Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
The Paranoid PGC >

The Paranoid PGC

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

The Paranoid PGC

Old 10-21-2009, 08:04 AM
  #11  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

All due apologies there Gino. I read quickly and thought i was reading sarcasm. Maybe i was just in disbelief and denial that we actually agreed? lol.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:40 AM
  #12  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

The PGC has dropped the need to register before accessing the AWR. Take a look at the dramatic increase in breeding rates. I wonder how that happened when breeding rates were decreasing prior to 2008.
Also note they dropped the data on the dates of conception since ARs didn't decrease the breeding window as predicted.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:51 AM
  #13  
Giant Nontypical
 
bawanajim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
If it worked for you , please post the section on breeding rates and productivity.

BTW, if you used my personal information to set up an account with the PGC, you are guilty of identity theft, so you might want to delete that account!!!
I hope you don't mind me signing you up with QDMA and a couple of cross bow companys, I kinda figured you can't get enough of a good thing.
bawanajim is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 09:01 AM
  #14  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Funny thing is we were told that breeding rates etc. would IMPROVE. That was back in 2000,2001,2002 etc. when things were supposedly so terrible. Whats funny is that we have only this year even been able to MATCH the percentage of adult doe bred back in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc. Still no improvement after all these years. I think its time to drop that "measurement" as they did the breeding timing. I think we've seen enough.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 02:42 PM
  #15  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Take a look at the dramatic increase in breeding rates. I wonder how that happened when breeding rates were decreasing prior to 2008.
Could it be that RSB's explanations for the anomaly in the breeding rates prior to this report are beginning to look pretty accurate? Looks like his information about sampling emphasis holds some water after all.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:23 PM
  #16  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Could it be that RSB's explanations for the anomaly in the breeding rates prior to this report are beginning to look pretty accurate?
No, RSB explanation was pure unadulterated horse puckey and I proved it using the PGC data. Nothing in the sampling protocol or distribution has changed from 2007 to 2008 to account for the 5% increase in breeding rates. Furthermore, since the PGC is still using 3 year averages , the change in breeding rates from 2007 to 2008 has to be much greater than 5% to raise the 3 year average by 5%.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 04:37 PM
  #17  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
No, RSB explanation was pure unadulterated horse puckey and I proved it using the PGC data. Nothing in the sampling protocol or distribution has changed from 2007 to 2008 to account for the 5% increase in breeding rates. Furthermore, since the PGC is still using 3 year averages , the change in breeding rates from 2007 to 2008 has to be much greater than 5% to raise the 3 year average by 5%.
Not quite,
Your "proof" contained hypothetical numbers made up and inserted by you to make your point. A hypothetical, "what if" example might help to demonstarte a concept but it is not a way to prove whats really happening. RSB told us that the decline in breeding rates could have been inaccurate because it was a fact that the sampling emphasis had shifted from area with traditionally higher breeding rates to areas where they had traditionally been lower. You tried to disprove that by pulling numbers out of thin air.

Do you really want us to provide the link showing your attempted deception???

You asked why the breeding rates look better now. RSB provided your answer months ago. It's quite likely that the breeding rates are simply more accurate much like the doe mortality from hunting is probably now more accurate.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 04:51 PM
  #18  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Default

cornball?man it's been a long time since I ate one of them.
Now I'm hungry dang nabbit.
germain is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 04:57 PM
  #19  
Nontypical Buck
 
Sniper151's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cornwall, Pa.
Posts: 1,720
Default

Like all politicians, they are covering their butts. Next thing you know there will be tea parties protesting the PGC.
Sniper151 is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 05:10 PM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Not quite,
Your "proof" contained hypothetical numbers made up and inserted by you to make your point. A hypothetical, "what if" example might help to demonstarte a concept but it is not a way to prove whats really happening. RSB told us that the decline in breeding rates could have been inaccurate because it was a fact that the sampling emphasis had shifted from area with traditionally higher breeding rates to areas where they had traditionally been lower. You tried to disprove that by pulling numbers out of thin air.
Wrong again!! I specifically provided PGC data that showed the majority of the doe that were checked ,after breeding rates declined,were still in the southern tier counties with the highest breeding rates.

You asked why the breeding rates look better now. RSB provided your answer months ago. It's quite likely that the breeding rates are simply more accurate much like the doe mortality from hunting is probably now more accurate.
Yesterday 11:23 PM
Wrong again. RSB provided his opinion of why breeding rates declined and he was wrong, just like the doe mortality stats were wrong and your claim that 80% of the deer that died in 2G died from natural causes was simply insane.
bluebird2 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.