RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

No, you directed it toward everyone. the point is that you can't seem to post here without taking a shot at someone or in this case, anyone.

Once again, the two posts you just made can't be used to make a fair comparison. The sampes are shown by county first and then by WMU.
No accurate conclusion can be drawn regarding the differences in sampling locations from the data you presented.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

duplicate post. This new server seems a bit screwed up

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Looks like an overwhelming number favor AR, and some want to raise the bar as well.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

AR is not going to work UNLESS its for all of us,i hope i did that in nice way:)

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Looks like three to one in favor to me. Pretty much mirrors what I see and hear in the field.

Sproul, we'll never agree on that one, but thanks for the way you said it:D

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

They can be used to make a fair comparison ,if you have any intention of being fair. But being fair is not a word that is in your vocabulary. The sample sizes and distribution are available for all to see on the PGC AWR's but you chose to not avail yourself of that info and prefer to make baseless claims.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

If you had the data in a format that could be presented as a fair comparison you would have presented it by now unless it didn't fit your agenda.

Your original example several pages ago was simply decieving. If you had real numbers that would hold up to scrutiny we would have seen them by now.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

the data was two diffrent things a fair compaison well i personly like facts not what i think i can pick out of it

It seems more people favor ar now

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

n=number of doe sampled

n=number of doe sampled
1A 78 1.50 AT TARGET
1B 61 1.69 ABOVE TARGET
2A 91 1.37 AT TARGET
2B 165 1.59 AT TARGET
2C 117 1.38 AT TARGET
2D 87 1.60 AT TARGET
2E 19 1.58 AT TARGET
2F 67 1.39 AT TARGET
2G 40 1.68 AT TARGET
3A 30 1.50 AT TARGET
3B 59 1.36 AT TARGET
3C 36 1.53 AT TARGET
3D 79 1.28 BELOW TARGET
4A 99 1.52 AT TARGET
4B 50 1.50 AT TARGET
4C 47 1.36 AT TARGET
4D 65 1.55 AT TARGET
4E 35 1.66 AT TARGET
5A 22 1.64 AT TARGET
5B 56 1.55 AT TARGET
5C 123 1.60 AT TARGET
5D 42 1.71 ABOVE TARGET



The data clearly shows that the number of doe sample in areas with high breeding rates like 2B (165) and 5C (123) was 3 times the number sampled in areas with low breeding rates like 2G (40).

In your attempt to prove I was wrong you doubled the sample size in the low breeding rate areas, while in reality the exact opposite was true.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The post above does not answer the issue that was being discussed. Obviously you don't have the data to support your claims. The discussion was about a before and after situation. Maybe you just didnt understand what RSB was saying in the first place. He said the samplingshifts changed the emphasis and therefore was skewed toward the areas with lower reproductive rates.

Simply showing that some areas had more samples than others is meaningless in this context unless we know what the numbers were before and after by WMU. IfoneWMU has twice as many samples as another but used to have three times as many, that could produce significant changes. We simply cant tell that from what you've presented since the older data is by county and the new data is by WMU. Again, apples and oranges.

The before info was totalled by county and the after was totalled by WMU. A fair comparison may be possible but not with the information you've presented and I suspect you know that.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

To get back on the topic of this thread, it looks like at least one part ofour management plan is a big success if we measure it by hunter satisfaction.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Obviously you don't understand basic math any better than RSB. The sample bias is still in favor of the WMU's with the highest breeding rates just as it was before the breeding rates started to decrease. In order to produce a significant decrease in breeding rates you had to cut the high rate areas in half and double the low rate areas, but that did not happen in the real world where I obtained the data.

The simple fact is neither you or RSB can provide a logical explanation for why breeding rates decreased , but I have shown conclusively it was not due to a shift in sample sizes and locations.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

All you have shown conclusively is that you are willing to repeat yourself over and over even though you can't back up your claim. If you have any real documentation, please post it. Otherwise, those of us who can read know who is making unsupported claims here. I'm not gonna play did not did to with you!


