Very disturbing pgc supports concept of birth control
 

Pgc is pushing the concept of deer birth control, a whacko animal rights concoction. This can be found on the Pa game commission fall deer chronicle. There is no surprise when it comes to pgc being nonhunter friendly but this is a new low.

"Given the unproven nature of these drugs to control or manage a free-ranging deer population, any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances."

Not only are they promoting gonacon on their website, but they are saying they are willing to encourage and facilitate further testing.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...7_20091123.pdf


100% unacceptable imho. Easy to see pgcs going hand in hand with hsus to lobby legislators on other issues was no fluke.

Actually the content of the deer chronicle reference to deer contraception was all oriented toward it NOT being a viable method of controlling the herd. The PGC position was exactly what it should have been. A responsible objective explanation of why it will not be used for now.

To think that anti hunting forces arent waiting and salivating for deer contraception to become more cost and labor efficient is to bury ones head in the sand. Rest assured that once it is made more cost and labor efficient, the antis will be screaming to the legislator for it. We'll be safe as long as the nonhunting public stills views us as the best tool for controlling deer but if that changes we are toast!! Just another reason we DONT want politicians involved any deeper than they are now our wildlife managemnent and we need to absolutely step up and pay our darn bills and not let any outside money come in to wildlife management.

is there a short version of this....no test tube deer?

"Actually the content of the deer chronicle reference to deer contraception was all oriented toward it NOT being a viable method of controlling the herd. The PGC position was exactly what it should have been."

Not even close. They shouldnt have a thing to do with this "antihunting" issue. Period. They didnt say its not a viable yet limited option. They support continuing on with it until it is. If they simply werent against it and thats bad enough. The fact they support it is even worse. Nowhere did i say anything about it being a viable option for controlling the statewide herd, nor is it what was insinuated as the pgc position. It doesnt have to be to be unacceptable. Testing is being supported by pgc. Thats enough in itself. Its 100% unnecessary and from a hunter standpoint 1000% counter productive. Wether you fear its implementation in the future only on a given scale is irrelavent. This shows, once again, how very hunter non-friendly pgc has become. First partnering with audubon (and still are #1 sons) then hsus, now this?

"To think that anti hunting forces arent waiting and salivating for deer contraception to become more cost and labor efficient is to bury ones head in the sand."

I agree. And for pgc to support and facilitate that is absurd imho.

"Rest assured that once it is made more cost and labor efficient, the antis will be screaming to the legislator for it."

And as usual, theyd be ignored. That is, unless they have firm backing making their goals "legit".

" We'll be safe as long as the nonhunting public stills views us as the best tool for controlling deer but if that changes we are toast!! Just another reason we DONT want politicians involved any deeper than they are now our wildlife managemnent and we need to absolutely step up and pay our darn bills and not let any outside money come in to wildlife management. "

The politicians arent the ones who spoke of supporting in state testing of deer birth control. They also arent the ones who petitioned along side sarah speed of hsus previously. They also arent the ones who are running a very hunter nonfriendly deer program with no input from hunters. Sorry but I dont trust them, and they sure as hell are giving me plenty of good reasons not to! Political "check and balance" is absolutely crucial at this point in time. Unfortunately.

More money to encourage this current crew to continue these things??? :bash::bash::bash::bash: Why dont we just pay them triple to bring in Peta and really take care of our wildlife management! I hear they have biologists on staff. They're professionals Theyd never sell us out.:eek2:

Here ya go BTB, if pgc were "hunter friendly" and not run by enviromentalist extremists... THIS would have been the response and the 100% correct one to this issue.

This is exerpts from animal rights site, them speaking in disgust about ohio dnr lack of support for them and for the new deer contraceptive:

"There was a discussion about the need to initiate changes in the ODNR and ODOW in Ohio who are UNRESPONSIVE TO THE CITIZENS THEY SHOULD BE SERVING. The ODNR and ODOW REFUSED to attend and answer questions from concerned citizens. Their ARROGANCY of these state agencies should disturb all citizens of Ohio. Our seminar had a non-confrontational exchange of ideas."

"Although the ODNR and ODOW was invited to this event, they refused to attend and declined our invitations and did everything to stop the event from occuring. The ODNR and ODOW have also blocked the appearances of biologists from the NWRC (National Wildlife Research Center) of the USDA who have created Gona Con a revoloutionary immunocontraceptive. The work NWRC is something that the ODOW does not want Ohio citizens to hear."

