that is a flat out lie. There is no agreement that the quality of bucks have improved. but what is perfectly obvious is that Ars prevents hunters from harvesting inferior 2.5+ buck.

You should take your PGC data, print it on paper and use it to wipe your a--. If you spend half as much time in the woods as you do researching PGC data on the web, maybe you might comprehend whats going on. Or better yet , you might see some deer.

See page 9 of pgc annual report: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf

Percent of adult does bred:

2001------92%
2002------91%
2003------92%
2004------89%
2005------87%
2006------85%

WOW!

Then we have embryos per doe!

2001------1.58
2002------1.64
2003------1.60
2004------1.53
2005------1.51
2006------1.53

Nuff said.

While that may be the case every once in a while, it is indeniable that AR prevents the early demise of many of our 1.5 buck so that they can become 2.5 buckand get bigger and better with age

Almost but not quite nuff.........

As you know, those are the statewide ratesbut you have chosen to ignore the variables that helped contribute to that decline.

The rest of the story, as explained by RSB is the shift in the sampling locations emphasis from areas with traditionally higher breeding rates to a greater percentage of sample from areas with traditionally lower breeding rates.

No matter how much you yell, stomp, pout or pitch tantrums, orscream liar, the shift in sampling emphasis is relevant.

Fewer hunters, fewer deer killed. Not rocket science, but it seems the PGC just can't quite figure this out. What they do understand is that fewer hunters, fewer licenses sold = less income. So lets log out all the game lands and sell the lumberto support our habit ofspending money we don't yet have.

You do realize that just running an agency required by law and Legislative mandate to fulfill a management mission still costs money don’t you? Do you think salaries don’t need to be paid when times get tough. Do you think the automobile manufactures just give the agency new vehicles to replace the worn out ones every year at the 1999 prices? Do you think the garages that work on those vehicles do so at 1999 costs and provide the parts at the 1999 price listings? Do you think when we pull up to the gas pump everyday or two and fill the gas tank they are only charging the 1999 gas price?

Do you think the Food and Cover crews are buying seed, lime, fertilizer and fuel for planting and maintaining habitat at the 1999 cost?

You aren’t of those people that has no idea that the Game Commission doesn’t get money from the tax dollars and has to work off of a self funding system are you?

And as for timber cutting, there is no more timber being cut now then was being cut in 1999 when the timber values were MUCH higher then they are now. In fact today they can’t even get companies to bid on much of the timber they would like to cut even though cutting it would be a benefit to wildlife.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Once again you are lying. There has been no shift in sampling size or location as you and RSB claim.

Not lying Bluejob. We've been down this road before. RSB posted those facts. Just because you choose not to accept them doesn't change them or make them less true.

Don't like that name? Too bad. IMO it's no worse than accusing someone of lying for posting a fact that you havesimply chosen to ignore.

"Not lying Bluejob. We've been down this road before. RSB posted those facts. Just because you choose not to accept them doesn't change them or make them less true."

Your lying. Youve been down this road, and havent resolved a thing. Using the same "nothingness" that you have previously along with RSB, we can go down it 10 more times and the result will be the same. The data is clear as black and white. The "excuse" is unproven and another "RSB SPECIAL DAMAGE CONTROL" theory.

"Don't like that name? Too bad. IMO it's no worse than accusing someone of lying for posting a fact that you havesimply chosen to ignore"

I think he'll live with your vulgar childish name calling, but you are still a liar.At best, currently you are trying to force us to believe something that is undocumented, unproven, and unlikely.

The pgc data is shown in A COMPARABLE fashion. Statewide data in a comparison chart...and you are saying we arent supposed to compare it because its not comparable? Are you kiddin' me???[8D]

If the data had stayed the same it would have proved the excessive measures had not been necessary for herd health according to those measures. They didnt even stay the same...They DECLINED!