The PGC didn't complain about enforcing the law when we had 67 county based WMUs, they didn't complain about enforcing the 4 pt. ARs in some WMUs versus the 3 pt. rule in other WMUs, they didn't complain about enforcing the 1" rule, they didn't complain about enforcing DMAP tags and red tag farms so they shouldn't complain about enforcing private versus public land tags.

Right back at ya. Your mission to discredit all things PGC has warped your judgement. The words "supporting and granting permission" were added by you. Using your kind of logic, I could probably find something you posted indicating that you endorse Gary Alt but we both know that isnt any more true than what you claim here.

County lines were the accepted and entrenched method for years and are far better defined than boundaries on all the public ground we have out there. WMU boundaries are even clearer due to the use of roads. You cant possibly believe that it wouldnt cause further confusion among both hunters and law enforcement as well as neighboring private landowners

"Right back at ya. Your mission to discredit all things PGC has warped your judgement."



Not at all. But sometimes you get downright ridiculous in your interpretations of what is actually said. Not trying to start a pissin match, and I understand why you wouldnt particularly care for that comment, and i said the comment as politely as possible. But it is what it is. Being willing to GRANT PERMISSION for usage IS SUPPORTING it!! Supporting it IS NOT a hunter friendly positon period! If you were to give permission to your kid to use the car you ARE SUPPORTING IT. If you tell them not to take drugs, YOU ARE NOT SUPPORTING IT. Pgc IS SUPPORTING the usage of birthcontrol for deer, at least under specified guidelines, and its not even debatable! Its printed right on their friggin website!!

I have no "mission" other than to see things straightened out, and we are headed in the exact opposite direction, and guys like you sure as hell arent helping much.

So now Im confused btb. What are YOU proposing? I havent been able to make head or tails out of whether you support smaller wmus, support using current type boundaries, county based system, use wmus as is except with private & public tags, no change at all, or a combo of more than one of these choices???


"I could probably find something you posted indicating that you endorse Gary Alt"

Gary alt wasnt "an issue". He spoke of many issues. SOme i supported in theory, others not at all. Overall he was a lying tool. Deer contraception is "an issue". Pgc supports it. I do not. Not even a little.

All SGl and SFL boundaries are marked and would not pose any bigger enforcement problem than the 1" rule where WCOs enforce the rule based on their personal opinion. since the PGC's goal appears to be to kill as many deer as possible, why would a WCO even bother to enforce private land tags.

Maybe you just need to read it again.

First, the words "grant permission" are yours alone. As a matter of fact, the Fed guidelines are that only the USDA or state agencies or their contractors can use it so granting permission isn't on the table as of now for anyone.

As for guys like me not helping, maybe if you concentrated on the things that really need fixed instead of "creating" more issues, you might have more effect for the things that really matter to you. Not trying to start a pissing match either but you're on very thin ice with this one.

They have the demap program and had the private land tags for a year or two.I haven't heard of law enforcement problems with this so maybe specific tags would work.I went to the pgc site to ask if they ever considered this but the site is down.
If I remember right some landowners had problems with private land tags causing some of them to post their land.I guess that's why they discontinued it.
Anybody that attempts to pull a stunt on SGL's is nuts because around here it gets patrolled pretty good.

"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."

PGc themselves are not the ones that would be doing the testing. And the granting of permission was what was spoken of in the Shissler study. Permission granted for further testing was not something most states were planning on doing or permitting according to his findings. However pgcs position above speaks for itself.

"As for guys like me not helping, maybe if you concentrated on the things that really need fixed instead of "creating" more issues, you might have more effect for the things that really matter to you. Not trying to start a pissing match either but you're on very thin ice with this one."

Im not concerned about the thickness of the ice and never have been, as you should know of me by now. If you decide you wish to personally attack someone or argue, thats YOUR decision to make. Not mine. But as for your statement of concentrating on things that need fixed, thats exactly what im doing. The number one problem is our current crew at pgc is VERY hunter nonfriendly VERY being key word. Everything from the borderline antihunter comments about us being "headaches" on their website and whining about us continually, to having been called names by previous commissioner, to supporting birth control, to their close knit relations to very nonhunter friendly organizations, to remaining steadfast to a miserably failed deer program all the while ignoring anything and everything we say. The problem is the commission itself.

You can come up with smaller wmus and a whole host of other suggestions, but you know as well as I what will be reality next season...and the one after that and into the foreseeable future.

YEP sure sounds like an endorsement to me!

They probably ordered it in 55 gallon drums!

LMFAO!