"Call the ODNR at 614-265-6565 and the Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODOW District 3 Director Dan Kramer (330-644-2293) or the ODOW state office at 614-265-6300) and ask them if Ohio will change to new technology and change our reputation as a state of barbarians. Let them become aware that the technology is available."

http://www.animalrightsfoundation.com/id7.html

The bottom line and what the deer chronicle simply said is that EPA has approved Gonacon. It then went on to point out all the shortcomings of Gonacon.

It should be obvious that with the drug having been legalized, anti's will be pushing for it as hard as they can particularly in urban areas. The PGC was actually quite critical of its effectiveness and nothing was said that any reasonable person could construe as their promoting it. It actually reads more like they are laying the ground work toward resisting any efforts to use it in PA.

Then i guess i'll have to post it AGAIN.

""Given the unproven nature of these drugs to control or manage a free-ranging deer population, any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances""


Anyone able to read and comprehend, neednt have further explanation so not sure what your problem is. Antis I can understand supporting, but NOT a supposed "game" management agency. Perhaps you didnt understand, the initial approval only gave the decision of use or nonuse would be up to each states wildlife management agency. Also the statement above was made ABOUT PGC being all too eager to grant approval, and was made BY PGC.


I dont care what epa does or doesnt support as you try to deflect the attention to, I dont care what the antis want....I DO care what our game management agency does or doesnt support.


They support nonhunter friendly issues continually these days and this among the worst of them, and they sure as hell do not support US....But they support us paying them more money to screw us over.

Laying the groundwork for PREVENTING it? What the hell did you read from any of this that would lead you to make such an unbased statement? lol. Perhaps you better read the highlighted red again! There should be absolutely NO "GUIDELINES FOR USE" set forth by pgc, because it shouldnt be used in the first damn place including "vigorous testing in the real world" if usage isnt a goal to be considered!! That "testing" suggests the only issue and thing necessary would be to prove it works at decreasing productivity of deer herd. This bullchit has also been tested already, under controlled conditions in at least 3 states now. I fail to see any "groundwork" being laid by pgc to prevent its use here in Pa considering that fact. lol.


Btw, some of the studies currently underway on the topic are being done at pgcs preferred resource study center. Penn State. How many studies have they conducted for/with pgc? Guess this is just one more.

Instead of simply cutting and pasting and posting it again, perhaps you should simply read it again. :violin:

Just curious, you ever seen anyone from pgc walk on water?

There's that reading comprehension problem again. I have openly and aggressively criticized several PGC policies and personell when appropriate.

Just a few examples

The railroaded crossbow inclusion

The infamous flying leap statement (which was adressed and apologized for later)

The infamous more and bigger bucks statement

etc etc etc

The paragraph about Gonacon in the deer chronicle was in no way supportive of it's use. It is realistic for any game agency to anticipate public pressure from anti's and wel meaning non hunters to use it in certain areas. The PGC chose to address the issue rather than ignore the fact that the issue WILL come up.

I think a more appropriate question is whether you can manage to post anything other than an attack on either the PGC or those on here who dont slink away when you start your screaming hissy fits and tantrums.

Take a chill pill, eat some turkey and have a creatine smoothie. Maybe it'll make you feel better. I'm leaving for deer camp so feel free to have the last word. I'll be gone for a week so you'll just have to make a fool of yourself without my help. I'm sure you'll be up to that challenge. I suspect Big Country wont be able to help you either. I heard he is still trying to save his business in the aftermath of your campaign to ruin him. The last time I talked to him he tried to conceal his anxiety over your threats by laughing hysterically but hey, we all deal with fear in different ways.

I think I liked it better when the old blow hard was out in Illinois.

"The paragraph about Gonacon in the deer chronicle was in no way supportive of it's use. It is realistic for any game agency to anticipate public pressure from anti's and wel meaning non hunters to use it in certain areas. The PGC chose to address the issue rather than ignore the fact that the issue WILL come up."

YEah, you mean CAVE to that pressure just as they did with audubon. Course you dont have to CAVE to audubon and hsus type flunkies when those enviromentalist flunkies are running the commission and hsus is one of their newest best friends.

"I think a more appropriate question is whether you can manage to post anything other than an attack on either the PGC or those on here who dont slink away when you start your screaming hissy fits and tantrums. "

And its widely known exactly what you do when you cannot keep up intellectually in a debate. You insult and you lie, not necessarily in that order. And then when that doesnt work lie some more. Then whine about having those lies pointed out. Your above statement is a prime example. Nowhere in this thread have i screamed thrown a hissy fit or anything else which you are noted for. You like to insult when you have no defense for your precious gameless commission (whom evidently a close friend or family member is tangled up in).

