View Poll Results: Has herd reduction gone too far in your area of Pa?
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll
Pa Hunters Poll
12-19-2009, 06:02 PM
#91
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Ignoring what was actually said in poor damage control attempt. Fact is, pgc supports birth control "vigorous real world testing" in Pennsylvania. How effective it is or isnt is not in question. Its the fact they are willing to support it. There ARE groups that think it very effective. Nuts. Guess pgc likes catering to nuts these days... Permitting audubon to have a huge say in all matters including our game lands & deer management program.... Lobbying the legislators with hsus's own Sarah Speed for crying out loud, and supporting contraception.
Most other states do not support it, and you've been shown the examples of how NOT to support it. Did pgc do that? Hell no! They did just the opposite. You posting of partial quotes from the piece that do absolutely nothing to counter that fact are 100% meaningless.
They are currently supporting contraception. You have nothing to post to change that fact unless they do an about face and completely change that position. Whenever something comes available to change this:
""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'll be interested in seeing it. Till then all you're wasting type in a very inadequate damage control attempt. but dont hold your breath while looking for a change in their pro-contraception policy. It wont be coming soon from an agency that currently supports the audubon antideer agenda and calls hunters crybabies & also calls them headaches right on their web page. As if this contraception crap is a huge surprise coming from this crew! lmao.
Most other states do not support it, and you've been shown the examples of how NOT to support it. Did pgc do that? Hell no! They did just the opposite. You posting of partial quotes from the piece that do absolutely nothing to counter that fact are 100% meaningless.
They are currently supporting contraception. You have nothing to post to change that fact unless they do an about face and completely change that position. Whenever something comes available to change this:
""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'll be interested in seeing it. Till then all you're wasting type in a very inadequate damage control attempt. but dont hold your breath while looking for a change in their pro-contraception policy. It wont be coming soon from an agency that currently supports the audubon antideer agenda and calls hunters crybabies & also calls them headaches right on their web page. As if this contraception crap is a huge surprise coming from this crew! lmao.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-19-2009 at 06:12 PM.
12-19-2009, 06:16 PM
#92
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Here are the type pushing for this b.s. contraception that pgc is all too willing to support.
http://www.animalrightsfoundation.com/id7.html
Notice Ohio knows how to handle such issues. Course nationally respected Tonkovich hasnt had the credibility issues our agency has, nor even close.
http://www.animalrightsfoundation.com/id7.html
Notice Ohio knows how to handle such issues. Course nationally respected Tonkovich hasnt had the credibility issues our agency has, nor even close.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-19-2009 at 06:19 PM.
12-19-2009, 06:23 PM
#93
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Id say those are some pretty uncalled for personal attacks. What are you trying to do? Get this thread deleted so noone sees these results or this less than pgc supportive posts??
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-20-2009 at 07:27 AM.
12-19-2009, 06:34 PM
#94
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
When he resorts to these tactics, I would say it's indication that he has nothing left to counter you with and his butt has been whipped. Declare a victory Cornelius.
12-19-2009, 06:50 PM
#95
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Nothing to counter. I tried several times to politely explain the use of the english language in the deer chronicle and with that failing, I offered some self help sites for Cornelius. Then, of course, we can always expect maverick to jump in at the end with a meaningless statement with, of course, no orginal thought of his own. I'm not sure there are any sites that will help you with that.
12-19-2009, 07:16 PM
#96
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
I think the statement in red posted umpteen times pretty much speaks for itself.
Those links btb posted were nothing more than personal attacks attempting to draw me into a 95 page battle to take the attention away from the facts of the matter.
And yes mav, i think that pretty accurate.
Those links btb posted were nothing more than personal attacks attempting to draw me into a 95 page battle to take the attention away from the facts of the matter.
And yes mav, i think that pretty accurate.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-19-2009 at 07:27 PM.
12-19-2009, 08:10 PM
#97
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Using GonaCon on the deer herd would make zero sense. Do any of you chicken Littles realize the number of shooters it would take to innoculate enough deer to make a difference? It does not work on fawns either. You guys are really scratching hard for something to bitch about. The only use I could see is in very heavily populated urban areas where hunting them is not an option. Like on the face of Mt Washington in Pittsburgh for instance. If you think they are going to attempt to canvasse the Northern Tier and dart all the deer, you are mistaken. They make money when they issue tags and hunters kill them, and there is no shortage of people willing to do it all they can. The financial implications of doing it would be huge. Not only would it cost $10 a deer, but they lose the license income to boot. Not too many businessmen on this site I see.
