"So tell me, how many different names did you use to log on with and vote in this poll?"

I agree maverick. There is only ONE person who has definatively skewed a poll, and did so by using more than one id and i think we all know who that pgc supporter is. Only reason he was caught was because his "other" id was known if it hadnt been, none would be the wiser. How many does he have now? I have no idea. Funny though, when the only ones using multiple ids are pgc supporters, then we have game commission employees as well as us forestry employee etc voting on this very small sampling of opinions, and its still not pgc favorable. Though far from the norm one would see in the "real world" where about 90% would have stated fair, poor or waste of time.

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/memberlist.html



Cousins I suppose :busted:

You ALL have a nice evening !!

NIce attempt at trying to divert the attention from yourself...as usual. You get caught doing things or caught not telling the truth, whatever the case may be, and try to point fingers at everyone else for absolutely nothing, just hoping to cloud the issue.

No cousin. As I stated when i posted using another id since my account was not active/working that day. The problem was straightened out the next day, and that was that, last login can be confirmed by viewing the member profile. I believe i deleted the couple of posts made when the problem was pointed out with the site... As we later found out it was a site problem and others had same problems logging in.

I didnt vote on any polls with it, as none had been active for some time as proof. Not that i wouldve anyway, as you did with your camp id and possibly others as well.

SO what was your excuse for not only using other id's but also voting with them???....Thats what i thought.:s1:

"Funny though, when the only ones using multiple ids are pgc supporters,"

Nice and deceptive of you not to give the full quote. You seem to have left off some of the sentence.... Typical. Here is what you conveniently left out.

"...Funny though, when the only ones using multiple ids are pgc supporters then we have game commission employees as well as us forestry employee etc voting on this very small sampling of opinions, and its still not pgc favorable. "

Btb says: "You ALL have a nice evening !!"

Thank you. And you do the same.

You make plenty of wild accusations and produce lots of conspiracy theories and claims but never produce any real proof. You've claimed that there is some ominous group of pgc supporters, employees etc have multiple screen names yet you have several. We're supposed to believe that you had a good reason for creating all of them but anyone else who may have another name could only have did it for something sinister. You make accusations of votes under other names months after the alleged act but the only proof is your claimthat you "saw"it.

The thread where polls were intentionally manipulated specifically to prove that they could be produced interest from many but very vocal objections from only one

Interesting........

"You make plenty of wild accusations and produce lots of conspiracy theories and claims but never produce any real proof."

Untrue. Im not like you who will say absolutely ANYTHING and everything no matter how far out there it is, to support your position. I make sure I know what im talking about BEFORE saying anything. Therefore I dont end up looking foolish as can often be the case with those who post BEFORE they think.

"You've claimed that there is some ominous group of pgc supporters, employees etc have multiple screen names yet you have several."

I dont have several. I have one. I once had another that was nearly identical to this one (boy big attempt to decieve eh? LMAO) and i stated in posts exactly why that was at the time. You however chose to vote with other ids. What makes you think YOU should have more votes on opinion polls than everyone else?

"We're supposed to believe..."

Frankly I dont care what "we" believe. Your opinion to me is absolutely meaningless in regards to pretty much anything. I wouldve pointed out your mistake as what "YOU" believe, but I dont buy it. You know the facts of the matter just as well as i. It just doesnt benefit you to make that known.

" You make accusations of votes under other names months after the alleged act but the only proof is your claimthat you "saw"it. "

It was factual. It also wasnt "months" later. I also provided the time and date of your vote, which was time stamped on the poll as the last vote....a vote that came AFTER the poll hadnt had a vote in days and wasnt exactly "active" and the only vote came in during the very short period of time that your id was in use. Unluckily for you, you were also seen entering and leaving the thread, and upon leaving ABRACADABRA, a vote magically appeared! You apparently didnt think to make your actions/being online invisible to other users as you do for some time with your current id. Big mistake eh chief? How many other times have you done this is the question?

"The thread where polls were intentionally manipulated specifically to prove that they could be produced interest from many but very vocal objections from only one

Interesting........"

Yes very interesting. First, I dont care to have my honesty and integrity even spoken of by someone such as yourself. Its beyond reproach. To some of us, those things matter. And you didnt call out "all polls" previously, you spoke specifically of a few. Complete nonsense, stated only to take the heat off of yourself because of being caught multiple voting just prior to that.

