RE: Will The Audit Include
 

Apparently you aren't smarter than a fifth grader or you would have provided the answer!!

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

I guess we've waited long enough for you to prove by your lack of a response that you don't understand the dynamics of antlerless deer management. It aint taught in 5th grade but any 5th grader can certainly understand it!

In 2000 when there were far too many deer throughout most of the state, it took less tags to generateone harvested doe becaue it took less effort or skill for hunters to harvest them simply because there were so many. Now that there are significantly fewer deer, it takes more doe tags to generate a havested doe than it used to.

Maybe RSB canhelp us out with the most recent ratios of antlerless license per doe harvest but when the success rate per license has decreased, more tags are required to effect the same harvest.

If you ever get on that Foxworthy show, drop out as soon as you run out of fifth graders to copy from;)

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

Well let's see if a fifth grader can explain how that theory works in the real world. The herd in 2G was reduced by 40% from 2001 to 2005. After allocating 52K tags in 2003 and 2004 the PGC reduced the allocation by 70% to 16K. At the same time the statewide herd was reduced by about 40% but doe tags were only reduced by 13% even though over 30K additional DMAP tags were issued.

Of course it may takes more tags to harvest a doe as the herd is reduced ,but if the herd is reduced by 40% the number of doe that need to be harvested also drops by 40% ,so a lot fewer tags are needed to keep the herd stable.

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

"I guess we've waited long enough for you to prove by your lack of a response that you don't understand the dynamics of antlerless deer management. It aint taught in 5th grade but any 5th grader can certainly understand it!

In 2000 when there were far too many deer throughout most of the state, it took less tags to generate one harvested doe becaue it took less effort or skill for hunters to harvest them simply because there were so many. Now that there are significantly fewer deer, it takes more doe tags to generate a havested doe than it used to. "

BTB, its funny how some, instead of becoming educated, post one post after another, each LESS educated than the last.[8D] You should pull your facts from somewhere other than other pgc supporters butts and think rationally instead of regurgitating bullsquat. While what you say is true in regards to tags per deer and hunter success rate declining.... AND needing more tags to accomplish the same harvest... The obvious thing youre grossly overlooking is the fact WE DO NOT WANT THE SAME HARVESTS!!! The goal is STABILIZATION supposedly now, and the herd is MUCH smaller. You do NOT want the same harvest that reduced a much larger herd, nor even close. It would cause much greater rate of reduction than it did previously!!! Youre 100% off the mark commentary also wouldnt explain why the HARVEST GOALS in some wmus as Ive pointed out time and again WERE HIGHER!! Not only the allocation, but the goals themselves. Even though the last four years were supposed to be stabilization in the wmu, the harvest goal for 2A was 18,000 for a few years straight, right after a harvest of 16,500 reduced the herd here by 7% according to pgc annual report. WTF?? Can you say no logical explanation, and btb is once again blindly supporting that which cannot be supported by fact.

The goals are less deer where reduction is the goal. And the goal is reduction where stabilization is the lie told just to appease hunters because there is no justification in many wmus for that continued hr that has been ongoing the last four years, as attested to by the annual reports in spite of claims of stabilization Its an enviromentalist extremist nutcase agenda, and they may as well call us little California or New Jersey Senior thanks to our nonhunter friendly current policies and permitting nuts to run the show.

Its all a big sham and its about to be rubber stamped.

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

LOL! How ironic for YOU of all people to tell someome to look at the facts.

Your posts are 99% loudmouth ranting with maybe an occasional tidbit of fact inserted. Anyidiot can see that the doe harvest has pretty much stabilized. It always comes back to the same old BS. Do we listen to the professionalss or to some fool whos obviously spittin mad because his favorite deer spot just aint what it used to be? Do we listen to the jackass screaming "econuts econuts" or do we listen to the professionals who have the support and approval of all the noteworthy deer professionals acrosss the country?

Scream on little man. rant rave and fume away! Tell us all about how good of a hunter you are LOL, tell us how strong you are LOL. Yell liar liar or make wild conspiracy claims at everyone with thenads to dispute you LOL.. Vote early and often in your silly little polls. Yell away with every post. All that does is estabish your identity as an internet blowhard. You might as well get it out of your system thoughbecause things arent ever going to change to suit you. Not in this lifetime anyway.:D

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

But the PGC professionals have been proven to be wrong based on their own data ,over and over again. They were wrong about the B/D ratio, late breeding, the benefits of ARs and the effects of reducing the herd on forest health.

Why would you still support the professional biologist who have been proven to be wrong on so many issues?

