"You danced around my real point. This is not the first time a license increase was a tough battle."

I didnt dance around anything. I dont see where it matters. Its not a very good argue that we should all support a fee increase now that things are worse than theyve ever been hunter satisfaction-wise since often increases hadnt been immediately given in the past!

Those increase ALWAYS came well before it became absolutely critical that they recieve it. They start asking years in advance knowing its the norm to not recieve it instantly. Therefore they start before even needing it, planning for the future.


"Yes there are "other" reasons for their resisting smaller WMU's. It would be a huge undertaking. Besides the obvious costs, it would be a law enforcement nightmare."

I hadnt seen pgc mention that as their reason,and dont really think that would be a real problem. No moreso than currently imho. And the benefits would certainly outweigh any cons imho.

"We still have people who can't figure out which WMU they're in now when they're huge and well defined by major roads. Imagine if each big WMU was divided into, say, 5 smaller units. Think the beaaatching would stop? Nope."

Not simply for that reason, but it would lessen for two reasons. One being the better management that would result and two, many would see it as a great showing on pgcs part to make the move in the first place. I also dont see the confusion as being a good excuse, since it works elsewhere for many years. Also, we had a county system in place where there were often NO physical boudaries, yet that aspect of the system worked for many years.

"As for the PGC endorsing deer contraception, sorry corn but you are 100% all wet on that one. The only mention of it I've seen is in the recent deer chronicle."

Its also mentioned on the Shissler study that MOST states said they would NOT consider drawing up guidelines for usage. PGC HAS and is. The in itself says all there is needed to know.


" First, the chronicle reports that EPA (The feds) have approved it. Reporting a fact is not an endorsement."

They didnt stop at reporting the fact. The rest of the fact is that the epa is now gonna leave the decision on use or nonuse in the hands of each state individually. Even according to that boob shisslers study, much to his dismay, MOST states management personell stated they WOULD NOT consider setting guidelines giving permission for use/testing. Its in the Shissler revisited thread i posted previously... Most states know better than to support that extreme. Knowing how asnine it is and how it would strain management/hunter relations. On the other hand pgc HAS done exactly that. Saying their guidelines would be for usage of RIGOROUS REAL WORLD TESTING.
"If thats an endorsement, I'd hate to see how they criticize something."

Now you simply arent telling the truth btb. Youre not a moron. But you are irrational when it comes to defending pgc. Ive posted it SEVERAL times and SUPPORTING AND GRANTING PERMISSION FOR "RIGOROUS REAL WORLD TESTING" BY THOSE SEEKING TO USE IT is NOT critisizing, its SUPPORTING it. and other "hunter friendly" states HAVE critisized it. Some by not acknowledging requests to address the issue and other addressing the issue in strictly negative fashion saying they will NOT consider granting permits.