PGS's Strategic Plan
01-03-2010, 04:20 PM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
That you can count on. This joke audit will be the biggest screwing over the hunters of Pa have had yet. Pgc gets the funding to stay the course for the next decade because legislators honor the bogus results, and its gonna basically be the knock-out punch.
01-04-2010, 07:22 AM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
My only hope is that the audit will be so obviously bias in it's support of the PGC that even the legislators will recognize that it is worthless. But, I doubt that will happen, especially since it is unlikely that the outdoor writers will analyze it adequately.
01-04-2010, 07:51 AM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
This audits sole reason for existing is because of extremely high level of hunter discontent. Having said that I will be VERY surprised if that issue is even addressed, when it should be THEE issue addressed. Im not intested in if its scientific, as its obvious, it is. Although there may be some accuracy issues here or there, basically speaking, science is being used to meet goals. The goals however are the problem. If managing for the sport itself is not one significant stated goal that the audit looks into and gives suggestions on...Its 100% useless and was done for absolutely nothing.
Seeing as wmi came out immediately stating things like they would be using pgc data, and seeing if the science = the goals... and how they said they arent gonna suggest how many deer we should have (which id assume would include telling us whether we can have more deer to address terrible hunter satisfaction)..
These things tell us that the audit will not even address the very issue this thing was started for in the first place!
What good is it going to be to basically in not so exacting words, to tell us Pgc is doing things very well to meet their goals> (goals of more trillium hobblebush skunk cabbage and all that other useful stuff) lmao.
Oh well. Wont be long now. Weren't the results due by early feb? Should be a hoot.
Seeing as wmi came out immediately stating things like they would be using pgc data, and seeing if the science = the goals... and how they said they arent gonna suggest how many deer we should have (which id assume would include telling us whether we can have more deer to address terrible hunter satisfaction)..
These things tell us that the audit will not even address the very issue this thing was started for in the first place!
What good is it going to be to basically in not so exacting words, to tell us Pgc is doing things very well to meet their goals> (goals of more trillium hobblebush skunk cabbage and all that other useful stuff) lmao.
Oh well. Wont be long now. Weren't the results due by early feb? Should be a hoot.
01-04-2010, 08:23 AM
#14
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Im not intested in if its scientific, as its obvious, it is.
Thanks for making it easier for us all to understand why you've disputed the audit results before we even get to see them.
01-04-2010, 08:28 AM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Some science says we have global warming and some science says we don't science can be used to defend any position one wants to take when it comes to deer management. But, the determining factor in our DMP is not science, it is the political influence of the stakeholder group with the most political power.
01-04-2010, 08:38 AM
#16
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"LOL Whatever were they thinking! Imagine, WMI having the audacity to examine the DMP by using S-C-I-E-N-C-E."
Apparently you didnt read so well in this instance. I said nothing about wmi using "science". I spoke of the science behind the deer plan, and my post was pretty self explanatory and doesnt need your decietful attempts at alternate highly inaccurate interpretations.
If you agree with the extreme biodiversity goals, good for you. But most wouldnt trade reasonable numbers of deer for tons upon ton of trillium. Yet managing for that ton upon ton of trillium requires just as much "science" as managing for a healthy balance. So "science" isnt the issue.
Apparently you didnt read so well in this instance. I said nothing about wmi using "science". I spoke of the science behind the deer plan, and my post was pretty self explanatory and doesnt need your decietful attempts at alternate highly inaccurate interpretations.
If you agree with the extreme biodiversity goals, good for you. But most wouldnt trade reasonable numbers of deer for tons upon ton of trillium. Yet managing for that ton upon ton of trillium requires just as much "science" as managing for a healthy balance. So "science" isnt the issue.
01-04-2010, 08:41 AM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
BTW, along with science WMI will be using something else. HEAVY BIAS. Thats what happens when the ex-executive director & deputy exec. directors of Pgc are asked to audit pgc. 
Good points bb. PEtas "scientists" on staff say we shouldnt be hunting at all. There are "scientists" who predict the world will end on 2012. So much for "science" being the be all end all. lmao.
Science is absolutely nothing without having at least a little common sense applied.
Good points bb. PEtas "scientists" on staff say we shouldnt be hunting at all. There are "scientists" who predict the world will end on 2012. So much for "science" being the be all end all. lmao.
Science is absolutely nothing without having at least a little common sense applied.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-04-2010 at 08:47 AM.
01-04-2010, 08:42 AM
#18
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Some science says we have global warming and some science says we don't science can be used to defend any position one wants to take when it comes to deer management. But, the determining factor in our DMP is not science, it is the political influence of the stakeholder group with the most political power.
Congratulations. Thats one of the best arguements I've seen you put forth in years. You are correct that science says we have global warming and IMHO it does prove that there is junk science out there to be wary of.
What you left out is the fact that, in your global warming example, there is plenty of science to support the other side to global warming. In the case of deer management, your side falls way short on science. Vocal opinions and armchair biologists with calculators don't constitute credible science and thats about all you've got. That and maybe a flawed study or two like the Mississippi study that was pretty much picked apart as incomplete and therefore unreliable.
01-04-2010, 08:46 AM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
" In the case of deer management, your side falls way short on science."
Untrue. huge majority of states ARENT slaughtering their deer herd as pa has and continues to, and according to even shisslers findings the huge majority of states are NOT managing their herds based on the ecosystem perspective. But i guess OUR extreme guys are right because theyre special! lol.
Untrue. huge majority of states ARENT slaughtering their deer herd as pa has and continues to, and according to even shisslers findings the huge majority of states are NOT managing their herds based on the ecosystem perspective. But i guess OUR extreme guys are right because theyre special! lol.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-04-2010 at 08:48 AM.
01-04-2010, 08:51 AM
#20
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
"LOL Whatever were they thinking! Imagine, WMI having the audacity to examine the DMP by using S-C-I-E-N-C-E."
Apparently you didnt read so well in this instance. I said nothing about wmi using "science". I spoke of the science behind the deer plan, and my post was pretty self explanatory and doesnt need your decietful attempts at alternate highly inaccurate interpretations.
If you agree with the extreme biodiversity goals, good for you. But most wouldnt trade reasonable numbers of deer for tons upon ton of trillium. Yet managing for that ton upon ton of trillium requires just as much "science" as managing for a healthy balance. So "science" isnt the issue.
Apparently you didnt read so well in this instance. I said nothing about wmi using "science". I spoke of the science behind the deer plan, and my post was pretty self explanatory and doesnt need your decietful attempts at alternate highly inaccurate interpretations.
If you agree with the extreme biodiversity goals, good for you. But most wouldnt trade reasonable numbers of deer for tons upon ton of trillium. Yet managing for that ton upon ton of trillium requires just as much "science" as managing for a healthy balance. So "science" isnt the issue.
Please provide us the link showing the DMP goals to be "trading reasonable numbers of deer for tons and tons of trillium"
You've claimed that to be the goal. Can you prove that?
BTW, simply yelling that it's obvious isn't proof.