lots of deer tracts on my mountain top still a foot snow on ground as of yesterday after noon
bad news is alot of them have the poops

"If you find something to be false then prove some supporting facts instead of just your opinions and perceptions. "

Thats exactly what I do every time you tell your lies.[8D]

Deer come down to the rivers, streams and creeks when the snow gets deep and burns up their energy trying to push through it to find food. That happens every year we have prolonged periods of deep snow.

They walk on the ice because a lot of the snow gets blown off of the ice and they no longer have to push through deep snow to move around. By walking on the ice they can also reach a lot of browse that hangs out over the water and out of their reach during all other times of the year.

Deer can walk on the ice of the waterways without much trouble because it is level and frequently still has a little snow on it that allows for traction. If deer are forced to run on the ice though they are more prone to pelvis injuries but they generally do better at avoiding predators when they can get to the wind swept ice with little snow cover then trying to plow through deep snow. That is why deer head for the ice when they are being chased in the snow, we saw that all the time back in the seventies when we had some major problems with dogs. We actually worked the river corridor shooting dogs as they chased deer on the frozen river ice.
Dogs killed dozens upon dozens of deer out on the ice during some of those years.

The year of the ice on the steep mountain sides did kill a lot of deer in some areas but not nearly as many as what I have seen following some of our worst deep snow years. I that know that because I was out there working and seeing the affects of both the ice on the mountains and deep snows of a prolonged winter.

R.S. Bodenhorn

No that isn’t what you do.

All you do is say they are lies, but you never produce anything that proves then wrong. You expressing your opinions, with no supporting evidence to prove something is wrong, doesn’t mean much other then that you don’t agree with the facts presented. If you can find something that proves me wrong, other then your or someone else’s opinion, then by all means go ahead and do so. I am certainly not apposed to factual information that proves me wrong and then points in a new direction, that is how we all learn.

I learn some new things pretty much everyday. You could too if you had a more open mind. I have discovered that it is much easier for someone that knows nothing to learn then it is for someone who simply thinks they already know everything.

R.S. Bodenhorn

"No that isn’t what you do. "

Thats EXACTLY what I do. And your saying otherwise can't change that fact. Your lies are meaningless.

"All you do is say they are lies, but you never produce anything that proves then wrong."

Actually I did. I pointed out every single mistake and flawed logic you attempted to pass off as fact. To intentionally do that, you were lying plain and simple.

"You expressing your opinions, with no supporting evidence to prove something is wrong,"

Obviously you have a problem withtelling the diff. between fact and opinion. Denying the "proof" is simply you lying to cover other lies youve told.

"I am certainly not apposed to factual information that proves me wrong and then points in a new direction, that is how we all learn. "

Unless the facts don't support the unsupportable widescale deer slaughter plan. Then you dont want to hear it period.

"I learn some new things pretty much everyday. You could too if you had a more open mind."

Ive learned alot. Thats why Im not blindly supporting the pgcnonsense deer plan as is. The facts dont support it. Thehunters dont support the slaughter the only ones that do is you and ecoextremists which arepretty much one and the same.

"I have discovered that it is much easier for someone that knows nothing to learn then it is for someone who simply thinks they already know everything. "

Gee that was really clever. Really meaningful too. A condescending attitude straight from a liar, towards someone who clearly knows about 3 times what you do, and isnt a blind little lap dog for their corrupt employment agency.

Id say you should quit while behind. I hear its possible for pgclies to be spread, and sworn to, with any meaningful challenge 100% prohibited over on hpa. Maybe you'll have better luck there?

We can trade insults for the next 20 posts or you can try to do the impossible, and prove your position via the facts.

Funny you should mention that, as I received an email from an unnamed source just yesterday morning mentioning that exact concern.

You claimed breeding rates declined by 5% because of a shift in sample size and distribution. I proved you were wrong and you provided nothing to support your opinion so there was no need for anyone else to prove you were wrong. You said buck harvests would return to normal and the harvest data proved that they didn't. therefore there was no need for anyone else to prove you were wrong. You said increased breeding rates would offset the negative effects of HR, but the deer proved you were wrong.

Now why don't you provide a list of the things that happened as you claimed they would.

The "proof" you provided for that claim was no proof at all because you inserted your own assumptions that had no basis in fact. All who commented on it after the assumptions you inserted were pointed out agreed that your facts were not presented objectively and therefore incorrect. Since then you have claimed over and over that you "proved your point" All who saw it agreed that your "proof" was flawed but feel free to go ahead and try again.

Wrong again!! I provided the sample size data from the annual reports that was used to determine breeding rates and it showed that almost twice as many doe were sampled in 2B and 5C as in 2F and 2G. The southern tier counties with higher breeding rates still provide the highest percentage of does sampled ,just like before the statewide breeding rates decreased.

You claimed that RSB's explanation that sampling emphasis has shifted to areas with inherently lower breeding rates as an explanation for a drop in breeding rates was impossible. A fair way to present your case would have been to change sample size only. Sample size was cited as the reason for the change so to disprove RSB assertions, thats the only thing that should have been varied in your example. Your example wouldn't support your position with sampling emphasis being the only variable so youarbitrarily added in other changes to make your little formula produce the desired results.

This is a classicexample of the old phrase "figures don't lie but liars can figure".

Most of your deceptions require more intense scrutiny to detect. This one was easier because you made the mistake of spelling out what you did in your calculations. Usually you hide it better when you do this kind of thing but you do it frequently.

reading your analysis of deer mangement issues is like watching NBC news. NBC news covertly inserts spin to support their liberal agenda into almost everything and you insert spin to support your haterd for the PGC. Your agenda isn't even about deer management any more. It's simply an irrational hatred for everyhting PGC. You have yet to ever introduce any constructive criticism, only negative spin from Bluebird.