AJ52

The way I'm reading,you read the clear cut article incorrectly again and mis-quoted. I let you figure it out. You are not a form of credible information.

ddear

Since when is it acceptable for a moderator to take unsubstantiated cheap shots at a board member he disagrees with on a personal level?

I can assure I am a hunter who has hunted Montana ,Wyo., PA, NY. and Tenn. I have shot deer with abow,pistol, ML and rifle I only missed one PA deer season in 50 years and that was when I was serving in Viet Nam,so you shouldn't hold that agaist me.

That truly is an example of a misinformed opinion. If that pic was taken in a a developed area where hunting was restricted , the browseline is meaningless. Grundsow is a koolaide drinking,biased Alt supporter who believes everything Alt says and wil do everything he can to make us believe the deer are devasting our forests even though we have more forest land today than we did in 1980.

ddear

You simply don't know what you are talking about or you can't understand simple English. The articles specifically sates that 30 of the 41 clearcuts had 70% regeneration ,which was considered to be acceptable. Only 4 out of 41 were considered to be a failure and therefore 90% were expected to have successful regeneration.

Now , quote the specifics from the article that shows I am wrong. The article is the source of credible information, not me. I simply preformed simple math to show that 90% of the clearcuts were succcessful.

Now the balls in your court. Show everybody why I am wrong. you can't do it because you don't understand simple math.

AJ52

DD Your last paragraph says everything about you and your posts. I can't hold much stock in your info or comments. You have misquoted figures on at least one link. What makes me think ANY of your quotes as to statements made by ALL your phantom experts or ALT and any "supposed" related data are acccurate.

You have produced only one name of ALL the QDM managers you spoke of. Where's the beef.

You've tryed the, "You're not from PA so you don't understand" attack - doesn't wash.
Much of what you speak on AR,QDM,Harvest data,B/D ratio's,late breeding,browse lines etc... can affect the opinions of hunters in any state on this MB.

As a user and long time member of HN, All of your posts that I can ever recall ARE of Negative content,inacurate,slanted, incomplete quotes from some phantom expert(s).

Bottom line - post something of a positive nature, or share your own personal hunting experiances.That's much of what this MB is all about. If you can't - don't expect any kudo's here.

AJ52

I guess you just can't read[&o] That's OK.

model99er

Curious, does anyone happen to know what percent of PA forestsare in the "old growth" state??

99er

ddear

Once again you have launched a negative personal attack without one bit of evidence to support your biased misguided accssations. I provided specific PGC data on the 2.5+ buck harvest and ask you to back up you claims and false accussations and all you could do is is bob and weave.

It's time to be a man a cite specifis ,but I realize that is beyond you since you can't even read a simple ,very clear and explicit article and understand what it says.

ddear

The 2001 annual report listed 7,740 SM as seedling/sapplings, 15,051 as pole timber and 26,529 SM of saw timber.

AJ52

You sir not me have been asked on several occasions by myself and others to post your sources. You have not responded.


You cannot recognize the differance between 41 and 42 clearcuts clearly printed in a link you posted. You expect myself or others to respond to YOU. Bahh - Hummm Bug.

ddear

That simply is not true. I provided the quote from Dr. Rosenberry and I provided the 2.5+ buck harvest stats and I explained that not every thing Alt said is available on a link, nor do I have a index of where I read everything Alt said.