Cornelius08

I didnt use all caps. Thats yelling or placing emphasis on words. I used bold to separate text posted by two users...myself and the quotes i replied to. My decision to do so as opposed to the quote feature. If it makes you feel better for our discussion i'll use the quote feature. Im not an unreasonable guy.

Absolutely.

It wasnt my job to send out requests for bids. Of the few choices that were supposedly available. Id say none of them, including the one being used should have qualified. Thats no excuse to go with the one with the very most connections to pgc (which i believe was by design in the first place). A 100% biased audit is 100% worse than NO audit. We needed meaningful legislative actions, not a sham audit that will do nothing but rubber stamp the program and not even address the real issues.

First, let me say i have no affiliation to acsl, but do strongly respect their current views from all that ive read. As fare as "setting themselves apart" Actually they havent, they mirror the feelings of the huge majority of sportsmen today, and they happen to be one of if not the largest in the state if membership claims ive read are true. But i do find it interesting as to who you think are "pa's mainstream" sportsmens groups. LIke Penn Fed. The group that has a large faction of nonhunting "conservationists" within the membership. A political "yes man" group and nothing more. One whom continuously petitions pgc against hunter friendly changes & always has audubon Pa's signature alongside their own. Real "mainstream". lol.

In that case, I guess that prediction was right on.

And how much of the leadership at penn fed initially came from Audubon and other enviro-extreme groups?

Mighty funny how these days theres a tiny minority who seem to think EVERYONE who doesnt support the deer plan to the "T" fits that description.

I have found it "right on their website" and i dont give "bad information". They said they will support contraception and guidelines will be for "VIGOROUS REAL WORLD TESTING".

According to Shisslers little study, when asked, wildlife management across the country...the huge majority of state DID NOT support birth control, and had no plans of constructing "guidelines for use". Unlike Pa. Only goes to show how hunter unfriendly pgc has become. Though most didnt need to look into the birth control issue to know that.

But instead of reiterating, here is a post that should straighten things out for you.http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...h-control.html

Here is the exact pertinent quote from pgc:

"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."


Now, feel free to contact Other states agencies and see if they support "vigorous real world testing"...at all. I think you will be enlightened as to how liberal our pgc has become comparatively to "hunter friendly" states, especially when considering ALL the issues such as this + the extreme deer program + extreme unnatural level of biodiversity goals and very low opinion pgc has of hunters. All this points to the enviro-extremists at pgc desparately need to be cleansed from our agency.

BucksBearsnBows

I would suggest that by criticizing this audit and calling it a sham before any word of the results has even come close to being released tells us that you apparently have a preconcieved notion as to what the results will be. That suggests a lack of fairness and open mindedness on your part. What you have inadvertently done is undermine any credibilty you would hope for when it does come out and you attempt to state your case.




Thanks for that link. What it clears up is that those who disagreed with you in that link are absolutely correct that the only public comment by the game Commission on that issue is one of a high degreee of skepticism and certainly nothing close to being an endorsement of deer contraceptives and their use in PA as you suggested. The deer chronicle article is highly critical of the whole concept. Do you have some other evidence of what you call suppport for that drug that I havent seen? Please tell me where to find it if you do.

Pahick

Some most certainly are when put in the context you have. And maybe I lend a little bit to that, considering how I worded things. We all have a tendency to generalize, and this is one such case. If we are still talking the NC region I would put that in a different perspective than say the SE area. The problem with any CAC is equal representation. Which under current guidelines they are equally represented. I think we'd both agree. Now consider the amount of state land in 2G compared to Ag or Residential. Do you honestly think they should have equal say? I dont. Whats going to work in lower 2G simply cannot in northern 2G. That said, I dont even think 2G has a CAC or if so, went through any formal meetings as of yet. My point still stands that each stakeholder should not have an equal vote. It can get quite complicated when you take into consideration that even though we have a CAC to advise the PGC their input is only that, advice. The PGC doesnt always listen. A quick look at some of the reports show some stakeholders arent even attending, or they attend one meeting and not the rest. On top of that, their advice is only geared toward regular tags and have zero input towards DMAP. And as you know, as far as 2G is concerned, that WMU is currently in stabilization.....for regular tags. We've been harvesting another what? 20 some-30 some% over regular doe harvest through DMAP. That WMU, 2G, as far as I know is the only WMU currently through DMAP experiencing a double digit % increase over regular doe harvest. Ask yourself why 2G would be given that priority over say 5D? Too much priority is given to DCNR and other stakeholders.

As far as WMI and the audit, I honestly dont have a clue who could do an unbiased review of our policies. When you have a manufacturer go through a safety audit through OSHA, youre following policy set by OSHA. The PGC DMP isnt following guidelines set by WMI. Fact is alot of what we are experiencing in this DMP is new, which is why other states agencies and biologists are watching and taking notes. My skepticism remains, we all have opinions.

Cornelius08

Ha. Hardly. Why the damage control? Many of these issues regarding deer management are debatable, this one isnt. Pgc said they support what they support. Guidelines FOR USE arent necessary when you have a NONUSE policy like most of the rest of the nation. . You saying they dont support it after their statement would be like a landowner saying ok bbb, we are gonna set guidelines for you to follow when hunting my land.....And a third party saying, well...I guess that means bbb cant hunt there because the landowner doesnt support the idea!