Anyway, now that Ive addressed your bullchit, Ill address the issue....Again. The GUIDELINES for USE pretty much says it all to anyone who has a brain in their head, as does the statement that those guidelines will be in regards initially to VIGOROUS REAL WORD TESTING. That doesnt mean it WONT be used it means it WILL BE USED for TESTING purposes at the very least. Then from there...who knows. A PRO hunting agency wouldve nipped it in the bud from day one. But we all know we dont have one of those dont we?

"Take a chill pill, eat some turkey and have a creatine smoothie."

Already done with two of the three today, chill pill not necessary.

"Maybe it'll make you feel better. I'm leaving for deer camp so feel free to have the last word. "

As if i needed your permission to reply to a post. lmao. Is that PA deer camp? Whatsa matter run outta cash? lol:rock:

Bigcountry? What does he have to do with this thread beside your attempt to deflect attention from your foolishness as usual? I think you and he should get together. Birds of a feather. lol. He can shoot a doe in the arse with his bow as he has said he likes to do, and you can lie as you like to do and say he heart shot a 160" 12 pointer. Perfect hunting buddies. lmao.

I also find it to be suspicious that all his chronies started popping up about the same time that he came back.

rolf............ yup some hunters start showing up in between hunting seasons.
and some complain theres no deer in season

Thought Id resurrect this post, since the issue had been mentioned a few times lately, and some may have missed it previously.

Whos pushing for gonacon? Environuts & Animal rights groups.

What has been the response?

From Ohio as told by one such idiot animal rights group, I think it pretty much speaks for itself on Ohios stance:

"
The ODOW and ODNR have blocked speakers from the NWRC from appearing at our seminar in Ohio. Below is a limited information from the NWRC about Gona-Con. We will discuss more at our conference on Thursday, October 20th (see more). The ODOW or ODNR who have been invited will not be present to defend their position as they have declined to appear."


ODNR and ODOW was invited to this event, they refused to attend and declined our invitations and did everything to stop the event from occuring. The ODNR and ODOW have also blocked the appearances of biologists from the NWRC (National Wildlife Research Center) of the USDA who have created Gona Con a revoloutionary immunocontraceptive. The work NWRC is something that the ODOW does not want Ohio citizens to hear.

Please contact Governor Strickland (614-466-3555), your local State Represenative, State Senator, local Mayors and ask for changes at the ODNR and ODOW! They should be working for the citizens of Ohio and not ignoring us.

Call Govenor Strickland (614-466-3555) tell him we need our state agencies to be responsive. Please call The Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (ODNR)

---------------------------------------------

What do MOST states think about birthcontrol/gonacon?

"few states had a policy" "and most biologists indicated the agencies would NOT likely grant a research permit for deer fertility research"...
----------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania's stance?:

"Given the unproven nature of these drugs to control or manage a free-ranging deer population, any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances."



I see pgc being an exception here. No wonder seeing as how close theyve come to be with audubon. That little stunt going hand in hand with hsus spokeswoman to petition legislators seems a bit more meaningful now as well, when you consider thats exactly who is pushing for this birth control.

Here's everything that the PGC has said publicly about deer birth control that I could find....



While it's not quite the response that Ohio had, it is certainly nothing even close to an endorsement. As a matter of fact, it's very skeptical of the idea of deer contraception

Id agree with Skeptical, but only in the sense of it meaning it may or may not work as intended. (I could use for example say, Im skeptical that our fee increase prevention may not have the desired effect, but doesnt mean I dont support it)... But thats not what the matter of debate is. Its not wether they are sure or not of the effectiveness etc. The issue is, Should they support using it at all in the first place? I say HELL NO! And its clear they are going to grant permission to do so!! Thats my point and thats 100% wrong. Especially when the many apparently more hunter friendly states.... Who arent having excessive and extreme deer plans in place etc. say they will not endorse this nonsense.

The Quote you posted from the pgc site says it all in its conclusion at the bottom of the page which ive quoted quite a few times now, and the rest of it hasnt much of anything to do with them supporting or not supporting usage for any purposes. The conclusion sums it up. "any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances."

That is exactly the opposite of saying "no we will NOT be endorsing this or granting permission for use by groups for testing or any other purpose in "real world circumstances" (real world in this instance meaning not limited to fenced areas as all testing was previously limited to) anytime in the near future period.

