RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Just remember we have a few here that are consistently lying about what others post. That makes a fair and honest discussion almost impossible.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Well I can agree with that. And now that we have that out of the way, id be interest in hearing some opinions on this topic.

I notice rsb has been logged in awhile and browsing these thread, and know he's itching to comment... Cant wait to see how he plans on defending these newest moves by pgc.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Lets just see how long we can go while discussing what needs done in this state with out using the word lying.:eek:

Wake up would you, we're all in the same boat.[:-]

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

With you included in that boat. [:-] And not just talking the word "lying". If people choose to intentionally lie and insult and do other things worse than telling someone they are a liar when they lie, then its all bets off.

And as I said, I doubt it can be done, but if it isnt, it wont be me initiating it. Thats all i can say on the matter.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Find a post where Iaccused any one of lying.


Where I wasn't telling the truth.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Sorry, you mustve read and replied to my post very quickly before i edited.

Im talking about all the nonsense. And Im not pointing the finger at you, just comment on your "all in the same boat" comment which due to typos, I mightve misread?

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Your right I have been logged in, but I was also logged into two other sites at the same time. So though I am logged in I am frequently really somewhere else.

I also refuse to get involved in these back and forth insults that get going here. When it reaches the point of where nothing is being posted but insults I simply go somewhere else and come later to see if it changed or not.

As for comments on the Annual Report yes I do have some. But, it is getting late and I am going to bed. You aren’t going to like what I have to say about it anyway, you know. Besides I have an important court case tomorrow and what to have my thoughts focused on that without being tired from staying up late tonight.

I will post my thoughts on what I believe the report is showing, for your area and a few others, tomorrow night provided I get time and the topic is civil enough to even bother with.

We could all learn things from one another and improve the future for both wildlife and hunters, if people could come here and stay civil. If not then little will be gained for the future of hunting and the anti-hunters will just continue to advance their case against hunters and hunting. Questions are ok and even some hard disagreements don’t hurt when respectfully debated. But, every time hunters attack professional wildlife management, or each other, the future of hunting gets a little closer to the end of it existence and I simply don’t care to be a part of that demise.

Good night.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Im gonna tell you up front as if you didnt know "professional wildlife management" in this state is not looked upon highly by myself currently and even less so now, and I feel just about anything thrown their way right now is more than justified by all evidence Ive seen. I dont know why you feel you must take that personally though. An attack, and in my opinion well deserved, on the current managementis not an attack on you personally. As for the other things you mention, the bickering etc, I can agree with that.

One thing though, i havent stated much problem with "what the report is showing" I believe I understand much of what it shows, although with my first post that was not the case as I scanned the report quickly, then later went back and read thoroughly. My problem is with what pgc has done with the regeneration study. It is clear that these new guidelines of habitat health has thrown our ranking from respectable to "poor". Without added degradation due to deer or anything else, but with a simple change of policy. This is HORRIBLE for the wmu and others in the same boat because of this change imho, and doesnt bode well for other wmusin the future. Pgc could "up the ante" as often as they like anywhere they like for no good reason, and thats just unacceptable.

Im fairly certain Im not gonna agree with your input, but as long as both of our facts stay facts and our opinions stay opinions, It might be overly optimistic, but I dont see any reason why some of us cannot have a reasonable exchange on the subject.

Good luck in court. If its a poaching case I hope you bust their arse! LOL.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Bowtruck, After three pages of your idiotic rantings I have to say, ....all of this coming from a guy who own 1080 acres and couldn't kill a big buck before AR...and now thinks using a crossbow will compensate for his own shortcomings. You are pathetic. You are literally unaffected by the deer program. What insight could you possibly share with the rest of us? Any complaints youcould possiblyhave should be directed onlyto the man in the mirror. In other words, buzz off. And before you come back, you should take some lessons in grammar and spelling.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

That is what you posted in a previous discussion regarding the 5% decrease in statewide breeding rates. If other northern tier counties would have had a increase anywhere close to 13 % statewide breeding rates would have increased significantly rather than decreasing. So the question then is how reliable is the 13% increase and why didn't other WMUs experience similar increases.

It certainly would be nice to have more civil discussions and we might learn more from each other, but we aren't going to learn anything if the information provided isn't true or accurate. And, blaming the poor habitat for the recent decrease in the herd in 2G is neither true nor accurate, especially if the increase in breeding rates is true and accurate. Breeding rates of 98% are the sign of a very healtht habitat.