ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Did you switch stance or did i misunderstand you? cause it sounds like you agree with pgc experts now?
I believe the PGC stats but I don't believe the PGC experts who claim that forest health is poor even though herd health is very good,even though 2G is 90% forested. Therefore , even though the herd is healthy the PGC claims they have to keep the herd at 8-9 OWD PSM even though the herd is as healthy as anywhere in the state.
bluebird2
titleAndStar(2575,0,false,false,"","")
Life Member
[align=center][/align]
Posts: 2575
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: online
[blockquote]
quote:
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
[blockquote]
quote:
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
So despite your propaganda , the fact is 2G has not been subject to high DDs from the 70s as you claimed. The fact is that 2G has been at or below its goal for ten years , but forest health is still rated poor by the PGC despite your claims to the contrary.
[/blockquote]
So your answer to this poor habitat is to add more deer to the area? Brilliant, just simple brilliant.
[/blockquote]
Well you certainly aren't very brilliant since the deer in 2G are telling us the habitat is just fine. But I guess you would rather listen to the propaganda spread by Doug and RSB rather than listening to the deer and the PGC xperts..
Why do you think 2G has the third highest productivity rate in the state if the habitat is so poor?
That was one sentence of bb
But I guess you would rather listen to the propaganda spread by Doug and RSB rather than listening to the deer and the PGC xperts..
I believe the PGC stats but I don't believe the PGC experts
That was another
Bluebird i dont understand what your point is. Thats kinda 2 conflicting sentences . Help a fool understand what you are trying to say