I guess we just have a different read between the lines interperetation. I take that statemnent as a realistic pre-emptive approach to the inevitable court challenge from PETA and HSUS to force the stuff on us

We're going to see some changes that's for sure.As the hunter numbers dwindle the PGC won't be able to operate from hunter license fees.Will they be funded by a general fund or will dcnr and the PGC combine?
If the general fund supports them how will the pitt-rob funds come into play?That again comes from hunter's monies and there's a certain guideline to follow to receive those funds.
Soon enough Gary Alt's wish will come true and the old coots will hang er up or in his words die off.
For the sake of hunting in revenue generated that won't be a good thing.
And with all that the question is....will there be enough hunters to keep the deer populations where they want them?
Maryland and Ohio couldn't do it.Had to call in the PA troops to help out.;)

Btb, why should they take the "court actions" any more seriously from Peta, than they did usp?

The usp threat of action didnt cause them to blink, even though they had reasonable concerns.... Yet they give creedence to the biggest whack jobs on the planet in peta in regards to such an extreme antihunter type subject?

I dont get it. As for "having to" i aint buying it. Not when other states want nothing to do with the stuff and couldnt give a crap less about peta.

This thread is bogus. The title is a lie.

Not even close. But your pot strirring post qualifies. Nice seeing you try to stir the pot further after having seen the other thread with btb's personal attacks.

Sorry, but I'll not bite on that quite obvious trolling attempt.

For the few who didnt believe when pgc said they supported gonacon, does this new statement make things a bit clearer for you? How you like the ecoextreme commission now fellas?

"Given the number of deer-human conflicts in many communities across the Commonwealth and the public interest in improved urban deer control, many citizens and public officials and managers likely will view this new product as a viable option for their deer management issues. The Commission staff has reviewed the existing agency policy manual and found it silent with respect to these products. To promote a clear public expectation as to Commission policy relative to the use of fertility control agents in the Commonwealth with respect to wildlife population control the following policy statement was formulated and is presented for adoption.


PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION
POLICY MANUAL

Natural Resource Conservation
2.30 Actions

E. Fertility Control Agents


Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments. The Game Commission recognizes that species overabundance in localized or isolated areas is often largely influenced by landscape features and human manipulation of the environment, and these factors may not be easily modified. Therefore, when hunting methods are not adequately controlling wildlife populations, the Game Commission considers alternate methods that complement current

management efforts including properly approved and registered fertility control agents. Fertility control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populations to healthy or socially acceptable levels.


Application of any wildlife fertility control will be based on appropriate science and species population biology. Educational efforts to disseminate information on scientifically sound solutions for reducing problems with overabundant wildlife, including limitations of wildlife fertility control will be made available to the public. If fertility control agents prove to be safe, humane, and effective methods for resolving human-wildlife conflicts associated with overabundant species, the Game Commission may authorize their use.


Recommendation: The Executive Director and staff recommend the Commission approve this policy statement."


With everything going on, its WAAAAY past time to show these jokers the door.

Man oh man. I'm speechless.

Oh yea, this thread is really bogus alright. Not too much gray area in the information Cornellius just dug up.

WHat's the difference between sharp shooters and conception?

If hunters can't/won't get the job of wildlife management done then it is time
to look to other "tools".

Alt tried to warm you guys 10 years ago in his tours but some where too clueless to get the message.

WV Gino

QUOTE]"WHat's the difference between sharp shooters and conception?'
[/quote]

contraception is deemed a "hot button" antihunter issue, and rightfully so. There are so many reasons to be against it i dont even know where to start... I know the "safety" proclamation was made, but who would like to inject the next deer they take before they fry it up with some onions?.....Its safe, till ten years from now when we cant figure out where our third testicle came from, of its found traces of the substance lead to "only" a 5% greater risk of other health issues... Its another foreign substance going somewhere it shouldnt!

Sharp shooters = dead deer. No infertile polluted masses roaming the woods. Sharpshooters arent as far separated from "hunting" either.


This also opens the door WIDE for antis, as this is a DREAM come true. Ive posted the links where theyve screamed, begged wailed for it. Ive also shown appropriate response of other states management agencies....NO SUPPORT.

Hunters have gotten the job done. And where hunting isnt permissible, sharpshooter etc. can do it just fine. With this borderline antihunting agency in control, I dont think anyone is surprised this has arisen and been embraced at elmerton for the mostpart.

