You're exactly right.

You can chose to believe whatever you want, but it appears that you aren't capable of supporting your beliefs with PGC data. If you can't show that your theories apply to what has happened in PA, your theories and opinions are irrelevant.

You have put forth findings of several studies , but you haven't been able to support those studies with what has happened in PA. But, I have refuted your studies and theories with the actual PGC data.

Bluebird...every other post you make undermines the credibility of the pgc and claims they don't know what they're talking about. Yet now you base your entire claim off data that the pgc collected. It seems to me you pick and choose when to use the pgc's data. If it's in line with your opinions it cannot be questioned; and god forbid it disagree with you opinion, at that point their just a bunch of idiots with unreliable data.

Make up your mind bluebird, if the pgc dosen't know what they're talking about, then you should probably find another source of data to refute my claims.

Please feel free to provide any data you may have that refutes the PGC data. Furthermore, I don't pick and choose PGC data as you claim. I use all of the PGC data whether or not it supports my position. But, you don't even have a clue what the PGC data might be, yet you criticize me.

Why do I need to refute data that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? I don't care what the decade long trends in fawn recruitment are, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I made a claim, and provided data that supported my claim. You introduced unrelated data, while ignoring the evidence I provided; and now you want me to refute your data.

And another thread becomes a Pa cryfest.

What data did you provide? The answer is you provided zero data. What you provided was theories and opinions that were not supported by any data. It is easy to have nice theories and opinions that support what you want to believe, but unless you can provide the data that supports your position , you have no basis to refute the opinions of others who have the data to support their position.

I have the data and you don't have squat to support your opinions..

No, in the case of Ozoga and Verme's reseach I provided the RESULTS OF THEIR EXPERIMENT, NOT THEORIES. But I guess their findings weren't supported by data that meets your mystical threshold for what's relevant and what's not (sarcasm).

At this point I'm going to ask you not to reply to this thread anymore, for the simple reason that I want it to remain on topic. Thank you, good day.

Pike, did you get a chance to look over the Alsheimer article...i"m interested in hearing your response.

[QUOTE]No, in the case of Ozoga and Verme's reseach I provided the RESULTS OF THEIR EXPERIMENT, NOT THEORIES. But I guess their findings weren't supported by data that meets your mystical threshold for what's relevant and what's not (sarcasm).
[/QUOTE

but you can't apply the results of their research to the actual data that is provided by the pGC , which makes their theories and results irrelevant to what is happening in PA.