"Thanks for that link. What it clears up is that those who disagreed with you in that link are absolutely correct"
Ha. Hardly. Why the damage control? Many of these issues regarding deer management are debatable, this one isnt. Pgc said they support what they support. Guidelines FOR USE arent necessary when you have a NONUSE policy like most of the rest of the nation.
. You saying they dont support it after their statement would be like a landowner saying ok bbb, we are gonna set guidelines for you to follow when hunting my land.....And a third party saying, well...I guess that means bbb cant hunt there because the landowner doesnt support the idea!
"Do you have some other evidence of what you call suppport for that drug that I havent seen? Please tell me where to find it if you do. "
You've been shown the proof and your attempt to divert attention from that fact isnt doing one thing for you. The intent wasnt to show any plans for statewide usage to replace hunting etc etc.. It is what it is. Pgc supporting yet another nonhunter friendly issue. And its not really debatable. Its right there in print, and not really in need of much in the way of interpretation.