1st, there is no "propaganda". I simply state the facts. But you did make a good catch. That was in the article and there were quotes from several different people, Rosenberry, roe,dubrock & Miller. I reread, and Miller did say that. But it doesnt make matters any better when Pgc has a pro use policy and a means is soon to be available to use it on a wider scale much easier and cheaper according to miller.
However Rosenberry DID say this:
"This changes the fertility drug situation considerably," agreed Rosenberry. No community or group will be using the vaccine here in Pennsylvania right away."
Right away? lmao.
"A lot of people are trying to say that this is the panacea for urban deer management. We're trying to say, not so fast," said Carl Roe, executive director of the commission. "You can quote me on this: there are going to be a lot of tough hoops to get through to use this."
But they ARE gonna use it after making it through those big bad "hoops" right Carl? lmao.
Commissioner Delaney also stated they were voting on USING CONTRACEPTION at the January meeting. Guess you missed that too? lol. Im pretty sure you didnt miss my other links on this site where pgc flat out stated they were pro-contraception by having a policy of USE, not a no-use policy.
When they speak of all the things Ive shown pluse call it "another tool in the toolbox", i think its pretty obvious, their position is a pro-use policy.
Pgc is clearly trying to downplay their enthusiam, Id say thats a smart move considering the all the heat they are already under by the legislators and hunters of this state.
Sorry. But as i said before its not debatable. Only reason i posted what i did wasnt to show them as having a pro-use policy. Thats already well known by most by now. It was to show that things are gonna go from bad to worse with making administering the drug MUCH easier and MUCH cheaper according to millers statement.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-14-2010 at 05:40 PM.
Like i said, not debatable and in that regard it doesnt matter what you or i think. It doesnt change what the policy is as stated. There are no longer any secrets, no need for conspiracy theories, no guessing games, and no more possibility of denial. They have a policy in place, the vote is in, the press releases made, and the cat is out of the bag.
What is debatable and what we are discussing is whether their pro-use policy is acceptable regardless of how its written up in our opinions. In mine its not.
As for quibbling over minor technicalities and meaningless details that are very open to interpretation and subject to change at a moments notice.....Sure why not; In other articles theyve also stated in areas not conducive to hunting or where hunting hasnt been or cannot be effective. I donno about you, but that sounds like an open to interpretation judgement call. Couple that with other areas WITH Hunting as in the situation you speak of, and id say they have quite a few plans for the stuff.
And thats just for starters. Once its in....Its in. Things have a way of "expanding" in use. Especially now that they have taken us past the "shock value" gently, and now they can utilize it since the policy is now in place. Something that was impossible previously. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from, say 5 years from now, using the stuff ANYWHERE by anyone they may choose to allow. No matter who likes it, not a thing could be done to stop it..... Just like our fine deer plan thusfar.
Of course we have nothing to worry about. We can trust the Pa game commission. lol.' Not as if they ever have or ever would screw over the hunters of this state or anything. They love deer. Theyd never do anything excessive where our deer herd is concerned! lmao..
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-14-2010 at 10:14 PM.
Like i said, not debatable and in that regard it doesnt matter what you or i think. It doesnt change what the policy is as stated. There are no longer any secrets, no need for conspiracy theories, no guessing games, and no more possibility of denial. They have a policy in place, the vote is in, the press releases made, and the cat is out of the bag.
What is debatable and what we are discussing is whether their pro-use policy is acceptable regardless of how its written up in our opinions. In mine its not.
As for quibbling over minor technicalities and meaningless details that are very open to interpretation and subject to change at a moments notice.....Sure why not; In other articles theyve also stated in areas not conducive to hunting or where hunting hasnt been or cannot be effective. I donno about you, but that sounds like an open to interpretation judgement call. Couple that with other areas WITH Hunting as in the situation you speak of, and id say they have quite a few plans for the stuff.
And thats just for starters. Once its in....Its in. Things have a way of "expanding" in use. Especially now that they have taken us past the "shock value" gently, and now they can utilize it since the policy is now in place. Something that was impossible previously. There is absolutely NOTHING stopping them from, say 5 years from now, using the stuff ANYWHERE by anyone they may choose to allow. No matter who likes it, not a thing could be done to stop it..... Just like our fine deer plan thusfar.
Of course we have nothing to worry about. We can trust the Pa game commission. lol.' Not as if they ever have or ever would screw over the hunters of this state or anything. They love deer. Theyd never do anything excessive where our deer herd is concerned! lmao..
You are correct that this stuff is subject to interperetation and we cant know exactly how things will be administered in the future.
I do have some personal experience with how the PGC has handled urban deer in the past that has helped shape my opinion. I have been involved in a municipal bowhunting program where they also use sharpshooting in parts of that municiplaity where bowhunting is either not possible or ineffective. The program has been in place for 15 years and the sharpshooting was brought in some years after it was initiated. Having been involved with the folks that run this particular program has given me a first hand view of how the non hunting deer control measures are implemented and monitored. The sharpshooting is under constant PGC scrutiny and has not infringed on the bowhunting program in the least. Based on my experience I have zero concerns about Gonacon being any threat whatsoever to hunting and seriously doubt that it will even replace the sharpshooting programs. Sure, some do-gooders will clamor for it but any threat to hunting is unlikely IMHO.
__________________
Cant wait for 2012!
If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat!!!
Seems YOUR area would be one of the first targeted. The sras.
Gonacon is a threat to hunting. Its not gonna end hunting, but its one helluva kick in the chops.
While the jury is out on the current crew overall, I have absolutely no doubt that if types like Pallone & Schleiden were in charge currently the use would quickly become widespread. No ands ifs or buts imho.
Currently there is no reason to prevent people from using it. The "experts"...biologists etc. at the game commission made it a viable option and now they wouldnt have a rats fat patoot chance in court of defending AGAINST its use if they were to deny the usage to anyone requesting it. There is not one thing preventing it now. They throw every argument of "ineffective', issues of "Uncertainty", safeness, etc. when they accepted it as a "tool" worthy of use within the state borders. Its been given its legitimacy.
What effect do you think it will have on hunters to know the stuff was used in a particular area? You wanna hunt anywhere around that area with deer marked with orange spots (necessary part of the plan to indicate they were injected)& that crap in their veins? lol You gonna make the jerky? I wouldnt. And I know a lot of others wont be willing either. Heck there were people afraid to eat deer from the ehd area to some extent! Let alone something of this magnitude.
On another note, whats to stop dcnr from demanding its use where "hunting has been ineffective" at reducing deer numbers to ridiculous levels since their regeneration in many areas of the state forest is failing and they blame the deer.
As for "clamoring for it" its been going on for years. In fact Mr. Jay Kirkpatrick, the antihunters good doctor has given seminars in YOUR area (Pittsburgh are) as well as other areas of the state saying how effective birth control can be given the chance, and how hes disgusted that its was not a legal option. Well the people that brought in Mr. Kirkpatrick to speak are probably smiling like a opossum on a gut pile right about now..
Here is the criteria for determining forest health as provided in the Draft DMP.
"Forest health classification Regeneration1 Description
Good >70%
Forest canopy replacement will occur without further
actions to mitigate deer impacts.
Fair 50 - 70%
Forest canopy replacement can occur, but DMAP and
some deer-deterrent fencing are required.
Poor <50%
Forest canopy replacement will not occur without
deer-deterrent fencing and DMAP. "
These figures conflict with the classifications provided in the 2008 AWR,where for example, forest health in 2F was rated as fair with 39% regeneration ,when it should have been rated as poor , just like in 2G with 38% regeneration.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
