing. If it was, the DNR would have discontinued it, but they haven't and according to Ashley Autenreith "the additional data is extremely useful".

It did however, occupy a bunch of Munster's time chasing useless information, so that was a good thing. :evil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,914 Posts
And the significance of this great conspiracy was literally nothing. If it was, the DNR would have discontinued it, but they haven't and according to Ashley Autenreith "the additional data is extremely useful".

It did however, occupy a bunch of Munster's time chasing useless information, so that was a good thing. :evil:

.........as long as it's used for the purpose intended, and it wasn't in that case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
And the significance of this great conspiracy was literally nothing. If it was, the DNR would have discontinued it, but they haven't and according to Ashley Autenreith "the additional data is extremely useful".

It did however, occupy a bunch of Munster's time chasing useless information, so that was a good thing. :evil:
I agree. It was a good thing, because that FOIA proved that flawed data was indeed added to the 045 data.

It is somewhat dishonest to intentionally inflate DMU 045 numbers and not be upfront about it, isn't it?

Also somewhat dishonest to require an FOIA to be forced to reveal that flawed data was indeed included, isn't it?

I guess it all boils down to honesty, and getting to the real truth, and that is what matters most.

So, with that said........ Which side were you on?

Helping provide the flawed data? Or helping to reveal the truth?

Honesty is the best policy........ and this dishonesty must not have met Munster's smell test for him to pursue it to the extent he HAD to, to get to the truth, and he is to be commended again, for it.

Hard to fault honesty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,168 Posts
Pa. hunters I encounter online often feel too many does were killed during liberal allowances.
How that ties or fits with the game commissions findings and habitat impact requiring harvest structure I don't know but one argument that occurs is that the timber companies push to reduce deer impacts.
A.P.R.'s seem less an issue than overall deer numbers and hunter densities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,979 Posts
I have lived in PA for the past 11.5 years, and hunted there once as a guest of a camp.

There are many similarities in deer hunting between PA and MI, one of the biggest is the long tradition of deer hunting. There are also differences, 2 of them are the proximity to the largest population center in the US, and the terrain. A third difference is the prevalence of hunting by driving.

Nothing surprised me in the report. The respondents are experienced (questions 1 and 2) and mostly firearms hunters (part 4.). They support antler restrictions (question 47) and think there are not enough deer (questions 37 and 41). When I talk with guys in PA about deer hunting, antler restrictions and regulations in general have not been part of the conversation. It's more about being with people, tradition and being in the woods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,989 Posts
I agree. It was a good thing, because that FOIA proved that flawed data was indeed added to the 045 data.

It is somewhat dishonest to intentionally inflate DMU 045 numbers and not be upfront about it, isn't it?

Also somewhat dishonest to require an FOIA to be forced to reveal that flawed data was indeed included, isn't it?

I guess it all boils down to honesty, and getting to the real truth, and that is what matters most.

So, with that said........ Which side were you on?

Helping provide the flawed data? Or helping to reveal the truth?

Honesty is the best policy........ and this dishonesty must not have met Munster's smell test for him to pursue it to the extent he HAD to, to get to the truth, and he is to be commended again, for it.

Hard to fault honesty.
You're claiming there was intentional inflation of the numbers is BS and you have no proof of it because there is no truth to it. Why would you make up lies like that, are you that desperate...............never mind, I know the answer. The taxi check stations were simply added as a away to add additional data to the totals. In addition, the numbers were insignificant and are still being collected and used, so they couldn't be too harmful.

The APR opposition was grasping at straws at ever step of the process and this was simply another straw to attempt to grasp to no avail.

The regulation is in place and working exactly as proposed and there is an overwhelming acceptance of it by the hunting public. Of course with your eyes closed, I don't expect you can see that.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
I agree. It was a good thing, because that FOIA proved that flawed data was indeed added to the 045 data.

It is somewhat dishonest to intentionally inflate DMU 045 numbers and not be upfront about it, isn't it?

Also somewhat dishonest to require an FOIA to be forced to reveal that flawed data was indeed included, isn't it?

I guess it all boils down to honesty, and getting to the real truth, and that is what matters most.
You are quick to throw stones, suggest conspiracy, and make accusations, even though you don't know the whole story.

I talked with Munster about it and he told me that it was his decision to go through the FOIA process as a courtesy to the DNR staff. They told him they would pull the data together for him, but he felt it would be an imposition on their time to do him a favor, so instead he went through the FOIA process so that it would be on the books and on the time clock for the employee.

I don't think anyone ever looked at the breakout of the data until Jim did so nobody was holding back or keeping secrets.

In fact taking out the data changed nothing about the fantastic results of the Leelanau experiment. The numbers changed a little but the take home message was the same.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy and a chance to point fingers and call people dishonest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
I've had conversations with him also.

I believe he is smart enough to never needlessly burn any bridges, and why throw someone under the bus that you may need sometime in the future?

The APR opposition has wanted nothing more than honesty and integrity in the system. Is that wrong?

Obviously, Munster's FOIA showed, that in this case, it was not as transparent and above board as maybe it should have been.

Dishonest may have been a little harsh. That was directed at the whole process, not any one person.

The way it all played out, and going forward, maybe untrustworthy is a better word.

Munster surely opened some eyes, that's for sure. I hope that he keeps doing what he is doing, it is a good thing.

Good luck to all this season
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top