Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
More complaints on the PGC >

More complaints on the PGC

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

More complaints on the PGC

Old 03-16-2010, 02:12 PM
  #71  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

most recent antlerless deer hunter success rate 26% in 2008

Wrong again!! In 2008 26% of the hunters did not harvest an antlerless deer. The data on page 14 of the link you posted does not provide the hunter success rate. It only provides the relationship to the number of tags allocated and the number of deer harvested. The result is a lot fewer hunters are harvesting a deer now than when hunters were only allowed to harvest one deer/year.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 02:56 PM
  #72  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"Ok we'll just use the word you use. your post about lowest harvests in 50 years is a lie. "

Wrong word. The word is accurate. The word for what you are trying to do now is lie. In the context in which it was stated by me it was completely right on the money. And i proved it. You've just made up a bunch on excuses ever since.

"For any year before 1986 and in the absence of a reporting rate. any comparison would be false."

At least thats a valid opinion for a change....But if you take the data at face value, it says what it says and you havent proven otherwise....and if you want to interject variables and look past the base data, then it could be just as accurately argued it may have been even longer than 50 because the 60% noncompliance nonsense is a complete pulled out of the air joke in the first place! lol. Also remember wmi said that much of the pgc data was insufficient and lacking. The estimated harvest very well may have been even lower than estimated the last few years.

"So lets look at the harvests calculated since 1986"

No, lets not. because it has nothing to do with anything said! lol This is just sidetracking.

"lowest in that time 300,004 in 1986

second lowest since that time 335,850

highest in that time 517,529 in 2002

lowest since HR 323,070 in 2007

second lowest since HR 335,850 in 2008"

What on earth was all that mumbo jumbo about??? (nevermind, i dont want to know) Noone said anything about comparing the last 2 or 3 years to each other! Noone said a thing about the 2nd highest or lowest harvest SINCE HR, lmao.


"As for hunter success lets only use years since 1988 when bonus tags came in"

Who said anything about harvest success rates??? lmao. Your also not talking hunter success, your talking harvest per tag. very important when hunters in urban areas can go out with bazillion tags... what is it in one wmu now? Like 100,000 tags? lmao. A Guy goes out there and shoots 5 deer, and 5 hunters in 2g dont get a deer, you would still end up with a 100% success rate by your logic!

Im done with this repetitious ridiculous yes-sir, no-sir, yes sir...

If you want to say something thats not true about the 3 things you were wrong about last night fine. If you actually think after reading all this, someone is gonna believe you because you say it isnt so one more time, then good luck to you, the last word is yours. lmao. Just try and not make it too big of a whopper eh?

Last edited by Cornelius08; 03-16-2010 at 03:05 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 02:57 PM
  #73  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Wrong again!! In 2008 26% of the hunters did not harvest an antlerless deer. The data on page 14 of the link you posted does not provide the hunter success rate. It only provides the relationship to the number of tags allocated and the number of deer harvested. The result is a lot fewer hunters are harvesting a deer now than when hunters were only allowed to harvest one deer/year.

A man who clearly knows what hes talking about!
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 03:26 PM
  #74  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pulaskiville
Posts: 3,533
Default

I've never seen so many people who would rather be right than logical.......

No wonder no other state can put a post on the "Northeast" forum.
Pro-Line is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 03:57 PM
  #75  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

H can someone be right without being logical?
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 04:22 PM
  #76  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

H can someone be right without being logical?
I donno bb, but the following statement is proof that a statement can be neither.

No wonder no other state can put a post on the "Northeast" forum
.

When on the very first page of this "northeast" forum we can find these;

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...lse-maine.html

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...n-changes.html

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...t-hunters.html

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...go-2010-a.html

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...-buck-2-a.html

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...r-harvest.html

Last edited by Cornelius08; 03-16-2010 at 04:25 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 05:04 PM
  #77  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Carbon County Pa.
Posts: 601
Default

Originally Posted by Pro-Line

No wonder no other state can put a post on the "Northeast" forum.
How can Pa. threads keep other states from posting?
pats102862 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 05:06 PM
  #78  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

That is a very good question.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 07:55 PM
  #79  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default

"Ok we'll just use the word you use. your post about lowest harvests in 50 years is a lie. "

Wrong word. The word is accurate. The word for what you are trying to do now is lie. In the context in which it was stated by me it was completely right on the money. And i proved it. You've just made up a bunch on excuses ever since.
LOL, I posted some wrong information based on a bad source and was man enough to admit that and correct myself.

You on the other hand claimed.....

Hmmm. Hardly say thats relavent when a couple of our recent harvests were at FIFTY (not 15) year lows.
The numbers I cited showed you are wrong. The fact that you continue to weasel and claim that I lied makes your recent posts the blatant lies. Funny thing is you could've just manned up and admitted a mistake like I did. It's actually pretty typical when youre shown to be wrong or challenged. You simply dodge the original point and choose one of threee strategies. You shout the other party down with claims that you say are undisputable although you seldom provide backup. Or you simply lell liar liar as you've done here ( and yes, liar and lie are synonymous) or you change the subject as you've also done here.

Of course the other tactic is always insisting on the last word. At this point, I doubt anyone else is reading these but go ahead and have your ladt word. I'm sure it will simply be another rerun.
It's not a surrender. It's just that I have answered you in every rational way possible and I have no intention of resorting to any rule breaking statements. Personally, I beleive calling someone a liar is a personal attack but since you've gotten away with it hundreds of times so I've returned in kind. If you'd simply manned up to a mistake it wouldn't have evolved into a lie.
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 03-16-2010, 08:38 PM
  #80  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

The numbers I cited showed you are wrong.
Wrong again Oscar. The numbers you posted just show you don't understand the numbers you posted.
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.