Wrong again BT. Do you really believe I would make up such ridiculous quotes that even you can't believe are true.

http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/in.../sept04/2.html

Isn't it funny that Alsheimer didn't have any formal training or qualifications, yet he is considered to be an expert on QDM.

Remember it was you ,not me, that make the false and misleading claims about Dr. Kroll's article about the results from Miss.

Legit discussion?

I guess for an obvious PGC basher, a thread that starts by calling wildlife managers witch doctors is a forum for "legit discussion"

Oh and here's your very first contribution to this "legit discussion"...

and from your most recent contribution....

you and bluebird both began with insults and ridicule. I think we can all see who the trolls are

Thanks for finally providing the link. As I suspected,there is no statement advocatinga deer density that would provide a sustaineddoe harvest of 29 per square mile. That number is presented as the plan for a specific property where neighboring properties are not managed properly so the excess doe are killed off from within their relatively small parcel.


Here's what Alsheimer does say

Once again, you have attempted to piece together parts of different truths to assemble a lie. Anyone with a brain need only read the entire article toget the proper perspective instead of your warped take on it.

Oh and this little gem....

is one of your most pathetic lies yet. Your sole answer to Dr Krolls finding was to claim that he's biased. Sorry Larry,no cigar!

My original quote was accurate and wasn't taken out of context. Alsheimer said they were harvesting 8-10 does off of his 200 acres and that the recommended harvest was 45 doe /1000 acres or 28.8 doe PSM.
That simply is not true and you are once again misrepresenting what I said. If you weren't so bias you might remember that I pointed out that Dr. Kroll indicated the decrease in rack sizes was due to genetics and I pointed out that Dr. Demarais said it was due to high grading. Dr. Kroll demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge about Miss. and Alsheimer demonstrated the same profound lack of knowledge about PA when he printed Alt's claims about ARs.

I really don't understand why you have to rely on accusing me of lying ,when you claim to have the facts to prove I am wrong. Wouldn't you be much more effective if you presented the facts to support your position like I do?

I must say that it takes an incredible amount of gall to claim that you have a better understanding of Miss than the most respected wildilfe biologist of our time.

My position is that I support the conclusions of the professionals most of the time. I'm not 100% happy with everychange thats been made.The process has been one of bumpy progress but I view it as progress nonetheless. The vast majority of wildlife scientists are on the same page as well.


Your position has been one of constant criticism of the current management without any positive input. I don't necessarily blame you for the lack of positive input because I realize that haven't the knowledge or expertise to provide any positive better ideas. You cling to the discredited (by his fellow biologists) findings of one wildlife manager as part of your "position" I think I'll hang with the majority. Just because you can't accept the fact that more responsible game managementis now the goal doesnt make you right.

Like the last USP lawsuit, your position is without merit. Your tenacity in continually take things out of context by using information developed by others to turn it around for your own agenda doesnt fly here. My position is to continue catch the distortions and point them out.

It doesn't take gall it just takes more knowledge and being objective. I have been following what Miss. has been doing for many years and know for a fact that Dr. Demarias attributed the decrease in rack sizes in Miss. to high grading and not to a change in the gene pool . Furthermore Dr. Demarias did not base his conclusions on the theory that spikes are inferior and the fact that Kroll made that claim shows that he didn't take the time to research the facts regarding Miss. ARs.

I may not be an expert ,but I have enough knowledge and experience to read the articles by the so called experts and point out their flaws and contradictions. The reasons Kroll cited for supporting ARs were laughable at best and ridiculous at their worst. Alsheimers article recommended a doe harvest of 29 DPSM while in the same article stating that most habitats can support 35-40 DPSM. Kroll also claimed PA had shown,"some amazing results" which is also laughable when you consider their is no data that shows ARs increased the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck and that we are harvesting fewer 2.5+ buck than we did in 2002.

Wrong again!

Dr Kroll clearly has said that no determination as to genetic quality can be made based on antler size on a 1.5 year old deer. He never said that spikes were inferior as you claim and you know that full well.

And you wonder why I characterize you posts as lies ?!?!?!?

Once again,you provide partial truths and assemble them into a lie. All one has to do is read either of the ENTIRE articles by Alsheimer or Kroll to recognize that.

Your abilities to judge wildlife management ranks up there with the auto mechanic who feels qualified to pick a stock portfolio because he reads the financial section once a week.

Your wildlife management skills are on par with the Dentist who decides he can build his own home after watching a few episodes of this old house.

Your wildlife management skills rank righton parwith a carpenter delivering his wifes baby after seeing it done on Seinfeld.

My point is that a little knowledge can be helpful but in the wrong hands it is dangerous. You are those wrong hands.

Second opinions are always a good idea and we certainly have good cause to get second opinions but I think I'll look to the professionals for mine.

I did not say Dr. kroll said spikes were inferior, what I said was Kroll accussed Dr. Demarais of assuming spikes were inferior.

Here is a direct quote from the Kroll article.

"Of course ,it was assumed that spiked yearlings were genetically inferior,but this premise has not been proved."

Dr. Demarasi never made that claim and it is highly unprofessional for Kroll to make that assumption.

"Your abilities to judge wildlife management ranks up there with the auto mechanic who feels qualified to pick a stock portfolio because he reads the financial section once a week. "

In other words bluebird, I think he means you're two steps ahead of Pgc.

I do find it quite odd that PGC hasnt mentioned any findings or study results showing that those genetic maleffects are not happening here. One would think after seeing it occur elsewhere, ahead of time, that the studies would have been conducted since day one, and that some results could be verified by now.

I am also 2 steps ahead of the financial advisors at Fannie Mae ,freddie mac, Lehman Brothers and Aig since my portfolio has not been effected by the recent stock market turmoil. Instead ,I am making money due to the stock market vloatility
Remember all the useless studies the PGC did to convince hunters that the PGC was really concerned about the quality of deer hunting in PA. The fact that the PGC refuses to release the data from their annual surveys at deer processors tells me they are hiding something. If the data showed ARs produced a dramatic improvement in rack sizes of 2.5+ buck, that info would be screaming headlines.