That is another flat out lie . You never provided any numbers that refuted the roadkill data I posted from the AWR , because no such data exists unless you just made up some numbers.

Here is the data from the AWR . Now show everyone how the number of do e checked was so much higher in 2F and 2G than in 2B and 5C!!!


Table 2. Number of does examined and assessment of deer health by WMU and
age class. Data are based on samples collected from 2004 to 2006,
Pennsylvania.
1-year-olds___

2 or 3-year-olds and older_


WMU n % Preg. Health n Embryos per doe Health WMU Health
1A 59 42 Good 61 1.51 Fair Fair
1B 49 22 Fair 64 1.72 Good Good
2A 46 11 Fair 74 1.45 Fair Fair
2B 109 25 Fair 136 1.54 Fair Fair
2C 67 25 Fair 89 1.27 Poor Poor
2D 59 20 Fair 47 1.68 Good Good
2E 8 38 Good 19 1.37 Poor Uncertain
2F 27 11 Fair 48 1.42 Fair Fair
2G 21 5 Poor 62 1.58 Fair Fair
3A 17 6 Poor 38 1.42 Fair Fair
3B 34 3 Poor 51 1.55 Fair Fair
3C 34 6 Poor 33 1.45 Fair Fair
3D 42 12 Fair 87 1.26 Poor Poor
4A 62 15 Fair 79 1.58 Fair Fair
4B 27 33 Good 291 1.921 Good1 Good1
4C 20 15 Fair 21 1.43 Fair Fair
4D 33 27 Fair 72 1.42 Fair Fair
4E 40 13 Fair 31 1.68 Good Good
5A 9 44 Good 14 1.36 Poor Uncertain
5B 40 25 Fair 41 1.44 Fair Fair
5C 63 37 Good 130 1.76 Good Good
5D 14 7 Poor 40 1.73 Good Good
1
Data based on 3-year-old fem

More smoke and mirrors. What I refuted was your insertion of variables that were pure assumptions on your part.


Sorry Bluejob, try again.(Keep up the lie accusations and this namecould become permanent)

re-certified thing, i agree with you was MAIN reason for all of this.

its money for trees in future.
being deer eat or nip at the growing trees,no doubt the dcnr wants deer reduced to low levels.

what i would like to see done for public to see, is take area with no cutting and fence it in.

most ,if not all fenced in areas have had timber cut,then new growth.

this would let us see if the forest will come back without have anything done to to area.

its hard to find a small oak tree growing do too soil acid,leaves on ground,shade,deer but lots and lots of maples which can take a more acid soil and a more shady soil than the OAK.

a fenced in area not touched would be a real good way to see what is happening to forest.

some say, WELL JUST FENCE IT IN AND THINGS WILL GROW, YOU WILL SEE.

well, we did fence in all over the pipelines,we have fences every 50 yds ,12ft by 25 ft and planted trees and bushes and almost all have died do to drought/soil,NOT DEER.

i feel MANY things are affecting the forest,i feel the deer were really easy one to get the RE-CERTIFICATION.

did not cost thing to do that one.

but to change forest, it WILL cost money from hunters and the dcnr,pgc dont have it and hunters dont want to spend knickel more unless we havemore deer to hunt.

i really feel that good deer hunting is gone and most likely will get worst on deer numbers,rabbit, squirreals,grouse.

i also see LONGER hunting seasons so hunters that cannot get off work will have more hunting time .

this will keep reducing the deer numbers to a very low DPSM

So now that you backed yourself into a corner with a series of lies, you claim PGC stats are smoke and mirrors.

In my example I never claimed the numbers I used actually represented what happened in the state. It was simply a statistical demonstration of how much the sample size and distribution would have had to change in order to get a statewide decrease of 5%. But, the PGC data makes the example a mute point, because sample size and distribution did not shift as RSB claimed.

Wrong again Bluejob!

Just as you recently twisted things in your claim that we arent seeing bigger better bucks harvested, you did a similarmaneuver then.

You concocted your own formula designed specifically to "prove" that a 5% change was "impossible"(your words) from a shift in sampling and then added your own ingredients to the formula. I pointed out the flaws in that and everyone in that thread saw it. It was you who backed youself into the corner and you who lied.

You are lying again. Because our breeding rates were already quite good in the vast majority of the WMUs. the max. expected increase in breeding rates was 10%,which is the number I used in my example. You used numbers that were not related to reality and the data from the AWR proves you weren't even close to being right.Then you compound your error by lying about it over and over again.

Sigh!

Just like your bigger better bucks delusion, it's obvious that you will go on and on and say nothing new here. You concocted your own numbers to make a point. I exposed it. The participants in that thread recoginzed your flim flam and said so. Give it up. I know you are so delusionsl that you're incapable of being embarrassed but you should indeed be embarrassed.

Well if your so smart let's see you challenge the actual sample sizes from the AWR. You are avoiding them like the plague , because you know they prove you and RSB are lying. And, to make matters worse you keep lying about my example which never was intended to represent what actually happened in the field, because breeding rates did not increase by 10% in any WMU as I projected in my example.

LOL! You do stick to a your guns! Even when you realize you've got them pointed right back at yourself. LOL

But all you can do is to lie so you don't have to admit you are wrong. Cornelius was right, you are just a compulsive liar who will say anything to save face.
The PGC data clearly supports my position that a shift in sample size and location was not the cause of the 5% reduction in breeding rates and you and RSB have provided nothing to refute that.