BT, do you ever visit HuntingPA? This poster(DD) has an uncanny resemblance to a BT overthere.....same things, same number crunching, same in every manner.....

Deaddeer, are you Beenthere?

I'll have to visit it. If I decide to post there I guess I'd better come up with a new name.[]

DD you are something. Keep throwing it up their some of it will stick. Juniorpc.

junior, why don't you answer DD's question? You don't see anything wrong with the PGC's density goals?

Jason, Thanks for pointing out huntingpa. I'm signed on there now. Apparently I was signed on 2 years ago and never went back so had to modify my name to btbowhunter56. I'll see you there as well!

BTW, take a look at the profiles. I think youll agree DD has "beenthere"

Don't bother posting there. It is a much tougher crowd and you can't even handle what you have here. You have no facts,just opinions,and opinions won't get you very far on HPA.

Guess I done been warned!

Mike what do you or I or anyone else have to base our DPSM or DPfSM numbers on??? NOTHING. I'm all for leaving it in the biologists hands. Gary Alt has already stated in print that deer numbers would be lower than some sportsman would prefer in some areas. The fact that some folks will be unhappy does not change the fact that we need to do something about habitat, taht some change downward in deer numbers are necessary. Besides DD's already stated that under ALt deer numbers are rising, so why worry about thier goals they'll never reach em DD, MikeE, Juniopc, etc - none of us have any idea what those numbers need to be. Folks just want to blindly argue against them because less deer scares them.
As for DD's presentation of numbers. I've already shown you he takes data and makes invalid interpretations of it. He also directly lies when refuting where data was collected from (If you don't know where don't say you do to bolster your arguement or shoot down someone elses). But again, I think he does know where the data comes from and deliberately states differntly to discredit others and shore up his position. So as for DD's numbers, once I see them popping up a skip through them. They really mean nothing. The PGC website and other sites are chock full of information for folks to read through carefully and make thier own decisions. What DD does is wrong, but a favored tactic of folks like Slinsky and others. Can't really argue with DD on his data, just like you can't tell a kid he did wrong. All you get is blanket deniels and no I didn't you did. Juniorpc.

That simply is not true. You gave your opinion that the antler survey was not the basis for determining the percentage of 2.5+ buck in the herd. I ,on the otherhand provided the link for the antler buck study where it states how and where the data was collected and it made no mention of voluntary check points or visits to taxidermy shops.


If the antler buck survey wasn't used to determine the percentage of 2.5+ buck, produce the study they did use. You can't do it because their is no other study.


We may not know what the exact OWDD goals should be ,but we do know when the OWDD goals of 6 DPSM for 5C. or 9 DPSM for 1A are ridiculously low . We know that the habitat in the southern tier counties can support more deer than the northern tier counties ,but te northern tier counties have much higher oWDD goals. In other words ,we know the OWDD goals simply make no sense and are not based on science.