|
Nice spinning rant but answer the question directly.How much money has the PGC recieved from DCNR and the timber industry? Who paid it out,how much did they recieve and who specificaLLYrecieved it?
|
Originally Posted by DougE
(Post 3412696)
And the PGC benefited how?Did officials from DCNR and the timber industry pay off the boc?
|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3412921)
Obviously you are just being silly. You know full well that DCNR blackmailed the PGC to get the HR necessary for forest certification.
Just another unfounded accusation. to use words you often use: Prove it! |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3412921)
Obviously you are just being silly. You know full well that DCNR blackmailed the PGC to get the HR necessary for forest certification.
Will decoder rings be necessary and at what settings or will standard tailwhite retrieval methods suffice? :alien: |
At one point,DCNR was told to do what ever was politically necessary to convince the PGC to let them reduce the herds on the state forests in order to get their forests recertified.For a short period of time,DCNR put a moratorium on the transfer of any land to the PGC.Therefore,they did in fact blackmail the PGC.However,they did not pay the PGC off and the PGC did not gain financially by any of this.So I ask once again.If this is all about money,who paid off who an how did the PGC benefit. financially?
|
Originally Posted by BTBowhunter
(Post 3412963)
Just another unfounded accusation. to use words you often use: Prove it!
As a former employee is it that you have some inside information you'd like to share with us, or were you sworn to secrecy? Deer Wars By Bob Frye Pg 71 http://books.google.com/books?id=NeH...20dmap&f=false |
Mr. Idiot shissler who had been up to his arse in just about everything to do with pgc and the antideer reduction (on sportsmens gov. advisory committee, on deer management team, took part in audubon deer study sham, worked for wmi, etc. etc. etc. Was also involved in the certification. Interestingly he was also a dcnr consultant.
Couple that with the land moratorium. Toss in veneskys axing for being prohunter and not antideer and i think the blackmail is pretty clear to anyone whoms head isnt up their own backside. I think anyone reading the posts could tell the "money" was meant as the additional money the timber industry expects to make. |
Originally Posted by bawanajim
(Post 3412974)
As a former employee is it that you have some inside information you'd like to share with us, or were you sworn to secrecy?:patriot:
Will decoder rings be necessary and at what settings or will standard tailwhite retrieval methods suffice? :alien: |
Originally Posted by BTBowhunter
(Post 3412963)
Just another unfounded accusation. to use words you often use: Prove it!
The relationship between D.C.N.R. and P.G.C. changes regularly and can be hard to track. For instance, early in 2004, the Secretary of D.C.N.R., Michael DiBerardinis, directed that D.C.N.R. grant funds not be used to help acquire game lands. 6 This step apparently arose out of frustration on the part of the D.C.N.R. Secretary with the Game Commission’s lack of action on D.C.N.R.’s recommendations to reduce the deer herd. Because D.C.N.R. lacks direct jurisdictional control of the deer on its own land, this move was intended to emphasize the depth of the agency’s concern over P.G.C.’s failure to act on its recommendations. |
2 a : extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution b : the payment that is extorted — blackmail transitive verb — black·mail·er noun First of all, withholding grants not already agreed to or the transfer of additional lands does not constitute blackmail. Second, The relationship between D.C.N.R. and P.G.C. changes regularly and can be hard to track. For instance, early in 2004, the Secretary of D.C.N.R., Michael DiBerardinis, directed that D.C.N.R. grant funds not be used to help acquire game lands. 6 This step apparently arose out of frustration on the part of the D.C.N.R. Secretary with the Game Commission’s lack of action on D.C.N.R.’s recommendations to reduce the deer herd. Because D.C.N.R. lacks direct jurisdictional control of the deer on its own land, this move was intended to emphasize the depth of the agency’s concern over P.G.C.’s failure to act on its recommendations. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:10 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.