Will The Audit Include
05-31-2009 | 04:00 AM
#71
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Will The Audit Include
[quote]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.
[/quote
The stats you posted have very little value unless you include the number of tags allocated and the OWDD for each year.
Why did it take so many tags/doe in 1998 and 1999?
[/quote
The stats you posted have very little value unless you include the number of tags allocated and the OWDD for each year.
Why did it take so many tags/doe in 1998 and 1999?
05-31-2009 | 06:00 AM
#72
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Will The Audit Include
"2004.……………………….3.65
2005.……………………….3.76
2006.……………………….3.80
2007.……………………….4.04 "
Thanks Rsb, you have just highlighted the steady drop in the herd that is shown in the annual report and the decline ive been talking about, during years of supposed stabilization.
2005.……………………….3.76
2006.……………………….3.80
2007.……………………….4.04 "
Thanks Rsb, you have just highlighted the steady drop in the herd that is shown in the annual report and the decline ive been talking about, during years of supposed stabilization.
05-31-2009 | 06:05 AM
#73
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Will The Audit Include
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
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.
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.
1 FALSE! That was never claimed
2 TRUE! Gary Alt did stick his foot in his mouth on this one
3 FALSE! The buck harvest is now closer to what normal should beif the goal is good deer management and runni9ng a deer farm
4 FALSE! Anyone who hunter here before HR knows that one is delusional
5 FALSE! Cute trick! AR alone was not expected to reduce the breeding window. AR + HR + early doe harvests wereall needed to dothat
6 FALSE! Your misconceptions on this one have been patiently explained several times by RSB on this forum. Sorry you still can't grasp the concept
7 FALSE!(see # 5)
8 FALSE! and misleading. The forest health while still poor, is considerably better than before. Mother nature can fix herself but it doesnt happen overnight
9 FALSE (see # 6)
10 FALSE less deer = less deer! The harvest is less but much closer to what it ought to be for a wild healthy herd in a wild healthy habitat. Again, PA is not your personal deer farm.
So we could listen to the armchair biologists and have this.....
Or we can stay with the pros and have this.........
05-31-2009 | 06:25 AM
#74
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Will The Audit Include
We've listened to the liars catering to audubon, and the first picture is what our herd is for it.
"Here is a partial list of the things the experts got wrong.
1. ARs did not double the number of 8 pts. "
GOOD POINT BB. I REMEMBER THE ASNINE CLAIM, AND IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE PROMISE USED TO CRAM THE EXCESSIVE REDUCTION DOWN OUR THROATS WHO CARES IF THEY SLAUGHTER THE DOE IF BIG BUCKS ARE BEHIND EVERY TREE?? UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBILITY FROM DAY ONE.
"2. We do not have more and larger buck than ever before. "
EXCESSIVE REDUCTION WOULDNT ALLOW FOR IT.
"3. The buck harvest did not return to normal as predicted."
YES, ANOTHER FAILED FAMOUS PREDICTION FROM THE Alt-poleon. LITTLE DEER DICTATOR.
"4. There never was a problem with the B/D ratio."
WELL IT WAS NICE OF THEM TO ADMIT IT AFTER THE DAMAGE WAS DONE WASNT IT? LMAO!
"5. ARs did not reduce the breeding window as predicted."
ALL ONE NEED DO IS CONSULT THE ANNUAL REPORTS THAT SHOW THAT DIDNT HAPPEN.
6. Breeding rates and productivity did not increase as predicted. Instead statewide breeding rates decreased by 5%.
AGAIN, AGREE COMPLETELY, CAN BE SEEN ON THE ANNUAL REPORT BY ANYONE THAT CAN READ.
7. There never was a problem with late born fawns as Alt claimed there was.
COULDNT HAVE BEEN ANY MORE THAN CURRENTLY.
"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. "
AND UNLESS THEY KEEP THE HERD BETWEEN 0 and 10 DPSM FOR 50 YEARS OR MORE, THEY NEVER WILL. THAT IS UNLESS THEY PULL THEIR HEADS OUT OF BUTTS AND QUIT BLANING EVERY PROBLEM THE WORLD HAS ON THE DEER.
"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. "
WHATEVER IS CONVENIENT FOR THEM. WE'VE SEEN PLENTY ENOUGH NONSENSE THAT THEY CANT EVEN BEGIN THE EXPLAIN...BUT HEY, ITS CONVENIENT FOR THEM, AND EQUATES TO STAYING THE FAILED ECONUT COURSE. WHAT ELSE DO THEY CARE ABOUT? LMAO!
"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%."
AND A HERD and HUNTER NUMBERS CONTINUING TO DECLINE.
"Here is a partial list of the things the experts got wrong.
1. ARs did not double the number of 8 pts. "
GOOD POINT BB. I REMEMBER THE ASNINE CLAIM, AND IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE PROMISE USED TO CRAM THE EXCESSIVE REDUCTION DOWN OUR THROATS WHO CARES IF THEY SLAUGHTER THE DOE IF BIG BUCKS ARE BEHIND EVERY TREE?? UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBILITY FROM DAY ONE.
"2. We do not have more and larger buck than ever before. "
EXCESSIVE REDUCTION WOULDNT ALLOW FOR IT.
"3. The buck harvest did not return to normal as predicted."
YES, ANOTHER FAILED FAMOUS PREDICTION FROM THE Alt-poleon. LITTLE DEER DICTATOR.
"4. There never was a problem with the B/D ratio."
WELL IT WAS NICE OF THEM TO ADMIT IT AFTER THE DAMAGE WAS DONE WASNT IT? LMAO!
