Cornelius08

"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 didnt challenge his credibility. I simply flatly stated it was no more thanmany others.... And thats a fact. I stated the obvious. Hes not a biologist. sorry you have a problem with that, maybe he can take some night classes?

"I simply contend that you have no ground to challenge his observations as your qualifications to comment are far less than his."

He has very few. I have as many or more. YOu have no proof of my knowledge level, my credentials or anything else. As for a "challenge" I challenge you to make one post that makes sense with no whining involved. This is getting tiresome.[:'(]

"My challenge stands."

And myrefusal stands. You arent talkingto a kid, though Im starting to believe I may be. Yourlack of acceptance of the word "no" is reminiscent of my 6 yr old nephew when he wantscandy andasks every five minutes.

"Please prove that I'm wrong "

You are wrong. I dont need proof. My posts speak for themselves. If the person making my posts were an unemployed vagrant, that wouldnt make them any less accurate. The facts are the facts. They prove themselves as posted. When something is as cut and dried when posted as saying 100-50=50, does it REALLY matter who made the deduction?(LOL)

"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. "

I have no obligation to you or anyone else. Its not in my best interests to divulge my "qualifications".

"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. "

Yes. Since their duties encompass more than simply catching poachers a I hear they are gonna fire the biologists since one of the wcos disagrees with their data of the last few years.[8D]

Cornelius08

Btw, audubon and even some extreme antihunting groups utilize theirown like-minded biologists. The fact they are also qualified as any other biologist holding the same degree, that doesnt mean they should be managingour deer!! Just making the point anyone can be qualified. Just like pgcs new "enviro-extremist" biologists. Definately qualified. But not the first choice a state should hire if maintaining quality of hunting is any priority at all. OF course according to pgcs stated management goals, we can all see that it is not even on the list.

BTBowhunter

Sure you do

If you had any qualifications, I contend that you would proudly declare them. Your continued ducking of the question speaks volumes


I never thought you were an unemployed vagrant but you obviously don't work anywhere near any wildlife management entity and based on your posts, you probably have zero training in any of the biological sciences.
On second thought, ARE you an unemployed vagrant?

To steal a line from Larry "Now thats funny, I don't care who you are!"

That one is a real gem! Obviously RSB agrees with the biologists. I can see that you're cofused. Maybe I can help. The only data RSB disputed was YOUR and Bluebirds spin on that data.

robdre56

is it to late to send out for a doe permit ?

Cornelius08

Waa.. Who are you cornelius! I gotta know WHO ARE YOU! WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS AAAAAAAHHH!

He he he. Sorry, but thats about what Im seeing from my end.

Rob, depends on the wmu. Some are sold out, a few arent. Some dmap permits might also be available.

bluebird2

That simply is not true. RSB disagreed with the PGC's estimate of 12 PS DPSM in 2G and he disagreed with the PGC harvest estimates for 2G. he also disagreed with how they measure forest health . He also disputed the breeding rate data and productivity for 2G which is provided in the AWR.

Cornelius08

Rsb also said the herd health was poor across much of the state. Look at the latest available annual report that I posted previously. PGC biologists disagree.

No spin possible. The words in the far right wmu health column are either POOR, FAIR or GOOD.

Lemme know how many "poor" you see! (LOL)...hint. ZERO.

RSB

Nope the Game Commission biologist and I are not in disagreement nor am I disputing the data they use.

The difference is that I know what the data and studies mean while you do not. The advantage that I have is that besides having access to a lot more data then you have I also have a direct line to the people that do the research and write the reports. I talk with them either face to face or by phone anytime I have a question about the data or what it means.

Besides I have no agenda to do anything beyond helping people toward a better understanding of sound resource management principles and practices so both the resources and the hunters can have the best possible future.

Though you might think I have no qualifications to speak on the subject, beyond law enforcement, I assure you that you are wrong. I have not only been very heavily involved with numerous deer and habitat research projects for over three decades but also pretty highly trained in the wildlife management field, to include talking about the deer/habitat relationships.

Your attack on my qualifications was nothing more then a pitiful attempt to discredit what I have to say because it proves you don’t know what you are talking about.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RSB

Nope that isn’t correct at all. I’m not sure if you are just confused or if you have taken on one or Beenthere/Bluebird’s flim-flam tactics.

I did not say the herd health was poor across much of the state I said the FOREST REGENERATION HEALTH (read that as deer food) is POOR across the units that make up 23.9% of the state. I also said that the FOREST health was only fair (that is marginal) across another 67.0% of the state.

As for herd health the most recent data indicated the herd health was within the targeted range in 19 of the 22 units last year. That certainly doesn’t mean all is well though. It simply means that the adult does had a reproductive rate that was with in the target range following a couple years with no winter snows. Those units being above target very might not hold at that range following a harsh winter. It is also very likely that the target range is presently set too low since it was based on the conditions from the years when we were carrying way to many deer over much of the state. It would not surprise me to see those target ranges increase in the future.

As for your comment about how the WMU are rated that in its self proves you are either confused or intentionally trying to mislead people since the good, fair and poor designations are only used in the forest health evaluation and not in the herd health evaluations.

Here it is for anyone who want to check it out.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/antlerless_allocation_handouts.pdf

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

You disagreed with the PS deer densities for 2G and the harvest rates for 2G. You attributed the reduction in the herd in 2G to low fawn recruitment when the PGC's plan was to reduce the herd by harvesting more adult doe which is exactly what happened. You didn't understand the criteria for the forest health surveys and you didn't know that the PGC was still using population estimates to establish antlerless allocations.

Therefore, there are very valid reasons for questioning you qualifications.