RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> Oooh, I guess he told me.
Here's the thing 6pt. 3 years from now, if hunters in Pa are seeing more big bucks, and more bucks are being entered into the Pa record books, and the biologists say that more mature deer are being checked in, you and everyone else will say, "see, there is proof that AR's work". Yet when that same criteria is used to point out instances where it hasn't happened, that suddenly becomes no "proof" for you. When fewer big bucks, and fewer bucks in general are being taken, the data suggests fewer mature deer roam the woods, and areas without AR produce more big bucks than do areas with AR's you say it's not evidence, just a coincidence. You say that is not proof, you want facts.
I can't be any clearer than I have. The same criteria used to prove AR's work, where they do, is being used here to show where it hasn't worked. That is data from the biologists taking the information, and the statistics gathered by the entire state, as well as in the field observations.
I told you my information came from the state: both from examining their data and from speaking with the biologists for the last 10 years. Either you missed that part again because your reading comprehension skills are that of a 3rd grader, or you just blocked out the portions of my post that you didn't want to see. You seem to do that a lot. I don't know which it is, but trying to have a discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall. I've known autistic people that have better comprehension than you've displayed here. You haven't answered even one of my points. You just rant and rave like a six year old child, then talk about not having any "facts" to prove my point. No amount of factual data would suffice for you solely because you don't want to believe you could be wrong. I guess you need the same type of "facts" that would prove the sky is blue. By the way, what "facts" do you have that the sky is blue? If you can't show me the "facts", I guess it's not blue now is it.
I'm done with this thread, so call it a win if you want young Blatherwick, but don't pretend you are approaching this topic with an open mind, nothing could be further from the truth. Respond if you like, but you'll be taking to yourself, I have better things to do with my time.
Edited by - NJ_Bowhntr on 01/22/2003 14:17:23