More complaints on the PGC
#71
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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.
#72
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"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?
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.
#73
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
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!
#76
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
H can someone be right without being logical?
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.
#79
"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.
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.
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.
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.