Second, I take issue with you questioning what to most is VERY obvious. Most of these topics certainly dont even need a poll to prove one way or another unless one has been living under a rock. You question the result because it doesnt support you. But questioning the result is kinda like questioning a poll because the results showed people wouldnt exactly enjoy sharp bamboo shoots driven under their toe nails. In case you hadnt guessed, the answer is no.

Also, i find it kind of interesting that you would be ok with voting using several id's, were the only one who apparently knew some bizarre method of cheating on polls other than "multipe ids" as well....yet didnt use it for your benefit?? Why is that when you werent above using multiple ids? I'll tell you why. Judging by your explanation of your "cheating technique" that had skewed every poll on here that didnt give the result you wanted lmfao... You would have had to change the question! lmao...(and hope none of the other members here noticed) and also hope noone noticed that the number of votes had also changed . Gee noone would notice any of that! Vote suddenly goes from 20 to 0 for one choice and arrangement of the poll itself changes 360d degrees, and noones gonna cry foul? Nice try chief.

Thats why you chose to say "all polls are tainted" even thought most had shown the only common sense "expected" results. Instead of losing credibility and attempting to alter polls, something you were assured of getting caught doing with basically ZERO chance of pulling off.

Then funny part is, claim statement polls were "legit" even though multiple ids are just as possible as they were previously!

:confused2::confused2::confused2::confused2::confu sed2::confused2:

Some objective thoughts on interpreting this poll and others.

1. My understanding is that the PA deer population was higher several years ago. In fact, at one point, PA led the nation in auto/deer accidents and there were also claims in some areas of deer being at nuisance levels. One might assume that many people in those "problem" areas would still be happy with the state of deer hunting even if in terms of absolute numbers the deer population was reduced significantly over the past several years. For example, in my home county in Illinois, there was some sort of local sickness linked to a mini-drought that killed off a hell of a lot of deer two seasons ago. However, because there is such a huge (nuisance level according to some) deer population in that area, everyone I know did just as well as usual. In fact, the biggest buck in local history was taken that year. So, to extrapolate out a bit, this suggests that while the DSM may decline, it does not necessarily always correlate to decline in hunter satisfaction. But in some situations it might.

2. Just because one's personal experience in one or two WMU's is good or bad (I'm talking to both sides here) it does not mean that a WMU 100 miles away is equally bad or good.

3. Public land vs. private land perspectives may differ. Cornie may view his local WMU as crappy, but someone like Bawajim who lives in an area where much of the land is privately held may have a much more optimistic view for his land as well as the entire county.

4. No matter how a poll is conducted, people are going to interpret it differently according to their personal agenda. For example, if a poll has a category of "fair," Cornie has, in the past, wanted to include that category in with "poor" to demonstrate that hunting is bad. On the other hand, folks who are more optimistic may interpret "fair" as being closer to "good" than "poor."

5. Given the various factors above, any statewide poll is going to mask local realities. If, for example, a statewide poll has 60 precent of hunters identifying deer hunting as fair or worse, you can still have large areas of WMUs or private land where DSM and harvest rates remain outstanding. On the other hand, if 60 percent of people say that hunting is excellent, you still have to coinsider that there are large areas where the deer hunting is medicore, poor, or whatever you want to call it.

" So, to extrapolate out a bit, this suggests that while the DSM may decline, it does not necessarily always correlate to decline in hunter satisfaction. But in some situations it might."

Thats some real "extrapolating" lol. Comparing Illinois satisfaction to Pa is like comparing the hilton to Rex's back alley beds & tavern. Also might want to compare having the herd hit with natural causes to being hit by over a million doe tags previously to over 800,000 currently. Not exactly the same. Ones avoidable and one aint!

"2. Just because one's personal experience in one or two WMU's is good or bad (I'm talking to both sides here) it does not mean that a WMU 100 miles away is equally bad or good."

Speaking on a "wmu-wide" basis, and not narrowing it down to miniscule acreage tracts that might be the exception widely scattered... I know of no wmu that Ive experienced first hand or heard discussed that now has a high "satisfaction" level. None. At best, id say sras like 2B, but thats a quality issue and has always been the case thanks to urban areas and no access. Therefore the plan has had zero effect there.