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

"LOL! How ironic for YOU of all people to tell someome to look at the facts. "

Jest all you like, my credibility is untouchable to a proven constant liar and all around general malcontent.

"Any idiot can see that the doe harvest has pretty much stabilized."

The only one that can see it is an idiot. because the ANNUAL REPORTS show otherwise. Check out the deer density changes on the annual report and that the REDUCTION HAS CONTINUED in the majority of wmus during the last 4 years when the goal was supposedly stabilization. Net reductions, and some SIGNIFICANT during that time period. Consult, again, the 07/08 pgc annual report. Page 18. Have it printed out looking me in the face as I type this... Thats what I thought liar. I call you a liar because you KNOW THIS, Because Its been posted UMPTEEN TIMES. LOL.

"Scream on little man. rant rave and fume away!"

Litte man? LMAO. From a man who is a self professed physical wreck? LMAO. Rant rave and fume? LOL. Im lauging at a dude with a bushy beard full of spit, bloodshot eyes and slobbering. LMFAO. Dont know if you are just that enraged or if its the disease you have acting up again.

"Tell us all about how good of a hunter you are LOL,"

Good as they come. And you? LMFAO!!

"tell us how strong you are LOL. "

Bench about twice your body weight. LMAO. And you?

"Yell liar liar"

Only when you lie. And Ive already pointed our you lie on this post. Sure another will be along soon.


" Vote early and often in your silly little polls. Yell away with every post."

You mean like you got caught doing with your regular id AND your "camp id" LMFAO. What a fraud. You should do the pgc audit. LMFAO!

" All that does is estabish your identity as an internet blowhard. You might as well get it out of your system though because things arent ever going to change to suit you. Not in this lifetime anyway."

LMAO...>>LOL. And I am the one "ranting" raving fuming and Po'ed? LMFAO!! I guess we should all do like YOU to get responsible change. Plant a big fat sloppy kiss on pgcs arse every single time they ask for one. (LMAO)

I think you better reread your post, cause you're probably the only one who sees it that way after reading your outburst of nonsense. LMAO. Btw, why is that big vein throbbing in your temple? lmao.

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

Here are the antler less deer hunter success rates for the past twenty-six years. I have also posted them in five year averages since 1984.

Year…………..License required to harvest one antler less deer…………………five year average
1982.……………………….3.12.………… …………………............................. .......N/A
1983.……………………….4.25.………… …………………............................. .......N/A
1984.……………………….3.83
1985.……………………….3.24
1986.……………………….3.78
1987.……………………….3.49
1988.……………………….3.10.………… …………………............................. .......3.49
1989.……………………….3.16
1990.……………………….3.32
1991.……………………….3.55
1992.……………………….3.61
1993.……………………….3.07.………… …………………............................. .......3.34
1994.……………………….3.27
1995.……………………….3.12
1996.……………………….4.21
1997.……………………….3.34
1998.……………………….4.54.………… …………………............................. .......3.70
1999.……………………….4.79
2000.……………………….2.90
2001.……………………….2.76
2002.……………………….2.92
2003.……………………….3.42.………… …………………............................. .......3.36
2004.……………………….3.65
2005.……………………….3.76
2006.……………………….3.80
2007.……………………….4.04
2008.……………………….3.98.………… …………………............................. .......3.84

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

The professional wildlife managers of this state have not been proven wrong. That is nothing more then your goofy and twisted perception and what you want people to believe.

Actually more and more of the real professional wildlife and resource managers, from all across the Continent, are proclaiming that the Pennsylvania deer management methods and objectives are among the best in North America.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Will The Audit Include
 

Here is a partial list of the things the experts got wrong.
1. ARs did not double the number of 8 pts.
2. We do not have more and larger buck than ever before.
3. The buck harvest did not return to normal as predicted.
4. There never was a problem with the B/D ratio.
5. ARs did not reduce the breeding window as predicted.
6. Breeding rates and productivity did not increase as predicted. Instead statewide breeding rates decreased by 5%.
7. There never was a problem with late born fawns as Alt claimed there was.
8. Reducing the herd to the biodiversity CC in 2G did not produce the increase in regeneration that was predicted and forest health is still rated as poor.
9. WMUs that were once rated poor or fair for herd health are now rated to be at their targeted goal, even though productivity has not increased.
10. Predicted increases in productivity did not come close to making up for the effects of HR ,so the sustanable harvest has been reduced by around 40%.

It's pretty bad when an armchair biologist can make more accurate predictions that professional wildlife biologists.