12-19-2009, 11:08 PM
#98
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Noone said anything about how many deer. You can attempt to justify, to rationalize and to make excuses for pgc as is always the case with you, but it doesnt really make a difference. its not something that in concept or any other way SHOULD BE SUPPORTED by a pro-hunting agency PERIOD. Other states know this and DO NOT. Pa DOES. And it doesnt really matter what uses YOU think are appropriate or arent, the issue isnt whether it should be used on 12000 deer in the state or 12. Not my call and couldnt care less about the details which you can only guess at' anyway. What I DO see though, is A very nonhunter friendly commission strikes again. See most other states for appropriate response to the issue.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-19-2009 at 11:12 PM.
12-20-2009, 06:01 AM
#99
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
This whole dispute about some "boogeyman in the closet" is nothing short of ridiculous. It's obvious to any thinking person that the PGC doesnt want deer contraception but it was wise to addresss the issue in a responsible manner and politely dismiss as they did. As for 95 pages, you're gonna have to go that alone. maybe Maverick can help you. Personal attacks? One only has to read both threads addressing this subject to see where that concept is firmly entrenched.
Carry on and have fun
Carry on and have fun
Last edited by BTBowhunter; 12-20-2009 at 06:13 AM.
12-20-2009, 07:17 AM
#100
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
You can try and be cute and label it as "boogeyman" or other completely unfitting lableling in an attempt to dismiss yet another real concern where pgc is concerned. I'll stick to the facts thanks.
Since when in the world does flat out stating they will be permitting limited usage equate to"dismissing" it? lol Some of you will say absolutely anything.
Pgc didnt dismiss anything. They came out in support. Read the red again. Ohio completely dismissed it as the links i provided show and MOST states dont want a thing to do with it, and leaving no doubt, said so. Pgc did just the opposite in saying they DO support rigorous real world testing in Pennsylvania. Whereas there will be NO rigorous testing in the real world planning in most other states anytime soon.
The fact use is planned and supported within gonacons limitations still means they SUPPORT ITS USE. The fact there are "limitations" on the product is meaningless when they say they will be supporting use. One, the Only reason for its use PERIOD is due to antihunter demand. And the only thing youve stated correct thusfar is that its expensive its far less efficient & effective overall than other methods.
Where hunting is 100% absolutely not an option, snipers are the only other reasonable option for all reasons mentioned. Pgc shouldnt be taking an antihunter stance. And when birth control become a more effective formula or becomes easier to administer, the foot will already be in the door, because by then the usage will already be the norm, at least on limited basis, and not something totally "new" and it would then be immediately open to expansion in usage. Not saying thats gonna be the case soon, but you have to think of all potential ramifications of decisions made. And this is a VERY poor one in supporting contraception by pgc. They simply cannot be trusted and they prove it over and over again.
I dont think there is one educated rational hunter who would disagree with the statement that supporting birth control is NOT a hunter friendly decision no matter the scale, when it was previously not permitted at all!
Since when in the world does flat out stating they will be permitting limited usage equate to"dismissing" it? lol Some of you will say absolutely anything.
Pgc didnt dismiss anything. They came out in support. Read the red again. Ohio completely dismissed it as the links i provided show and MOST states dont want a thing to do with it, and leaving no doubt, said so. Pgc did just the opposite in saying they DO support rigorous real world testing in Pennsylvania. Whereas there will be NO rigorous testing in the real world planning in most other states anytime soon.
The fact use is planned and supported within gonacons limitations still means they SUPPORT ITS USE. The fact there are "limitations" on the product is meaningless when they say they will be supporting use. One, the Only reason for its use PERIOD is due to antihunter demand. And the only thing youve stated correct thusfar is that its expensive its far less efficient & effective overall than other methods.
Where hunting is 100% absolutely not an option, snipers are the only other reasonable option for all reasons mentioned. Pgc shouldnt be taking an antihunter stance. And when birth control become a more effective formula or becomes easier to administer, the foot will already be in the door, because by then the usage will already be the norm, at least on limited basis, and not something totally "new" and it would then be immediately open to expansion in usage. Not saying thats gonna be the case soon, but you have to think of all potential ramifications of decisions made. And this is a VERY poor one in supporting contraception by pgc. They simply cannot be trusted and they prove it over and over again.
I dont think there is one educated rational hunter who would disagree with the statement that supporting birth control is NOT a hunter friendly decision no matter the scale, when it was previously not permitted at all!
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-20-2009 at 07:38 AM.