"3. Public land vs. private land perspectives may differ. Cornie may view his local WMU as crappy, but someone like Bawajim who lives in an area where much of the land is privately held may have a much more optimistic view for his land as well as the entire county."

Agreed to a point. But you have areas like 2A which i posted about in the other thread. The majority of land is private, but unposted. There is also posted land of course and very little public land. Yet the deer herd was reduced by 50%+ and continues the decline much to the delight of very few. So lets not generalize. Pgc says we arent gonna micromanage we manage the wmu overall. OVerall management is a failure. Those wanting less deer have tools to make it happen.

"4. No matter how a poll is conducted, people are going to interpret it differently according to their personal agenda. For example, if a poll has a category of "fair," Cornie has, in the past, wanted to include that category in with "poor" to demonstrate that hunting is bad. On the other hand, folks who are more optimistic may interpret "fair" as being closer to "good" than "poor."

Agreed. Which is why they should be more definatively worded as to leave no doubt as to intent.

"5. Given the various factors above, any statewide poll is going to mask local realities. If, for example, a statewide poll has 60 precent of hunters identifying deer hunting as fair or worse, you can still have large areas of WMUs or private land where DSM and harvest rates remain outstanding."

1st, I dont believe 60%. I believe more like 80 some to 90% would state fair or worse. Going by those I speak with and have heard voice opinions even more wouldnt be out of the question. would state fair or worse. Second, I have no problem with anyone who is happy with the hunting on their own well managed parcel etc. It is THEY who have a problem with the rest of us demanding proper management. And its usually because they have other interest in the topic moreso than as a hunter.

Lets also try and keep things in perspective here. When you ask people what they think of pgc, the sum of the answers will be FAR more inclusive of distrust and in some cases downright hatred than at any point in history. Alt had to wear a bullet proof vest for cryin out loud! The pgc is being sued. LEgislators petitioned. Pgc having legislative intervention & audits, no fee increase because of low approval, books written about our "deer wars" which are well known nationwide. HEck pgcs own little hand picked poll showed a 41% decline in satisfaction among the same people they had polled a few years previously! That means even less satisfaction than previously as we go along!! And they act as if they cant figure out why! lol. This aint just a petty little "oh well, some are happy some aint" situation! lmao. This is complete and gross mismanagement.

Cornie,

I wasn't really comparing Illinois to PA, but rather using an example from my neck of the woods to illustrate that a decline in absolute numbers is not going to necessarily be reflected in dis-satisfaction by local hunters in any given area where the deer population approaches problem levels. Interesting to note that some folks in PA do compare their state to Illinois in terms of quality of bucks to try to make the same point that you do. However, many of the popular perceptions of Illinois are shaped by what is going on in hotspots like Pike County where much of the land is privately held and many of the huge bucks are taken by private landowners, leasors, or more comonly, people who hire outfitters who are doing QDM. But it would be incorrect for someone in Pike County (or some other hotspot) to say that they could come down to my county and take a B&C buck on a weekend hunt like some do in Pike. Some of us in Illinois often roll our eyes at that kind of hype. By the same token, much of the hype about poor quality in PA seems to be coming from people who hunt WMUs. But then again, other people on this poll who hunt some WMU's have offered perspective that differ from yours. I don't know any of you personally, so pardon me for choosing to stay objective and neither viewing all those folks as shills for the PGC nor viewing you as an unimpeachable source for all of PA.

As for your other objections, they simply help to make my point for having this poll. No offense, but I'm not interested in your opinions of other areas based on your experiences in your local WMUs or what you have "heard" about other WMUs. I wanted to hear the perspectives of the folks who actually hunt those areas.

"As for your other objections, they simply help to make my point for having this poll. No offense, but I'm not interested in your opinions of other areas based on your experiences in your local WMUs or what you have "heard" about other WMUs. I wanted to hear the perspectives of the folks who actually hunt those areas"

Well you got them. From pgc personell (lol, real objective lol), us forestry service employee (gee wonder what they think eh?) and votes from members known to use multiple ids. Dont want to take my and other hunters word on things "all Pa" fine, but lets at least keep things in proper perspective here. :poke: