"Now as for the cornhole, you know, the guy who's only "proof" of just about anything is to simply yell it out early and often......"
Another lie.
I see you have a new tactic. I guess your version of proof is now to yell in red. Sorry bub, it aint workin either. LOL
"% of doe bred in 2002 93%
% of doe bred in 2008 93%
Yet the bird has claimed multiple times that breeding rates declined"
I think you missed years in between of DECLINE! lmao. Another attempt at deciet. SO weve had several years of decline and now are finally back to the level we were in 2000 etc. lmao. We were supposed to improve above and beyond the level pre-failed program.
I used the years when the dmp started and the most recent year. The net change has been zero. Use any years you like. The end result is that the rate has stayed the same not declined as you and the bird have claimed over and over.
"He claims 2A should and can support far more deer yet it has the second worst embryo per doe rate in the state. It also has the third worst regeneration rate in the state. yet he screams bloody murder about too few deer where there are clearly too many. "
Too few absolutely if speaking of being far below the actual cc, and we have too many if we are speaking of the pgc/audubon goal of a forest floor completely covered with trillium and hobblebush and other unnatural conditions noone but pgc & econuts care about. We had nearly double the overwinter deer and the herd health measures were better by far then they are now. AND on an improving trend regenerationwise from the first habitat assessments to the second. Then once herd reduction is supposedly done, we drop thanks to "biodiversity friendly" changes to the guidelines? lmao. Thanks but no thanks.
Obviously you choose to ignore the facts. Do you have any evidence to support you
theory that
"We had nearly double the overwinter deer and the herd health measures were better by far then they are now."
I cant wait to see your proof! Reminder: Yelling it again, even in red still doesn't qualify as proof.
Do you ever feel stupid or have you no pride? A prideful man wouldve stopped making posts such as yours a helluva long time ago. You argue tooth and nail and never have a single damn clue what the heck you are spewing about. lol. Word to the "wise" lmfao! First off the chart shows no change if at 1.00. That means the herd is 100% of what it was the year before. If it is 1.02 that means 2 percent higher than the year before and if its at .98 that would mean 2% less than the year before. Do you know what ONE PERCENT is? it is .o1. Thats right POINT -01! Now considering according to the annual report, in 2A the density declined by .03 (three percent) in 2004, increased by only .01 in 2005 and declined .07 in 2006 and by .09 in 2007 and .04 in 2008.... And all that was SINCE we were supposed to be in stabilization mode. Taking that into account on top of all the other reduction occurring previously and yes, i think the term "slaughter" is more than appropriate.
Now perhaps you'd like to show all us dimwits how you got 1% you friggin genius!!! lmfao.
Quit while you are behind....Or tell some lies and cast some insults to cover up your figuring skills.
.....ONE PERCENT! ha ha ha!
In 2004 the number was .97 in 2008 it was .96
Sorry they must not teach basic math in Greene County
Table 7. Change (
λa) in deer density by WMU, 2004 to 2007, Pennsylvania
b
WMU
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1A
0.96
1.03
1.12
0.72
0.98
1B
0.96
1.05
1.07
0.95
1.03
2A
0.97
1.01
0.93
0.91
0.96
2B
1.07
1.07
1.12
0.78
0.83
2C
0.85
0.96
1.03
1.10
0.94
2D
0.92
0.96
1.02
0.88
1.05
2E
0.83
1.14
0.88
0.91
1.08
2F
0.90
0.88
0.93
0.85
1.06
2G
0.89
0.95
1.06
0.77
1.26
3A
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.97
0.72
3B
1.00
0.94
0.96
1.09
0.72
3C
0.90
0.92
1.10
0.83
0.85
3D
0.87
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
4A
0.90
0.78
1.35
1.29
0.62
4B
0.89
0.83
1.24
0.80
1.09
4C
1.03
0.90
0.97
0.87
0.95
4D
0.85
0.90
1.14
0.82
1.14
4E
0.88
1.08
0.83
0.93
0.82
5A
1.00
0.81
1.07
1.06
1.03
5B
0.91
0.96
1.04
0.87
1.01
5C
0.97
1.03
0.92
0.94
0.85
5D
1.13
0.83
0.79
0.83
0.94
BTW, I see in the other thread you stated you got lymes disease AGAIN....First you had it, then you said you found out you never did when told you exhibit the classic symptoms then denied having it, now all of a sudden not only do you have it....But you have it AGAIN. Sounds like lie # 234,098,988.....But then again what do I know? According to you, I just yell liar liar at you all the time for no reason! lmao.
Not that you deserve an explanation. I was diagnosed as having a current case earlier this year and then they retested and recanted that saying it was antibodies from a prior bout. I then got a tick bite in August which produced the bullseye rash and it was cleared up quickly with antibiotics. As always you open your piehole without having the facts.
