PA doe tags Going Going..... soon to be gone!!!
08-20-2009 | 07:37 AM
#321
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Maybe if you point out who said that pgc benefitted financially doug, they'll adress it? Ive reread this thread and cant find where anyone has done this.
I dont know that pgc has been paid off by anyone. Though with current levels of corruption, i wouldnt doubt it. Cant prove it, so dont use that as an argument. Dont need to with all the other blackmail and politics running deer management. Imho thats absolutely no better. Hardly makes sense dcnr would have to pay guys that are appointed and can be fired by the head of dcnr...the governor.
I dont know that pgc has been paid off by anyone. Though with current levels of corruption, i wouldnt doubt it. Cant prove it, so dont use that as an argument. Dont need to with all the other blackmail and politics running deer management. Imho thats absolutely no better. Hardly makes sense dcnr would have to pay guys that are appointed and can be fired by the head of dcnr...the governor.
DCNR is benefitting because they no longer have to spend millions of dollars fencing off their timber sales.While I don't agree with DCNR's mission on everything,they've been pretty fourthright on what they want and why they wanted it.
08-20-2009 | 08:05 AM
#322
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
No , that isn't even close to a logical conclusion. From the beginning it was about more money for DCNR and the timber industry and DCNR blackmailed the PGC and used the political pressure to force the PGC to reduce the herd. The PGC actually lost money since they didn't get their license fee increase.
08-20-2009 | 08:13 AM
#323
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
No , that isn't even close to a logical conclusion. From the beginning it was about more money for DCNR and the timber industry and DCNR blackmailed the PGC and used the political pressure to force the PGC to reduce the herd. The PGC actually lost money since they didn't get their license fee increase.
08-20-2009 | 08:54 AM
#324
Typical Buck
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
From:
Not the PGC's money, anyway. Other than indirect result of the sportsmen's opposition resulting in a hold on any license increase. Part of me wants to feel bad for the PGC getting the shaft out of the whole thing, taking the wrap so to speak, but on the other hand if they would have stood against DCNR and the ecolobbyists and Rendells clowns they would have had the hunters support and I belive the license fees they need. Every choice yields a consequence. This is theirs.
08-20-2009 | 09:25 AM
#325
Typical Buck
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
From: 2G Gaines Pa
Not the PGC's money, anyway. Other than indirect result of the sportsmen's opposition resulting in a hold on any license increase. Part of me wants to feel bad for the PGC getting the shaft out of the whole thing, taking the wrap so to speak, but on the other hand if they would have stood against DCNR and the ecolobbyists and Rendells clowns they would have had the hunters support and I belive the license fees they need. Every choice yields a consequence. This is theirs.
08-20-2009 | 12:17 PM
#326
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Yep,so it wasn't done for money then,was it?
08-20-2009 | 03:40 PM
#328
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
If you had to ask that question you really are hopeless and have learned absolutely nothing from our years of debating these issues.
but,since I am a kind hearted individual who has sympathy for the uninformed I will once again quote from the SCS Report, or maybe it was the Audubon Conference Report.
fewer deer equals more tweety birds.
but,since I am a kind hearted individual who has sympathy for the uninformed I will once again quote from the SCS Report, or maybe it was the Audubon Conference Report.
Above 8 DPSM you lose the preferred herb and shrub species ,songbird abundance declines =diversity carrying capacity