Alt said alot of things that didnt come true. Even some of the pgc supporters speak of how extreme and ridiculous his views were. But then again, who would know better than he, what type was in control? Noone took him seriously on the issue of birth control etc. Because it was so extreme. But he knew exactly who was running this show.

Nice touch, the bashing again. Two posts in a row that youve made. First Im a loudmouth in the audubon thread now stupid. 2 for 2. Ive seen people banned here recently for less, so you might wanna rethink your debate strategy. :wave:

But to address your issue, I guess other states management and biologists were all too stupid as well. Seeing as they still have in most cases higher deer densities and higher hunter satisfaction than ours...and get this.....They DONT support contraception in most, or if you believe shissler...ANY other state.

What part of "Always" didnt you understand?

Oh yes, Gino is correct, Alt did predict this. Rest assured that the 92% will agree to whatever it takes if the 8% cant get it done. The current approach is a sensible way of getting out in front of something that will inevitably come up.

A situation was on the Pittsburgh TV news just last night. Churchill Boro is asking for sharpshooters to take out some deer. Of course the tube boobs reporting the thing called it hunting. They followed up by interviewing a resident for her opinion. She wants someone to shoo them deeper into the woods! lol!

When Fox Chapel had a problem, they were told to try a controlled hunt first. They started a bowhunting program which is still in effect and still working today. While it proved effective, it wasn't quite enough. Only then did the PGC approve the sharpshooters. To this day, the sharpshooting still isn't done in parts of the Boro where bowhunters are doing the job.

Allegheny County Parks are another example. The PGC told them to do a controlled hunt first. It's working.

This proposal simply lays the goundwork for the same type of procedure when some municipality tries to go right to contraception without first working toward a successful hunting program. It gives the PGC a workable way to say NO.

To say that the proposal shows support for deer contraception is like claiming that a guy who puts up a tent did it becaues he wants it to rain. The PGC is simply being realistic by preparing for something that may come their way.

>Nice touch, the bashing again. Two posts in a row that youve made. First Im a loudmouth in the audubon thread now stupid. 2 for 2. Ive seen people banned here recently for less, so you might wanna rethink your debate strategy.

I have not bashed a single member of hunting.net in my last two posts. My comments were aimed at no one in particular. Ypu guys reffers to the PA sport hunting community.

There are members of the almost 1 million licensed hunters in PA that my comments do hit dead on.

It would be like banning someone who stated " there are corrput politicians".

WV Gino

Yep, Ginos comments singled out no one. Lets not get carried away here.

If thats bashing then you need to go back and clean up your posts and remove all ecoextremist and similar references. The recent banning was for squarely directed personal attacks and flaming from what I saw. The mods have thankfully started clamping down here and the member(s) who ignored the warnings got banned.

Nice cover gino Way to "veil" your insults. But 1 million hunters didnt complain about contraception and pgcs newfound acceptance, most arent even aware and you know it. It was I.

It also wasnt 1 million hunters who spoke of the pavillion when you chose to insult. Again, it was I.

Besides even if you point to bashing us in general as hunters....This IS a hunter message board, not a peta board where hunters go to be bashed. IF one of them came here saying things youre sayng theyd be here about 5 minutes total before being shown the door.

"What part of "Always" didnt you understand?"

I understood that ALWAYS doesnt mean ALWAYS when there is a "but" involved! lol. Youre kidding me right? Thats the best you have to address this atrocity pgc is once again committing?

"Oh yes, Gino is correct, Alt did predict this. Rest assured that the 92% will agree to whatever it takes if the 8% cant get it done. The current approach is a sensible way of getting out in front of something that will inevitably come up."

But isnt it a tad bit odd huge majority of other states dont agree (according to shissler findingss). Oh thats right, thats our fine pgc, always leading the way! lol. Youre argument also holds no water because we DID get "it" done. Pgc said reduction was successful, so only see your lack of a point.

Pgc supports contraception and its 100% unacceptable. The suggestion was made by the staff to have a "procrontraception" policy. We will see what our "fine" boc is made of. IF they have any semblance of hunter representation at all in them, this will be voted down. But that will do nothing to "purge" the commission of these "people".

Lots of opinion in your post but I notice you didnt have an answer for the current policy regarding the only current alternative and thats the sharpshooting. Thats not hunting either. The PGC propsal is simply getting ahead of yet another undesirable solution to urban/suburban deer overpoulation. Rest assured that it WILL be brought up by the anti's now that it's FDA approved. Having a well thought out policy in place before it does only makes sense.



