"Pull up a past post where I've ever stuck up for Alt or the Audubon.I agree with some of the fundamentals they preach about but I don't agree with much else."

You agree with every thing of any significance that they had spewed. Pull up a post you say?? Look at ANY post you make in defense of FAR FEWER DEER than can be had according to the data and even fewer than the pgc deems necessary. That is also exactly what audubon wants. You've stated you "biodiversity case" all too often and thats also nothing but pure audubon/Alt speak.

"He was right that we needed to reduce the herd but his half truths and insane predictios where embarrasing at best.he was wrong when he claimed we'd have more and bigger bucks."

Agreed.

"He was wrong when he claimed the harvests would return to normal after the first year of AR.Anyone with a kindergarden education should have been able to figure out that was b.s."

agreed.

"if they reduced the herd by 50% like he stated they wanted to do.He was wrong in 2003 when he claimed the herd hadn't been reduced.the guy was an absolute idiot and I was very vocal about my opposition to his sales pitch.It wasn't the plan that I opposed as much as it was the way it was sold.He's been gone for like 4 or five years now so let's get past it.I know I have. "

Yes my friend, but the predictions are STILL being adhered to as if they were gospel by present pgc staff!! Also contradicting statements and numbers as we've discussed far too often...

"Point out one time where I've ever demanded less deer than the PGC.You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. "

Actually I do. Ive been a member of 3 boards you post on and on one, around 8 years. Ive read discussion. And taken part in HUNDREDS of them where you also have taken part. When anyone presents ANY argument you twist it into the need for less deer.... The 2A discussion was but one example. Insinuating STRONGLY for a couple of years now on more than one board, that weNEED less deer and you point out why....Even though pgc DISAGREES.

You also did it again when defending a particular cac members vote...Event though the problem being spoken of was her going against those she was supposed to represent and pgc said the herd could be stabilized and NOT decreased...She voted for decrease....In her defense...what does Dougy do? same as always....Explain why more reduction is necessary.... Even though according to pgc it wasnt.

When proof is presented that allocations do not equate to stated goals of stabilization according to past data...Do you refute it? Nope. You ignore it, change the subject to antideer, and spout nonsense as why more reduction is needed...

I could write a book on your anti-deer crusade about various wmus and basic nonsense on the statewide level as well,but wouldnt solve a thing so I'll leave it at that. You know the score. I know it. And every single person who is familiar with your position knows it.. (wether a small handful of likeminded "environmentalists"will admit it or not is meaningless to me)