"5. ARs did not reduce the breeding window as predicted."
ALL ONE NEED DO IS CONSULT THE ANNUAL REPORTS THAT SHOW THAT DIDNT HAPPEN.
6. Breeding rates and productivity did not increase as predicted. Instead statewide breeding rates decreased by 5%.
AGAIN, AGREE COMPLETELY, CAN BE SEEN ON THE ANNUAL REPORT BY ANYONE THAT CAN READ.
7. There never was a problem with late born fawns as Alt claimed there was.
COULDNT HAVE BEEN ANY MORE THAN CURRENTLY.
"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. "
AND UNLESS THEY KEEP THE HERD BETWEEN 0 and 10 DPSM FOR 50 YEARS OR MORE, THEY NEVER WILL. THAT IS UNLESS THEY PULL THEIR HEADS OUT OF BUTTS AND QUIT BLANING EVERY PROBLEM THE WORLD HAS ON THE DEER.
"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. "
WHATEVER IS CONVENIENT FOR THEM. WE'VE SEEN PLENTY ENOUGH NONSENSE THAT THEY CANT EVEN BEGIN THE EXPLAIN...BUT HEY, ITS CONVENIENT FOR THEM, AND EQUATES TO STAYING THE FAILED ECONUT COURSE. WHAT ELSE DO THEY CARE ABOUT? LMAO!
"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%."
AND A HERD and HUNTER NUMBERS CONTINUING TO DECLINE.
05-31-2009 | 10:39 AM
#76
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Will The Audit Include
No yelling. Ive explained a million times to you that I use bold to separate text and who says what. Also why would I yell at BB, when I agreed with everything he said? So guess that once again makes you a L-I-A-R.?
Gee, Im sure the readers of this post are surprised. LMAO.
Gee, Im sure the readers of this post are surprised. LMAO.
05-31-2009 | 11:40 AM
#77
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Will The Audit Include
Since it's universally accepted that bold type and all caps is considered yelling on the internet, you would have to be stupid or a liar to make that claim. In your case, it's probably both.
05-31-2009 | 11:49 AM
#78
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Will The Audit Include
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
Not quite. Your score one the TRUE/FALSE was dismal
1 FALSE! That was never claimed
2 TRUE! Gary Alt did stick his foot in his mouth on this one
3 FALSE! The buck harvest is now closer to what normal should be if the goal is good deer management and runni9ng a deer farm
4 FALSE! Anyone who hunter here before HR knows that one is delusional
5 FALSE! Cute trick! AR alone was not expected to reduce the breeding window. AR + HR + early doe harvests were all needed to do that
6 FALSE! Your misconceptions on this one have been patiently explained several times by RSB on this forum. Sorry you still can't grasp the concept
7 FALSE! (see # 5)
8 FALSE! and misleading. The forest health while still poor, is considerably better than before. Mother nature can fix herself but it doesnt happen overnight
9 FALSE (see # 6)
10 FALSE less deer = less deer! The harvest is less but much closer to what it ought to be for a wild healthy herd in a wild healthy habitat. Again, PA is not your personal deer farm.
So we could listen to the armchair biologists and have this.....
Or we can stay with the pros and have this.........
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
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.
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.
1 FALSE! That was never claimed
2 TRUE! Gary Alt did stick his foot in his mouth on this one
3 FALSE! The buck harvest is now closer to what normal should be if the goal is good deer management and runni9ng a deer farm
4 FALSE! Anyone who hunter here before HR knows that one is delusional
5 FALSE! Cute trick! AR alone was not expected to reduce the breeding window. AR + HR + early doe harvests were all needed to do that
6 FALSE! Your misconceptions on this one have been patiently explained several times by RSB on this forum. Sorry you still can't grasp the concept
7 FALSE! (see # 5)
8 FALSE! and misleading. The forest health while still poor, is considerably better than before. Mother nature can fix herself but it doesnt happen overnight
9 FALSE (see # 6)
10 FALSE less deer = less deer! The harvest is less but much closer to what it ought to be for a wild healthy herd in a wild healthy habitat. Again, PA is not your personal deer farm.
So we could listen to the armchair biologists and have this.....
Or we can stay with the pros and have this.........
Those may be your opinions but the facts prove you are not telling the truth and are spinning out of control in your feeble attempt to defend the PGC.
05-31-2009 | 11:49 AM
#79
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Will The Audit Include
BTB LIES: "Since it's universally accepted that bold type and all caps is considered yelling on the internet,"
NOt when its stated early and often that isnt the intent.
" you would have to be stupid or a liar to make that claim. In your case, it's probably both."
Coming from a proven constant liar like you, that automatically defaults to "neither".
NOt when its stated early and often that isnt the intent.
" you would have to be stupid or a liar to make that claim. In your case, it's probably both."
Coming from a proven constant liar like you, that automatically defaults to "neither".
05-31-2009 | 11:52 AM
#80
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Will The Audit Include
What say you BB?? BTB NOT TELLING THE TRUTH?? Say it aint so! LMAO!!
When he does tell the truth it will be for the first time. I'll give 10 to 1 odds that say he lies again on his next post. Wanna bet?
On a more serious note, there is help. But first he must admit to himself he has a problem, and then be willing to accept help. This link can help: -- REAL HELP TO STOP LYING
When he does tell the truth it will be for the first time. I'll give 10 to 1 odds that say he lies again on his next post. Wanna bet?
On a more serious note, there is help. But first he must admit to himself he has a problem, and then be willing to accept help. This link can help: -- REAL HELP TO STOP LYING