BTBowhunter

Simply not true Blueboy and you've been here (under various aliases) long enough to know better


Again, not true. I happen to agree with Doug most of the time now but Doug was adamantly opposed to Alts plans in the very beginningas he said.

You "new guys" claiming to know who Doug supported in the early going simply don't know what you're talking about. Doug was never an Alt supporter to my recollection and those of us that were around at that time know better.

bronko22000

Agreed. they want us to slaughter the deer. Which is what the present 'management' program is doing.

DougE

Pull up a past post where I've ever stuck up for Alt or the Audubon.I agree with some of the fundamentals they preach about but I don't agree with much else.I give Alt credit for bringing awareness to the table but he was very deceitful from the beginning and I never supported him.In fact,I was elated when he left because I felt he did more to damage the PGC's credibility than anyone in history.He was right that we needed to reduce the herd but his half truths and insane predictios where embarrasing at best.he was wrong when he claimed we'd have more and bigger bucks.He was wrong when he claimed the harvests would return to normal after the first year of AR.Anyone with a kindergarden education should have been able to figure out that was b.s. if they reduced the herd by 50% like he stated they wanted to do.He was wrong in 2003 when he claimed the herd hadn't been reduced.the guy was an absolute idiot and I was very vocal about my opposition to his sales pitch.It wasn't the plan that I opposed as much as it was the way it was sold.He's been gone for like 4 or five years now so let's get past it.I know I have.

Point out one time where I've ever demanded less deer than the PGC.You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

Cornelius08

"Pull up a past post where I've ever stuck up for Alt or the Audubon.I agree with some of the fundamentals they preach about but I don't agree with much else."

You agree with every thing of any significance that they had spewed. Pull up a post you say?? Look at ANY post you make in defense of FAR FEWER DEER than can be had according to the data and even fewer than the pgc deems necessary. That is also exactly what audubon wants. You've stated you "biodiversity case" all too often and thats also nothing but pure audubon/Alt speak.

"He was right that we needed to reduce the herd but his half truths and insane predictios where embarrasing at best.he was wrong when he claimed we'd have more and bigger bucks."

Agreed.

"He was wrong when he claimed the harvests would return to normal after the first year of AR.Anyone with a kindergarden education should have been able to figure out that was b.s."

agreed.

"if they reduced the herd by 50% like he stated they wanted to do.He was wrong in 2003 when he claimed the herd hadn't been reduced.the guy was an absolute idiot and I was very vocal about my opposition to his sales pitch.It wasn't the plan that I opposed as much as it was the way it was sold.He's been gone for like 4 or five years now so let's get past it.I know I have. "

Yes my friend, but the predictions are STILL being adhered to as if they were gospel by present pgc staff!! Also contradicting statements and numbers as we've discussed far too often...

"Point out one time where I've ever demanded less deer than the PGC.You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. "

Actually I do. Ive been a member of 3 boards you post on and on one, around 8 years. Ive read discussion. And taken part in HUNDREDS of them where you also have taken part. When anyone presents ANY argument you twist it into the need for less deer.... The 2A discussion was but one example. Insinuating STRONGLY for a couple of years now on more than one board, that weNEED less deer and you point out why....Even though pgc DISAGREES.

You also did it again when defending a particular cac members vote...Event though the problem being spoken of was her going against those she was supposed to represent and pgc said the herd could be stabilized and NOT decreased...She voted for decrease....In her defense...what does Dougy do? same as always....Explain why more reduction is necessary.... Even though according to pgc it wasnt.

When proof is presented that allocations do not equate to stated goals of stabilization according to past data...Do you refute it? Nope. You ignore it, change the subject to antideer, and spout nonsense as why more reduction is needed...

I could write a book on your anti-deer crusade about various wmus and basic nonsense on the statewide level as well,but wouldnt solve a thing so I'll leave it at that. You know the score. I know it. And every single person who is familiar with your position knows it.. (wether a small handful of likeminded "environmentalists"will admit it or not is meaningless to me)

bluebird2

Were you on HPA in 2000? If so what was your screen name? Doug supported HR from the beginning and still supported it when the PGC reduced the herd in 2G below the goals that were established in 2003 ,by the same experts that reduced the herd to less than 10 DPSM ,which is 5 DPSM below the goal of 15 DPSM.

Cornelius08

Exactly my friend. Exactly. Though "doogie" has "stayed the course" pun intended...

I have changed mine completely. I used to support pgc nearly 100% on the program. I argued AGAINST a joker by the name of Beenthere for years! Until learning alot more than I thought I knew by studying into our management, other states, really considering all the issues, seeing hunters disgust growing, seeing false predictions and promises and learning about all the "dirty politics" behind the issue with both politicians and other groups like audubon etc. and finding out they definately werent just "conspiracy theories" but ugly ugly truths. And every year that goes by, more and more contradiction or treacheryis added to the distateful reality of it all, not to mention the glaring absence of any supporting proof that never comes.

For anyone who doubts, if you remember, my handle at the time of "drinking the koolaid" was 'yotechaser.

bluebird2

I hear that Beenthere guy could be a royal pain in the butt with all his statistics and know-it-all atitude. Did he really know what he was talking about?

Cornelius08

At the time, I didnt think so, but since, Ive found that a word or two mighta held a shred of wisdom.

I hear he is well loved to this day over on the pgc/hpa boards.

BTBowhunter

Been on here since early 2000 and never changed my screen name, unlike you, I've only ever needed one. Like many lifers here, my joining date only goes back to theserver crash in 2003.
Doug was against HR and Alts plan in the beginning just like he said. I was in some of those debates with him way back then.

bluebird2

Once again you simply don't know what you are talking about. Doug registered here in Feb. of 2004. Doug and i were debating HR and ARs on another site long before he signed on here.. I may have even been the one that told Doug about this site.

I ask you if you were on HPA and you dodged that question. i wonder why?