No one is demanding or even asking for respect.

All I am interested in trying to educate the people that read these boards who have enough commonsense to be able to accept the facts as I see them in an effort to have a better future for our resources.

I have spend over thirty years seeing and experience the damage not educating enough people about the real goals and objectives of scientific wildlife management has caused. We have areas that support very few deer as a result of a failure to educate hunters about the affects of nature when they don’t harvest enough deer and I will do all I can to stop that decline in habitat and deer numbers from expanding to even more areas.

I don’t care if anyone respects that or not. If I help one or two people have a better understanding of the affects of under harvest and how devastating it becomes it will be worth putting up with the insults from uneducated, ill-informed and even a few evil minded people.

I think people of average intelligence will be able to figure out which way they want the future of wildlife management to go and who they want shaping that future.

R.S. Bodenhorn

But it is not used by the very agency you work for and the only reason you use 5 year averages is to disguise the effects of HR. The PGC increased antlerless tags in 2G from 19K in 2006 to 29K in 2007, based on a 40% increase in the buck harvest in 2006. But after 2007 they revised the increase to 6%, but the 2007 harvest reduced the 2G herd by 23%. Five year averages are meaningles, deceutful and misleading when the goal is to reduce the herd by 5% /yr.
That is just pure nonsense. five year trends are meaningless when a biased individual like you select the five year periods they chose to use while omitting years that don't fit their agenda. the decline in the breeding rates are based on 3 year averages ,but only due to lack of adequate data, the decline in the buck harvest is based on yearly harvest data as it should be. the simple fact is that you hitched yourself to a wagon that is too heavy for you to pull because the facts simply don't support your misguided agenda.

Rsb, when the deception within every single comparison or data you present is clearly pointed out, it would take a true fool to believe it. When you compare years, yet leave out the highs and the lows. Or you compare very strategic years that hide the true trends. Or you you try to twist the numbers into meaning the exact opposite of what they mean. Or when you speak badly about hunters on a continual basis...

The only "educating" you are doing is educating people on how extreme your position and how headstrong you are in your mission of treehugger agendas.

Rsb, when the deception within every single comparison or data you present is clearly pointed out, it would take a true fool to believe it. When you compare years, yet leave out the highs and the lows. Or you compare very strategic years that hide the true trends. Or you you try to twist the numbers into meaning the exact opposite of what they mean. Or when you selectively group numbers together of both very high herdyears and very low totake the emphasis off the current lows.... Or when you speak badly about hunters on a continual basis...

The only "educating" you are doing is educating people on how extreme your position and how headstrong you are in your mission of treehugger agendas.

No that is just the misrepresentation of the facts spin that you and Bluebird use in your attempt to discredit the data since it doesn’t support the opinions you want people to believe.

I don’t leave data out. I generally use five year averages, when there is five years of data to use. I don’t remove any of the high years or the low years. I also use the five years periods, counting backwards from the most current year data was available, and then use each five year period back from that. When we had data that only when up to 2006 I used the years of 82-86, 87-91, 92-96, 97-01 and 02-06. Once the data for 2007 became available I used the years 83-87, 88-92, 93-97, 98-02 and 03-07.

If you consider that to be biased then you obviously have no idea about statistical analysis methods or procedure.

Once again I must say that just because you don’t like the data or that the data doesn’t support your ranting doesn’t mean the data is not accurate or that it is in any way biased. Should you find the data to be incorrect please provide the corrected data. Otherwise all you are doing it blowing smoke and have no data to support your opinions.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Dick, here are the highlights of your post, if anyone wants to read into you hotwinded posts.

1. To be able to accept the facts as I see them.
2.I will do all I can to stop that decline in habitat and deer numbers from expanding.
3. A better understanding of the affects of under harvest.

You refer to the future of hunting all the time, but never say what you expect. Are you afraid to make a prediction because you haven't been correct so far?

It seems you are only concerned about killing deer and growing trees, do you ever think of over harvest? How many deer PSM do you feel is acceptable, in your WMU, before you would consider thinking about over harvest?

most i talk to dont care if PGC is funded at all.

like obama said today.PEOPLE ARE LOSING TRUST IN GOVERNMENT,i think same goes for PGC and DCNR.

with deer huntingas it is, i dont see a lot of support with dollars for PGC.

heck, rendell just said he is closing 400 schools in pa.

rsb, to be honest, PGC will have to cut programs and people have to be looked at and LAYED OFF.

republicans just said THEY CUT MONEY GOING TO STATES,so there goes money we need in the new spending plan.

rendell must have known this or he would not have said that 400 schools are closing.
he also said he wants all state jobs to be looked at and cuts made .

so, if hunters are not seeing deer, if habitat is bad,if few fawns,if doe hunting continues with these seasons/tags,i cant see any reason that new money would come to PGC.

but ,who knows, politicians go which ever way wind blows.

"Once again I must say that just because you don’t like the data or that the data doesn’t support your ranting doesn’t mean the data is not accurate or that it is in any way biased. Should you find the data to be incorrect please provide the corrected data. Otherwise all you are doing it blowing smoke and have no data to support your opinions."

No. Fact is you sir are aliar and fraud. You use dirty underhanded tactics to attempt to appear otherwise, butit cant be done.

cornelius,i dont agree with RSB on his info at times, some i do.

you go into data that i am not good at, i like reading both sides.

but, can you help out and quit the LIAR stuff.

words like YOU ARE WRONG ,dont you think would be better on here.

i am not sticking up for RSB,its nice him and RWJ do come on here.same with you and others.

we all feel he wants LESS deer and will say there are too many even if you tell him that 15 deer along road in 12 miles is not alot of deer and that does not mean there is 100 deer WAYBACK,now, i gave it too him but i did NOTCALL HIM A ,YOU KNOW WHAT.

how about it, keep bringing up your facts but lets keep it to better way of saying things .

heck, he has called me a KNOTHEAD many times but i still say to him, YOU ARE WRONG.

You mean like claimingthat PA is the best hunting state in the country and you was proven wrong and didn't use your common sense when you posted your info? You admitted that NY was better for hunting than PA was. Does your lies and mis-information educate people,? It just makes them dumber if they don't look for the truth. The ones on HPA are allready stupid from listening to your crap because when someone speaks against it, They are banned. Good way to educate people when they can't here both sides.