bluebird2

In other words , you can't think of one single way the dispersal study will help the PGC manage the herd and that's not a surprise ,because the PGC couldn't think of any benefit either!!

BTBowhunter

Thats not what I said, I said that YOU dont deserve a response because...

1you discount or ignore every bit of information that doesnt fit your PGC bashing agenda

2 If you cant see the value in a doe mortality study, you simply have a very narrow capacity for understanding any of the principles of game management and there is therefore no point in trying to explain anything to you

bluebird2

That is simply impossible,since as yet you haven't provided a single fact to support the PGC for me to ignore. Furthermore, I don't ignore the stuff RSB posts, I simply refute it with PGC data.
The experts that conducted the study said that the harvest data was not representative of doe that were not collared, so therefore it was worthless for determining hunter harvest rates and that was it's main purpose of the study.

BTBowhunter

What I'm sure you meant to say is that I havent presented a single fact that you didn't manage to twist into your own agenda with your distortions.

I consider your criticism a compliment. You've made similar claims aboutmany very well respected game biologists. Being criticized by the likes of you just reinforces my faith in letting the professionals do their job.

bluebird2

Now you know you don't rely on facts to support your position. Instead you resort to name calling and insults in an attempt to hide your lack of knowledge of the issues being discussed. This fact is exceedingly obvious since the PGC has as yet failed to produce ant data that shows the plan has succeeded as predicted .

BTBowhunter

We all know that you don't consider anything a "fact" unless it's presented in such a way that it supports your agenda. Whether quoting PGC data, Dr Kroll, Dr Samuel, Charles Alsheimer, Dr Alt or a host of other sources, your response is either "thats simply not true" "wrong again" or "He's biased" or something equally dismissive.

All the experts are either wrong or biased according to you. And yet you still have failed to mention any qualifications that make you better able to judge the data than all the folks who do it for a living. You simply refuse to consider any viewpoint but your own.Attempting to give youany facts has proven to be futile.

bluebird2

Once again that is not true. I accept the theory of MSY yield and i accept the theory behind high grading along with many other facts regarding deer management. But ,when the so called experts make claims that are not supported by the facts, I feel I am qualified to challenge their opinions.

Remember Alsheimer has no formal training in deer management and Dr. Kroll's claims are contradicted by Dr. Demarais and the deer have proven Alt's claims were bogus and that my predictions were right.

BTBowhunter

Remember that Alsheimer is far more qualified than you'll ever hope to be and that DR Kroll refuted Dr Demaris study and pointed out the flaws in Dr D's assumptions. Also remember that Alt got this started but he has been gone for years. When he started this, he stated that changes would undoubtedly need to be made. This is no longer Alts plan. It stopped being Alts plan when he left

bluebird2

Kroll totally misrepresented what Dr. Demarais said and therefore he demonstrated his lack of knowledge rather than refuting Dr. D's work.

Now that's just plain silly . All of the principles of Alt's plan are still in effect and it doesn't matter what you call it. The fact remains the plan decreased breeding rates and productivity without decreasing the breeding window. Breeding rates and productivity also decreased at the Kinzua QDM area where the herd was reduced by 48%.

Obviously the experts were wrong and this armchair biologist was right, which proves you don't have to be an expert to understand the basics of deer management.

BTBowhunter

Kroll simply pointed out that Dr Demarais failed to consider the inadequate doe harvest and also that Dr Demaraisfailed to consider that past studies have shown conclusively that antler size in the first year has no genetic significance. Kroll didn't misreresent what Dr D said, he merely pointed out that Dr D failed to consider certain relevant data in drawing his conclusions. Lets see, he came to the conclusion he wanted by leaving out certain relevant data.... No wonder you chose to quote him. He must be your disinformation hero.


When I heard Alt speak about his plan he EMPHATICALLY stressed that it was likely to need to be changed and molded as it went. he leftalmost immediately afterit got started. The point is that I'm neither defending or condemning Alt's part in the plan but it is no longer his plan as he had nothing to say about how it continued once he was gone.

You have produced nothing that shows a correllation betweenthe reduction in the herd and the decrease in breeding rates.You are declaring a conclusion without any real support for it other than you "think" that HR is the cause. It's easy to be an armchair biologist when you don't have to follow the principles of good research. RSB has laid out plenty of other plausible causes for the reduced breeding and recruitment rates but you stubbornly cling to only one conclusion (theone that fits your agenda) with no proof to back you up.

You complained relentlessly a while back as deaddeer and deerfly before you got banned that all your hunting party could to shoot find was button bucks (of course you shot 5 out of 6)and you expect us to beleive you don't have a heavy bias yourself?