"The bird and the cornhole"

Not exactly funny, nor did it help your argument one bit.

claim lies."

Because you do nothing but.


"% of doe bred in 2002 93%

% of doe bred in 2008 93%

Yet the bird has claimed multiple times that breeding rates declined"

I think you missed years in between of DECLINE! lmao. Another attempt at deciet. SO weve had several years of decline and now are finally back to the level we were in 2000 etc. lmao. We were supposed to improve above and beyond the level pre-failed program.

"Now as for the cornhole, you know, the guy who's only "proof" of just about anything is to simply yell it out early and often......"

Another lie.

"He claims 2A should and can support far more deer yet it has the second worst embryo per doe rate in the state. It also has the third worst regeneration rate in the state. yet he screams bloody murder about too few deer where there are clearly too many. "

Too few absolutely if speaking of being far below the actual cc, and we have too many if we are speaking of the pgc/audubon goal of a forest floor completely covered with trillium and hobblebush and other unnatural conditions noone but pgc & econuts care about. We had nearly double the overwinter deer and the herd health measures were better by far then they are now. AND on an improving trend regenerationwise from the first habitat assessments to the second. Then once herd reduction is supposedly done, we drop thanks to "biodiversity friendly" changes to the guidelines? lmao. Thanks but no thanks.

"BTW, the deer density in 2A dropped a whopping 1% from 2004 to 2008. I believe Cornhole has referred to that as a slaughter"

Do you ever feel stupid or have you no pride? A prideful man wouldve stopped making posts such as yours a helluva long time ago. You argue tooth and nail and never have a single damn clue what the heck you are spewing about. lol. Word to the "wise" lmfao! First off the chart shows no change if at 1.00. That means the herd is 100% of what it was the year before. If it is 1.02 that means 2 percent higher than the year before and if its at .98 that would mean 2% less than the year before. Do you know what ONE PERCENT is? it is .o1. Thats right POINT -01! Now considering according to the annual report, in 2A the density declined by .03 (three percent) in 2004, increased by only .01 in 2005 and declined .07 in 2006 and by .09 in 2007 and .04 in 2008.... And all that was SINCE we were supposed to be in stabilization mode. Taking that into account on top of all the other reduction occurring previously and yes, i think the term "slaughter" is more than appropriate.

Now perhaps you'd like to show all us dimwits how you got 1% you friggin genius!!! lmfao.

Quit while you are behind....Or tell some lies and cast some insults to cover up your figuring skills.

.....ONE PERCENT! ha ha ha!

BTW, I see in the other thread you stated you got lymes disease AGAIN....First you had it, then you said you found out you never did when told you exhibit the classic symptoms then denied having it, now all of a sudden not only do you have it....But you have it AGAIN. Sounds like lie # 234,098,988.....But then again what do I know? According to you, I just yell liar liar at you all the time for no reason! lmao.

It is really pathetic when a know-it -all like you isn't even smart enough to use the data from the AWR correctly. in 2001 22% of 78% of the buck harvested were 1.5 buck, not 82% as you claimed. Furthermore,before any bucks were saved by ARs the 2.5+ buck harvest was 32% of the buck harvest .

Wrong again and another outright lie. In 2001 2.5 buck were 22 % of the harvest and we harvested 44,700 2.5+ buck. But the only valid comparison is to compare the 2002 harvest with the 2008 harvest. In 2002 we harvested 52,900 bucks and they were 32 % of the harvest. In 2008, we harvested 59,200 buck and they were 48% of the harvest. Therefore, ARs only increased the 2.5+ buck by 11% ,which is no where close to a double.

That is both foolish and intentionally deceitful,since the data clearly shows that the breeding rates decreased from 93% in 2002 to 88% in 2007.

Guess hes really battin' 1000 today eh? lmao.

Wrong again skippy!

I quoted directly from the AWR and you are simply putting your warped spin on it because you don't like the results. Here is a direst copy and paste right from the AWR



The rest of what I used was also taken IN CONTEXT straight from the report. Sorry if it bothers you read the real facts without your twists.

I see you have a new tactic. I guess your version of proof is now to yell in red. Sorry bub, it aint workin either. LOL

I used the years when the dmp started and the most recent year. The net change has been zero. Use any years you like. The end result is that the rate has stayed the same not declined as you and the bird have claimed over and over.

Obviously you choose to ignore the facts. Do you have any evidence to support you theory that I cant wait to see your proof! Reminder: Yelling it again, even in red still doesn't qualify as proof.

In 2004 the number was .97 in 2008 it was .96

Sorry they must not teach basic math in Greene County

Not that you deserve an explanation. I was diagnosed as having a current case earlier this year and then they retested and recanted that saying it was antibodies from a prior bout. I then got a tick bite in August which produced the bullseye rash and it was cleared up quickly with antibiotics. As always you open your piehole without having the facts.

Here is what you posted in the post to which I replied.

That is the buck harvest data from 2000 ,not 2001 as you claimed. the 2001 buck harvest was 44,700 2.5+ buck which was 22% of the buck harvest. The first year of ARs was 2002 and we harvested 52,900 buck and they were 32% of the harvest.

That makes you a documented liar.

I stand correctd. The 2001 harvest WAS 78% not 82%.

Doesnt make me a liar, it simply means I made a mistake and I am happy to man up to it.

(Of course I could take a Bluebird approach and claim that the harvest was 2002 since there would be some deer killed after Jan 1 but I choose not to twist the numbers the way you often do)

Again, I simply used the wrong year. 2000-2001 is actually the 2000 harvest. My bad!

Too bad for you it doesnt change anything.................

My original point was twofold. First that we were harvesting ABOUT 80% of our yearlings now we're harvesting about half. The point stands even though I mistakenly took the wrong year. I meant to take the last harvest before AR which is the 2001 harvest.

You conveniently dodged the second point. That the harvest of 2.5 bucks now is roughly half of the harvest and the number of the 2.5+ harvest is way up. You have repeatedly said the raw numbers of harvest of 2.5+ was down post AR and since you said it many times and have chosen NOT to recant (as I did my slip) You sir are the proven, pathalogical liar.

You also have said over and over that breeding rates are down when they have indeed not changed over time. Another Bluebird lie. (well stuck to though!)

Sorrry, once again that the new information upsets you so.

Once again you are lying. the only time I said the 2.5 + buck was lower than in 2002 was when the 2007 .2.5+ buck harvest was 48,000 compared to 52,900 in 2002,before any bucks were saved by ARs.

I have repeatedly said breeding rates decreased from 93% in 2000 to 88% in 2007 and the PGC stats prove that I was right and that once again you are lying to cover your butt.

However , you proved you are dumber than a stump when you posted that the herd in 2A only decreased by 1% when the data you posted shows that the herd decreased by at least 3% in at least 4 of the last 5 years and the year that there was an increase it was only 1%.

so you have a choice, are you a liar or are you just exceedingly ignorant?

The bottom line is that you have claimed over and over that we have fewer 2.5+ bucks and that overall herd and forest health have declined with the current DMP. It's obvious with the latest AWR that the plan is smoothing itself out and you simply cant accept it.

You and Corny can twist, distort, yell and yap all you want but the current DMP is here to stay

That is a flat out lie and I challenge you to quote my posts where I said what you claim. The data presented in the 2008 AWR shows that HR and ARs did absolutely nothing to improve herd health. productivity or the breeding window. Furthermore , you are so dumb that you proved you don't understand the data that shows the herd has been decreasing in 2A while at the same time you claim Cornelius is lying.