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!
Damage control? What the devil are you saying?
Not debatable? I read that thread you linked and am beginning to see that phrase as something you seem to use in place of replying with something of substance. BTW your example makes absolutely no sense and has no realistic paralell to the subject at hand.
Why would we wait when the party involved can hardly be called objective and unbiased? Its skewed from the word go. ]
And, once again, you know that how without it having been
competed?
No moreso than saying you and i are gonna make a wager for your paycheck. We are gonna see whos better looking, smarter etc. etc.. Whos gonna win?? Oh, by the way, my significant other will be doing the assessment. lol. Gee, i suppose when i am picked it will be a big surprise?? Does that make you "closed minded" if you were to decline before even getting the results? Give me a break. lol. What we will be getting is basically audit results about pgc/enviro extremist, done by ex pgc/enviro extremists and I pointed out the undeniable very strong connections.
Your wager example isnt any better than your last example and makes even less sense but maybe things would make more sense if you'd kindly define the term pgc/enviro extremists
Credibility with me has never been an issue and thats because even though im adament about my position, i dont sink to deceit which cannot be said of many pgc supporters for the mostpart. Also, I have no case to make in regards to the audit results. Its a sham and i dont support it before even getting those results. Doesnt make much diff. though as the license fee will be granted by the legislators who are tired of all this simply because an audit was done and it makes it appear that they actually did something....So im not "making a case", as this isnt a court case to be won or lost, and dont think anything will be gained or lost by arguing against those results when they are given, though they most certainly will be argued im sure. Im just stating the facts.
Sorry, but your characterizing the GC statement issued about deer contraception appears to be nothing more than blatant deceipt. there's generally plenty of room for folks to interperet things in different ways but you're characterization of the only statement on that subject is too far out there to simply be a difference of opinion. That leaves two possible explanations. Stupidity or deceipt and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are stupid.