I think it's now appropriate to drag this old nag out again.....

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I provided the data to support my position and all you provided is a bogus example using bogus numbers and pictures of dead horses.

At least RSB was smart enough to drop out of this debate so he wouldn't have to admit he was wrong and you should have followed his example.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

BB2: Moderators were just kidding when they said an award will be given to whomever makes the most posts in a 30 day period.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

That's pretty funny since I just won third prize in a contest on another message board where the number of entries were based on the number of posts each MB member made during a specified period. i'm looking forward to receiving my new ML and game calls in the near future.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

oh boy

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

No, BTB says it is Blueboy or that other word he uses a lot.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I haven’t dropped out at all.

I have provided the correct answer and as has been pointed out several times all you have done is post an outlandish example where it proved you had posted data that was both wrong and misleading.

Now you post data that is, as BTBowhunter pointed out, is an apples to oranges comparison and expect people to just accept your analogy of it. I would certainly hope not.

Once the law suit you and your buddies are trying to float are a thing of the past I suspect additional data on this topic will be forthcoming. The fact is you really don’t even know which areas of the state really influence the sample sizes today compared to the past let alone which had or have the highest or lowest breeding rates.
You simply make far to many assumptions about way too many things of which you know very little about, and that is about all I can say on the topic for the time being.

But, no matter how you look at it the antler restrictions are here to stay and gaining in hunter support so the buck/doe ratios are probably going to stay relatively stable and might even further improve in the future. As for the deer populations I am sure they are going to continue with their up and down trends to match the environmental conditions, both good and bad. I am also sure that no matter how high they would get there would still be hunters complaining that there were not deer. I am also sure that the professionals will continue to do the very best job possible to manage our resources for the best possible benefit of the future in spite of all of the detractors like you and the rest of the Uninformed Silly People or your law suits.

We will continue to educate those that can be educated the same as we will continue to expose those that promote misguided agendas and missions intending to undermine sound scientific management of our resources. We will do that as a commitment to the future and the best possible hunting for today and tomorrow.

So, you can bet that I am not dropping out until I also drop over never to rise again.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I'll have to get the link to the N.Y. report of A/R, they tell it like it is with no spin at all.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

So you admit that the PGC is witholding the results of antler data collected post AR, until after the USP lawsuit? Hmmm...interesting.

I thought all of that data was in the annual wildlife reports. So you have "inside" knowledge not available to the general public, now? You really are a riot. Nice copp out.:D

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

THERE IS NEW LAW THAT JUST WENT IN EFFECT,ITS CALLED OPEN RECORD LAW.

now records have to be given out and no reason can be asked why you want them.

do a goggle of OPEN RECORD LAW ,its going to change a lot on what can be obtained now in local/state.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

It was obvious that you dropped out after praising BTB's example that showed it woudl take a total reversal of sample size and location to produce a 5% decrease in breeding rates and that example didn't account for the fact that breeding rates were suppose to increase across all WMUs


Please point out the data I posted that was false and misleading. It was all PGC data so are you saying the PGC is providing false and misleading data.

From 2004 to 2006 1266 adult doe were checked and 580 of those doe came from just 6 of the 22 WMUs. Those 580 made up 46% of the total sample and those WMUs were 2A,2B,2c,4A,4E and 5C, the areas which routinely had the highest sample sizes and good breeding rates. So your basic premise regarding a change in sample size and location is flawed and does not account for the 5% decrease in breeding rates.

I think it's funny that you were so concerned about low breeding rates and productivity before ARs were implemented and now you are fabricating excuses to defend the decreasing breeding rates and productivity.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Again you post more and more of the same without supporting your claims.
Why is it that every time you try to "prove" this particular point, you throw yet another set of partial numbers out there. Throwing in extra variables didn't work, Apples vs oranges didn't work, and now you give us the numbers from only one time period. If you really had the facts to support what you say, you wouldn't need to keep on trying different end runs around the subject. The smoke and mirrors tactics just dont fly here Blueboy!