You've been shown the proof and your attempt to divert attention from that fact isnt doing one thing for you. The intent wasnt to show any plans for statewide usage to replace hunting etc etc.. It is what it is. Pgc supporting yet another nonhunter friendly issue. And its not really debatable. Its right there in print, and not really in need of much in the way of interpretation.

Cornelius08

Why would we wait when the party involved can hardly be called objective and unbiased? Its skewed from the word go.

No moreso than saying you and i are gonna make a wager for your paycheck. We are gonna see whos better looking, smarter etc. etc.. Whos gonna win?? Oh, by the way, my significant other will be doing the assessment. lol. Gee, i suppose when i am picked it will be a big surprise?? Does that make you "closed minded" if you were to decline before even getting the results? Give me a break. lol. What we will be getting is basically audit results about pgc/enviro extremist, done by ex pgc/enviro extremists and I pointed out the undeniable very strong connections.

"Credibility with me has never been an issue and thats because even though im adament about my position, i dont sink to deceit which cannot be said of many pgc supporters for the mostpart. Also, I have no case to make in regards to the audit results. Its a sham and i dont support it before even getting those results. Doesnt make much diff. though as the license fee will be granted by the legislators who are tired of all this simply because an audit was done and it makes it appear that they actually did something....So im not "making a case", as this isnt a court case to be won or lost, and dont think anything will be gained or lost by arguing against those results when they are given, though they most certainly will be argued im sure. Im just stating the facts.

BucksBearsnBows

I agree that 2G is unique with both the percentage of DCNR controlled land and the DAMP tags. I also think we agree that most of our WMU's are too large and the resulting one size fits all management of each may be causing some extremes on both ends of the deer density scale. The problem is that smaller more intensive management is out of the question under the current budget situation. A situation exacerbated by the likes of the USP and their misguided pressure against a reasonable fee increase. I also agree in part that a merger of agencies might be a good thing but only to the extent of the PFBC and PGC merging. If you think DCNR has too much say now, how could you possibly support their being merged with our game commission?

As for the WMI audit, i prefer to see the results before I endorse or condemn it.

BucksBearsnBows

Damage control? What the devil are you saying?

Not debatable? I read that thread you linked and am beginning to see that phrase as something you seem to use in place of replying with something of substance. BTW your example makes absolutely no sense and has no realistic paralell to the subject at hand.


And, once again, you know that how without it having been
competed?



Your wager example isnt any better than your last example and makes even less sense but maybe things would make more sense if you'd kindly define the term pgc/enviro extremists


Sorry, but your characterizing the GC statement issued about deer contraception appears to be nothing more than blatant deceipt. there's generally plenty of room for folks to interperet things in different ways but you're characterization of the only statement on that subject is too far out there to simply be a difference of opinion. That leaves two possible explanations. Stupidity or deceipt and I'm certainly not suggesting that you are stupid.

Cornelius08

I donno. You tell me. I posed it as a question.

Thats because its an undeniable fact that pgc supports birth control. Its not opinion, therefore, not debatable.

You ignored the "substance". Theres only so much that can be given to those who do not want to accept it.

Nice try. But the statement pretty much speaks for itself.


I believe i explained it more than thoroughly. Your refusal to accept doesnt negate the facts of the matter. This cannot be considered an unbiased objective third party audit due to connection that were not part of the deal.
How anyone could point to a company whose president and quite a few others who work there have been high ranking officials at an agency....Yet can be trusted as an unbiased third party to audit that agency is utterly amazing.

And again, your dumbfounded/confused act isnt very effective. I dont think any of that needs explaining. Its pretty much common knowledge if not self explanatory.



There is no room to "interpret" an obvious fact. Its not a matter of opinion. And on my part, as with ALL of my posts, there is no deceit. But the same cannot be said for your pretend denial of the very obvious facts. Pgc says they support real world testing (one of VERY few that does) and set guidelines for it(one of very few that have)....That means they support it. I find that sickening. I also find it very dis-settling that Im speaking with a supposed hunter who doesnt. Course I know the damage control efforts that go on via pgc personell & friends/family members of same along with some very vocal environmentalists. After a decade on hpa....Well, i dont need to tell you about what you gents do on hpa now do i? Now id rather not have an irrational argument with someone who cannot tell the truth even about the most basic of things, i prefer intelligent debate, but you seem dead-set against it. So currently we might as well talk about this: ...

So, since the extremely unquestionable obvious proven fact, according to you actuallly ISNT, ....am i right that this is a smiley pointing up and laughing or is it a deer eating trillium in your opinion?

Cornelius08

Pgc says:

Given the unproven nature of these drugs to control or manage a free-ranging deer population, any Game Commission guidelines for theiruse will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances.



Not sure what part of that you dont understand but it pretty much kills the chance for any real rebuttal to the contrary.

Permission = support. And IF its not gonna be used and permitted by pgc, why have guidelines for use? Also if its gonna be rigorously real world tested...Hows it gonna happen if its not used? Perhaps you can solve those riddles for me, because you make zero sense. lol

BucksBearsnBows

You're behavior tells the same story as your Avatar. You are not interested in a discussion of the issue, You are merely attempting to dictate your agenda to the rest of us. The repeating, the declarations that your words are not debatable, the yelling to call attention to yourself, and the general lack of substance in your posts tells us all that you have no interest in discussion and are only interested in talking at us, not with us. I think I'll pass on further one way exchanges with you. There seem to be plenty of people interested in having discussions rather than making unilateral speeches.