Where's your proof of this allegation? Sorry but I really doubt that thats is true but if it is please show us.........

Its pretty clear that you say just about anything to support your views or those doing the same. Ecoextremism isnt a completely tasteless remark, its a factual occurring condition of many groups and or individuals. Its not a personal attack, slam or other....Its like saying your voice is loud. Its a description and not one intended as insult. And its not a thinly disguised slam (as ginos calling me/us stupid loudmouths was) also ecoextemism isnt directed to anyone in the conversation, i make sure there are no misunderstandings. When i speak of that, its in regard to pgc or audubon or whoever else. And its accurate by definition. Would be no difference than saying someone is extreme in their support and love of hunting. But Its ok for us because we see being hardcore hunters as a good thing but we dont feel the same about environmental extremism. I cant speak for everyone, but many of us dont.

Course we both know that was nothing more than an attempt to take the attention away form ginos always inappropriate comments.

"Where's your proof of this allegation? Sorry but I really doubt that thats is true but if it is please show us"

Sure. No problem. I guess you missed both statements:

The most recent: PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION
POLICY MANUAL

Natural Resource Conservation
2.30 Actions

E. Fertility Control Agents


Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments. The Game Commission recognizes that species overabundance in localized or isolated areas is often largely influenced by landscape features and human manipulation of the environment, and these factors may not be easily modified. Therefore, when hunting methods are not adequately controlling wildlife populations, the Game Commission considers alternate methods that complement current

management efforts including properly approved and registered fertility control agents. Fertility control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populations to healthy or socially acceptable levels.


Application of any wildlife fertility control will be based on appropriate science and species population biology. Educational efforts to disseminate information on scientifically sound solutions for reducing problems with overabundant wildlife, including limitations of wildlife fertility control will be made available to the public. If fertility control agents prove to be safe, humane, and effective methods for resolving human-wildlife conflicts associated with overabundant species, the Game Commission may authorize their use.


Recommendation: The Executive Director and staff recommend the Commission approve this policy statement."




AND Previously;;

"Given the unproven nature of these drugs to control or manage a free-ranging deer population, any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances."




I dont think we need any explanation. Its pretty clear. You can make any excuses you like about lawsuits and antihunter demands etc.... But that doesnt explain all the other states DO NOT support this. What does that say about pgc? I think it says quite a bit. Not that most of us are surprised.

Back to the topic....

Guess audubon is once again getting what they want.

"Mainstream environmental groups including the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club have endorsed hunting, either instead of or in combination with birth control, in places where animals are seriously harming ecosystems or spreading Lyme disease."

Seriously harming ecosystems? Hmm. According to audubon that the entire state including our gamelands. Thats a rather vague reference.:s8:

Another interesting tid-bit....From the epa gonacon fact sheet:


"P

Sorry but your requote from the deer chronicles has no such suggestion and no such referral to a "procontaception" policy.

So do you have any real proof or not?

Was a very convenient ad on the right hand of this page. Glaring example of all these "safe" products only to find out later they are anything but; Also interesting how things like this are so poorly judged ahead of time and they actually go DIRECTLY into the human body!

http://www.youhavealawyer.com/yaz/in...Feh_5QodhR9lyw

So which do you prefer in your venision steak? A little garlic salt? Or a liberal spritz of gonacon? lol.



I dont think hunters support this new pgc policy. I dont think the majority of the states residents would either. They are prohunting for the mostpart and I think they are more than reasonable enough to agree with us that this is extreme, unnecessary, nonhunter friendly, and actually kinda nasty to top it all off. lol.


Maybe you were posting while i was posting (SEE POST #35). The proofs in that post and as i said previously, its not debatable. If you think that it is, then find someone else who believes likewise to debate it with. Id prefer to stick to the facts instead of discussing self manufactured completely unsupported damage control for 10 pages when the facts are as stated right there as plain as the nose on our faces. Pgc has made their policy known, and i disagree with it strongly.

BTB,

Is there something in all that red type, in the post above, that suggests to you that the PGC is anticontraceptive?

Please point out the words that tell you the PGC is against using birth control.

"vigorous real world testing"

IS Something they support And IS use.


"Application of any wildlife fertility control will be based on appropriate science and species population biology"

Application? Hey wait a minute...Isnt that a synonym for... U-S-E. lol.

Would any of this be said if there were a NO USE policy? lol. Unreal.