PGS's Strategic Plan
01-04-2010, 08:55 AM
#21
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
" 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.
In BB's example on global warming, it's easy to find plenty of respected scientists who dispute the global warming theory.
Where are the wildlife professionals disputing PA's DMP? There are plenty of wildlife managers applauding. Who among those that do this stuff for a living is booing based on the science?
01-04-2010, 08:57 AM
#22
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
No deceipt in using your very words. Those words looked to be pretty self explanatory.
Unreal. Kinda reminiscent of the nonsense you tried to pull the other day when JW called you on it, and got you to back-pedaling and stuttering. Youre once again intentionally lying about things havent been said and intentionally misrepresenting everything that has.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-04-2010 at 09:02 AM.
01-04-2010, 08:58 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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
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, 09:02 AM
#24
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Where are the wildlife professionals disputing PA's DMP?"
Where are the wildlife professionals whom have the free time to do a year long free in depth analysis?
"There are plenty of wildlife managers applauding."
There are none other than ecoextremists who care about as much about hunting as most of us do their trillium.
Where are the wildlife professionals whom have the free time to do a year long free in depth analysis?
"There are plenty of wildlife managers applauding."
There are none other than ecoextremists who care about as much about hunting as most of us do their trillium.
01-04-2010, 09:02 AM
#25
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Actually the science and the deer support my position and it is the PGC that can't provide the data to support their claims. While the PGC claimed the deer were preventing the forests from regenerating , the number of SM of forest increased significantly. After AR and HR were implemented breeding rates, productivity and the breeding window did not improve as predicted and regeneration in 2G decreased instead of increasing.
01-04-2010, 09:04 AM
#26
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Who among those that do this stuff for a living is booing based on the science?"
Why would i defend against that statement when i already told you science wasnt the issue. Its the goals and values that science is being used to gain.
Why would i defend against that statement when i already told you science wasnt the issue. Its the goals and values that science is being used to gain.
01-04-2010, 09:06 AM
#27
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
" Please provide a link or reference where someone with a title or profession other than an armchair biologist shares anything close to that opinion. "
Id be more than happy to. The second you provide one whom states the current dmp is the only way we can manage our deer herd with absolutely no more "hunter friendly" options. We on the other hand can point to quite a few states who say it just isnt so, by not bending over backwards for extremists, and by doing things in a responsible manner in their states
.
So where is the science (other than pgcs which holds no credibility)that shows we in absolutely no way can have ANY MORE deer than currently? There, on the other hand, is many many years right here showing we most certainly can.
Id be more than happy to. The second you provide one whom states the current dmp is the only way we can manage our deer herd with absolutely no more "hunter friendly" options. We on the other hand can point to quite a few states who say it just isnt so, by not bending over backwards for extremists, and by doing things in a responsible manner in their states
.So where is the science (other than pgcs which holds no credibility)that shows we in absolutely no way can have ANY MORE deer than currently? There, on the other hand, is many many years right here showing we most certainly can.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-04-2010 at 09:10 AM.
01-04-2010, 09:10 AM
#28
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
The bottom line is that both of you fear the audit results because you know what the science is. You simply don't have the facts to support your case. You have your opinions. BB you take facts and do your best to assemble them in a way to try and make your case. Cornelius, you simply yell and repeat your opinion and when challenged you simply yell it again telling us it's not debatable or it's obvious.
Whats obvious is that virtually the entire wildlife management community has expressed nothing but support for the current DMP. You have produced nothing more that your opinions or your own unprofessional interperetations of information provided by the very agency you wish to discredit.
Whats obvious is that virtually the entire wildlife management community has expressed nothing but support for the current DMP. You have produced nothing more that your opinions or your own unprofessional interperetations of information provided by the very agency you wish to discredit.
01-04-2010, 09:15 AM
#29
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"The bottom line is that both of you fear the audit results because you know what the science is."
.I absolutely know what the science is in this case. Its being used for unnatural levels of biodiversity, amoung other things. Its being used to support extreme goals. And towards that end, the science is accurate. I fail to see how that makes things any better when science is being used in such a manner.
That doesnt mean that same science couldnt or shouldnt be used towards meeting other goals.
"You simply don't have the facts to support your case."
your 100% unbased opinion nothing more.
"Cornelius, you simply yell and repeat your opinion and when challenged you simply yell it again telling us it's not debatable or it's obvious.
And all you do is tell mistruths such as the one right now. I havent yelled anything ever, kinda hard to do with my fingers. I also didnt use caps. Simply your pathetic attempt to create argument. And since you brought it up, what are the traits YOU are known for besides skewing polls and telling mistruths constantly? And i didnt have to make those up like you just did.
Also, if i say something isnt debatable at the time, and I dont say it alot only when pertinent... its because it isnt. Despite what you think, not everything is.
And the issue you are speaking of where I last said that was the contracteption issue. And thats a fact. Pgc supports its use. GUIDELINES FOR USE tell us this. SO does "vigorous real world testing". Thats not debatable. You dont have guidelines for use if no use is intended, and you dont vigorously real world test something without using it. lmao.
.I absolutely know what the science is in this case. Its being used for unnatural levels of biodiversity, amoung other things. Its being used to support extreme goals. And towards that end, the science is accurate. I fail to see how that makes things any better when science is being used in such a manner.
That doesnt mean that same science couldnt or shouldnt be used towards meeting other goals.
"You simply don't have the facts to support your case."
your 100% unbased opinion nothing more.
"Cornelius, you simply yell and repeat your opinion and when challenged you simply yell it again telling us it's not debatable or it's obvious.
And all you do is tell mistruths such as the one right now. I havent yelled anything ever, kinda hard to do with my fingers. I also didnt use caps. Simply your pathetic attempt to create argument. And since you brought it up, what are the traits YOU are known for besides skewing polls and telling mistruths constantly? And i didnt have to make those up like you just did.
Also, if i say something isnt debatable at the time, and I dont say it alot only when pertinent... its because it isnt. Despite what you think, not everything is.
And the issue you are speaking of where I last said that was the contracteption issue. And thats a fact. Pgc supports its use. GUIDELINES FOR USE tell us this. SO does "vigorous real world testing". Thats not debatable. You dont have guidelines for use if no use is intended, and you dont vigorously real world test something without using it. lmao.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-04-2010 at 09:26 AM.
01-04-2010, 09:20 AM
#30
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
"Where are the wildlife professionals disputing PA's DMP?"
Where are the wildlife professionals whom have the free time to do a year long free in depth analysis?
"There are plenty of wildlife managers applauding."
There are none other than ecoextremists who care about as much about hunting as most of us do their trillium.
Where are the wildlife professionals whom have the free time to do a year long free in depth analysis?
"There are plenty of wildlife managers applauding."
There are none other than ecoextremists who care about as much about hunting as most of us do their trillium.
Actually, state wildlife agencies follow the workings of other states to save them time and research resources. If you knew anything about how wildlife managers work, I doubt you'd have made that uninformed claim.
You didnt answer my question so I'll ask again. Who with any wildlife management expertise among this entire country, make that the entire world if you like, has criticised PA's DMP? Or are they ALL "ecoextremists"?