You really need to walk away and wash the egg off your face:D

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

ouch:D

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Here is the report on antler restrictions by the N.Y. DEC. http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27663.html

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

AR we like but the 17 year and under, well, i will be nice and say, it should be only for the FIRST year of kids hunting, like only at age 12 he/she can shoot a spike.;)

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The only guy that has egg on his face is the dude that posted this ridiculous example that only produced a 4% decrease in breeding rates after doubling the sample size in the low breeding rate areas.
In response I posted PGC data that clearly shows the sample size did not double and that 6 WMUs with some of the best breeding rates had a sample size than represented 46% of the total doe checked . But at least BTB has an excuse for his failure to understand the truecause of the decreased breeding rates.

Mental Capability
50. Memory loss (short or long term)
51. Confusion, difficulty in thinking
52. Difficulty with concentration or reading

I wonder what RSB's excuse might be?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

BB2 you have no class or respect for other people!

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I have a lot of respect for people that deserve it. I have no respect for those that don't know me but call me a liar with nothing to back it up.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

You are a liar and my posts several pages ago proved that.

With thepost you just made, you have just proven yourself to be the absolute worst type of scumbag. Even for you it was a surprising new low.You must be so proud!

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Your post didn't even come close to proving I lied about anything. You claimed my example was a lie ,when in fact examples can't be called a lie because every can establish any criteria they choose, just like you did when you doubled the sample size in the low breeding rate areas for no logical reason.

I see you can dish it out but can't take it, so continue with the name calling and cheap shots because thats all you have.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

It would appear that the members here who felt it necessary to comment saw that you lied in your little flim flam attempt earlier and I'll trust the members here to judge your last little transgression.As far as me not taking it, bring on your worst if you havent done so already. I can take it with ease. You have shown the kind of person that you truly are with that last cheap shot. Certainly you are a deluded sociopath and few will take you seriously after this if anyone ever did before.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

bb2 you call others low lifes but it is you i see with no respect towards others

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

No one else called me a liar. No one else provided a valid example to demonstrate how a change in sample distribution could account for a 5% decrease in breeding rates and no one provided a valid explanation for why breeding rates decreased . You and RSB have a mutual admiration society but neither one of you understand basic math , deer management principles or are capable of thinking for yourself instead of just believing the PGC propaganda.
You have shown repeatedly that you can't handle even the most mild internet banter and have appealed to the mods to fight your battles or resorted to mindless name calling of the lowest level.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Mild internet banter? Making fun of the fact that someone has just learned of an incurable disease, no matter who, is a line I'd never cross. If your own conscience doesnt draw such a line for you, I certainly feelvery sorry for you.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I did not make fun of the fact that you have an incurable disease. I made fun of the fact that you posted symptoms that would explain why you are incapable of understanding basic cause and effect regarding the decrease in breeding rates. I figured you would have a bird and try to use it to defend the indefensible, but you made it simply impossible to resist.

Don't waste your time feeling sorry for me. While I have many of the symptoms you listed most are due to getting older. Unfortunately for you the effects of getting older will be worse for you than if you didn't have Lyme disease and I wouldn't wish that on any fellow hunter,no matter how much we disagree or what names you might call me out of frustration.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Spin and twist what you did as much as you want. The posts you just made prove that you are nothing but a lowlife piece of garbage who has no conscience whatsoever.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

No significant change in herd productivity should be expected.

DEC does not see a critical Biological need or compelling management advantage to mandate such restrictions. Thus, changing buck harvest stardards would be primarily a strong interest amoung hunters.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

My conscience prevented me from posting what I really think about a hunter who would post such malicious and unfounded accusations about a fellow hunter. I realized a long time ago you had problems and had difficulty understanding some of the most basic concepts of deer management and that is why I didn't respond in kind to your name calling and lies.

Do yourself a favor and direct your energies to getting healthy and forget about your hatred for me and your frustration about being lied to by the PGC.