BTBowhunter

LMFAO!
I'm not taking the bait and spending hours trying unspin your distortions.
Why don't you tell us what professional game management entity disputes Pa's present management plan? I'm willing to bet you can't provide even one link where any game manager condemns Pa's current practices. You'll be hard pressed to find any agency who hasn't openly applauded PA's efforts.

Cornelius08

"I'm willing to bet you can't provide even one link where any game manager condemns Pa's current practices."

and I'll triple that bet if you can find ONE link saying anything about anyoneunbiased outside of Pgc dcnr or audubon who has said, yes this is how it must be. Noone has and noone is gonna go unpaid and analyzewether or not our allocations are"appropriate" or if we can or cant have more deerand where.

There is such a lack of evidence that this "plan" is based on anything more than extreme minority demand, that its been necessary for Pgc to be sued by sportsmen, petitioned endlessly, government crackdown (preventing increase in fees) and impending audit... If anything were cut and dried, these things wouldnt be going on.

bluebird2

Why would the game managers in other states dispute or condemn the PGC plan ,when they have enough problems managing their own herds?
But here are a few examples of where other agencies have recognized a problem and made changes to correct.

Ark. reduced their herd and implemented ARs just like PA. then they closed antlerless season in several WMU's and voted to repeal ARs in 2 out of 3 districts.

Miss. implemented ARs and found that it reduced average rack size of 2.5 buck across all regions. As a result they implemented spread restrictions and allowed the harvest spike bucks.

Wisc. manages their herd in agricultural areas at 30 DPSM while PA's goals for 5C was 6 DPSM and 5B was 5 DPSM.

WMU118 in Mich. repealed ARs after 4 years.

Cornelius08

Doug, I believe rsb to be somewhatknowledgable. I agree with bluebird also,his views are extreme and biased. That effect how he uses the knowledge. And as far as knowledgegoes, as I said, there are someof us who know as much or more and its extremely evident.At any rate, he DOESNT have the knowledge level tocompletely counter the pgc biologists data.

"As I expected you ducked the challenge of your qualifications proving yourself to be just one more frustratednimrod who didn't see enough deer last season so you therefore need to find someone to blame. "

I never saw a challenge. I simply stated its none of your business.

"RSB and the rest of the PGC have virtually every wildlife management entity, both public and private,standing theirpractices while you and a few others grab a few stats and embarass yourself by twisting em out of context and declaring that all the experts who do this for a livingmust be wrong."

The expertsdata at pgcarent wrong. Rsb is.The current deer levels arent because anyone is right or wrong about anything. They are catering to interests other than the hunter. Plain and simple. No conspiracy. Just the facts.

"It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic."

When pgcs plan is being challenged and no logical retort is available, that iswhen that linecomes out the most, so I guess Im doing a pretty good job. Thanks for corroborating what I already knew.[&:]

BTBowhunter

You and Bluebird must be drinking the same koolaid.

Funny how you had to add that qualifier "this is how it MUST be"

Including such an inflexible qualifier makes your challenge meaningless.

Oh and this one .....
is another dodge and clearly proves that you have no qualifications in game management

Cornelius08

"Why would the game managers in other states dispute or condemn the PGC plan ,when they have enough problems managing their own herds?"

Its quite simple bluebird. They agree in principal and with the rock bottom basics... As do most of us.

Do you think we shouldkeep the herd within the habitats capabilities? Of course
Do you think we should strive for a healthy herd? Yep.

But when we go far above these basicsto cater to eco-wieners, as well as fortimber cashetc., then I dont see that as something "peer aproved". NOr the necessity to hold usso low as to have arediculously low herd, and a 109k buck harvest when none of the health indicators have improved in years.

But, oh...The report system is peer reviewed and the general goals approvedso everything single other detail has to be too right?

WRONG. The most important issues arent even addressed by unbiased"outside peers".

BTBowhunter

Yup, you and Bluebird HAVE been drinking the same koolaid!

Game managers allover the country have applauded PA's courageand are watching closely as they adopt similar practices. None ever said that PA would get it 100% right the first time but all agreed that it was a good start.

6 years in and none from the scientific community have come up with any serious criticism. Oh, we know.they're biased LOL ! The onlydetractors come from the USP types and their misinformed, uneducated "the sky is falling" mentality.

Cornelius08

":Including such an inflexible qualifier makes your challenge meaningless. "

Meaningful or not is open todebate. Justlike yoursetting of the parametersof what is and isnt.

But its doesnt matter a lick, as I see it, it was one completely meaningless challenge youpresentedwhich wasnt in the least sincere in the first place, because the subject of the challenge wasnt based in any rational reality. Since you know the person or organization who could make that judgement call (good or bad)you asked for doesnt even exist because the entire program with all its details data etc. have NOT been audited, and to do so would be a very lengthy very expensive undertaking. Thanks to pgcs continued mismanagement, I hear one is in the works.

Pgc is an answer to nearly noone independent agency, and other states have their own deer herds to manage. They arent paid to in depthaudit pas deer management.

Cornelius08

"The onlydetractors come from the USP and their misinformed, uneducated "the sky is falling" mentality. "

Thats funny. Im not usp and I know many others who arent as well. And none of the support the failed deer programs direction. Nor do the most of the 900000 deer hunters of our state or most legislators who are "pro-hunting". If you go through our entire wmu, you might be able to find enough people that support pgc to count on your fingers and toes, but as of yet, I havent.

If you doubt the lack of pgc support, you might wanna see the poll on Sportsman portal where like 68% support pgc being sued.

You might also see the lack of interest the hunting license petition got! (LOL) Though to add them up, you gotta get rid of "Mickey mouse", Donald duck and all the various hundred or so sports stars I saw listed.

BTBowhunter

the challenge was appropriate simply because you challenged RSB's credibility based on the fact he is from law enforcement and not a biologist. I simply contend that you have no ground to challenge his observations as your qualifications to comment are far less than his. My challenge stands. Please prove that I'm wrong when I say that if you can claim that RSBis notqualified to answer your claims then you have an obligation to demonstrate your qualificationsto dispute hisobservations.

BTW I don't personally know RSB, I have never met himnor corresponded with him other than in this forum but I have known enough of his peers over the years to know thatWCO's are far more than just law enforcement personnel.