ORIGINAL: bluebird2
In other words, the study results don’t show what you want them to show and instead disprove your nonsense rankings so you have to make every attempt to discredit those scientific facts somehow. Right?
What the adult doe study proved is that hunters were reluctant to shoot a collared doe and as a result the study did not produce accurate harvest data. It doesn't effect me one way or the other if the herds were increasing or decreasing in the study areas but it is important to the PGC and it is also important that the study results agree with the harvest data,since if they don't it means one or the other is flawed.
Actually, the study showed that hunters killed only 8% and 15% of those does in the study that died. Reluctance of hunters to shoot a colared deer has been offered as a plausible theory that has yet to be proven, hence the less visible tags and the $100 reward.
the less visible tagging and reward idea sounds like a perfectly legitimate method for improving acccuracy. It seemsthatthe same that criticized the first study and its' methods are the same few complaining about the attempt to make the reults more accurate. PGC is attempting to improve the data collection method while a few with their own agenda see fit to criticize either method.