BTBowhunter

Proof? Please cite where, exactly, didhe say that? Exact quote and cite your source please.

ddear

I didn't find the source of that quote ,but I thought you might like this quote of Alt's regarding the 2004 season.
He was only off by 26K and he was dead wrong about the number of 2.5+ buck rising dramatically. There was no change from 2003 to 2004.

BTBowhunter

Why am I not surprised? You make an unsupported unsubstantiated statement, I ask you to back it up. Pretty simple request, don't you think?But since you can't back up what you said, you fire back with something else altogether.

Typical smoke and mirrors propaganda tactics.

When a typicalpropagandist gets exposed for a false statement, he immediately attacks on a different front. Unfortuantely for you, propaganda depends on the fact that most people dont challenge any statement when its done with authority. Most of the folks here are too smart to swallow the junk you post and are willing to challenge false statements.

AJ52

No that does not come out to 90% !! Read exactly what the article says.

This is a prime example why most of us here don't trust a word you babble - you put an inaccurate spin on the numbers and make inaccurate quotes to suite your agenda - what ever that is.

ddear

Alt made the statement in a speech or an interview and not all speeches and interviews are available on a link. I am not your personal research assistant and you have no authority to demand a source and exact quote for everything I post.

If you were so interested in the truth you would have ask for documentation on how many deer caused the browse line in the pick and if the area was open to hunting.

Your problem is that you can't stand the fact that the expert you supported was proven to be wrong so often and that it is so easy to document using PGC stats. No he is trying to destroy the agency that made him famous ,just because he didn't get his waywhen the hunters found out the truth about his plan.

AJ52

2nd Time; Where did your 75% and then 90% figure come from on clear cut article.

This is why I/WE want proof when you utter anything thru your keyboard!

As far as I'm concerned I'm talking to a NON HUNTER who cruises the web to the tune of 16,000+ posts! You can't possibly have time to hunt or even "observe" deer in the wild.

And you want us to swallow all this crap you babble thru your key board as the gospel.

BTW any idiot can see the browse line in the pic and deduce it was caused by Deer - WOW. Why would we need to confer with you or anybody else about a browse line.

BTBowhunter

I didnt demand a link, just proof and you don't have it. You are indeed not my personal research assistant but I have the right to question any statement made here just as you do. I questioned you, you tried to divert attention from that and I called you on it. Period.

Documentation is readily available for the deer numbers from the PGC but I'm sure you don't believe them even though I'd bet you never laid eyes on the Cook Forest area. BTW,Cook Forest is open to hunting with the exception of the develpoped areas (campgrounds etc)

.

I've said many times that Gary Alt has made some mistakes. He told us to expect some trial and error science. He also did some things right. BTW Alt wasn't the topic here. Deer damage to Cook Forest's regeneration was the topic here.

For what it's worth, I have said before and will say again, Alt has exhibited some very unprofessional behavior and just plain sour grapes since his departure and that is unfortunate. However frustrated he may have been when he left, his recent statements aren't helpful to anyone and I am sorely disappointed that he seems to want to perpetuate a pi$$ing contest. Right or wrong, he's trying to make his point the wrong way.


As I see it you have two major problems that will never be resolved for you.

1 Alt is gone and your continued mission to bash him is getting old with all of us.

2 Your constant Spinning of the facts has been exposed to the point that no hunting net veteran takes you seriously. Some of us choose to continue to expose your distortions because a lie unchallenged just might be taken as truthful by new members.

Go fishing, mow the lawn, have a beer, find a life!!!

ddear

This is actually a prime example of your inability to read an article objectively. The article states that 41 clearcuts were surveyed and 30 out of the 41 had 70% regeneration Therefore, 30/41= 74% ,so I was off by 1 % and derve 50 lashes wirh a wet noodle.

Only 4 out of the 41 cuts were considered to be failures. Therefore 41-4=37 successful clearcuts and 37/41= 90%.

Now that wasn't so hard ,was it?

PABowhntr

Thanks for the links. I only briefly scanned through them at this point but they look like interesting reading.

On the other hand, I would love to post a pic similar to the original post but from my area. There are quite a few deer here locally but with no discernible browse line. It would make for an interesting discussion.

ddear

If those developed areas prevent hunters from accessing the deer those preventing them from reaching the OWDD goal ,is it the hunters fault that there is a browseline. the guy that took that pic is a very biased Alt supporter who wouldn't be above taking that pic in adjacent to the developed areas.


[/quote]2 Your constant Spinning of the facts has been exposed to the point that no hunting net veteran takes you seriously. Some of us choose to continue to expose your distortions because a lie unchallenged just might be taken as truthful by new members. [quote]

I provided the PGC stats on the harvest of 2.5+ buck ,which no one else has. now I challenge to show that one thing I said about the effects of AR's was wrong.