I was wondering

Does anyone think it's possible for us to have a discussion about the PGCs deer management policy without it decending into name calling and insults? I, for one, am beginning to doubt it.

Kinda like saying somebody never posts anything serious.....

Since you are either new here, or someone posting under a new handle, give me a feel for your stance. Are you philosophically closer to Dr. Trout or Wayne C? I think those guys represent extremes in the respective positions that hunters may take.

"Since you are either new here, or someone posting under a new handle, give me a feel for your stance. Are you philosophically closer to Dr. Trout or Wayne C? I think those guys represent extremes in the respective positions that hunters may take."

Dr trout, maybe. Me? not even close. I think you are confusing my willingness to adamently defend myself and expanding that to holding an "extreme position" on the issues.

My postions on the issues, which is what matters, are as middle of the road as they come. I just may voice them a bit more vocally than some who hold the exact same views. Id invite you to point out anything extreme in regards to any of my actual "positions" on these issues, and maybe even how different are they from your own?? I could hold the exact same views on the issues and because im more vocal, wouldnt mean the positions themselves were any more or less extreme.

Ive repeatedly said i dont want a deer behind every tree and that hr was needed in some areas. I also contend it went a bit too far in some areas, and in others perhaps none at all may have been needed. It was a blanket approach. I repeatedly said i also support ar. Where is the extreme part? Thats about as mainstream middle of the road as it gets. These are also sentiments i hear constantly from many sportsmen, and in fact you yourself probably wouldnt disagree. I also hear some say that they support nothing about the plan. Others who want to go back the way things were. I dont have a problem with them holding that opinion at all. But it clearly shows that my "stance" is far from extreme, just because i am more vocal in support of my "stance" has nothing to do with the position itself.

Perhaps not. But there are definately more than enough differences there to prevent any agreement on "how things should be".

Danesdad,

The topic of deer numbers, AR, and HR will rarely be a discussion. It will nearly always be an arguement....for a couple of reasons.

One big reason is the rumors that get started, and are exaggerated from one person to the next. Take the insurance company/PGC secret partnership that some believe exists. A lot of guys will tell you the pgc gets payouts from insurance companies for lowering deer numbers. Others will tell you the pgc stocks coyotes and mountain lions to eliminate the deer herd. Some even try to say they saw coyotes with tags on them indicating they were stocked by the PGC. In the end these lies that get spread make many people not trust the game commission. Some of those people get on forums. We've seen it here.

Another reason the topic will always be an arguement is that there are guys who believe nothing the pgc says. The pgc could say the sky is blue, and these guys would say it's purple. On the other hand, if the pgc said the sky is purple, there would be some who would agree simply because they support the pgc to no end and would never disagree. We have both types on this forum, and both believe they're going to change each others mind over the internet. When they don't change each others minds things get heated.

Mark Twain once said "there are 3 kinds of lies.... lies, dam lies, and statistics". I think of that quote all the time when you guys start throwing numbers at each other. Ther are numbers out there to support both sides of many arguements. Take the AR topic for example. If you google the topic, i'd bet you'll find studies on each side complete with statistics. Someone reading these studies would read the ones on both sides of the agruement, but will only post the statistics from ones that support their side, without mention of the other studies. My point is, we all see the numbers that support our beliefs and ignore the ones that don't. When we argue this way nobody's mind gets changed, and once again it gets heated.

I could go on and on, but will stop there on the topic.

Also, I've gotta tell you guys I'm done here, at least for a while. The forums aren't interesting to me any more. The deer arguement has been beaten to death on here over and over, and gets tied into every thread regardless of the topic. I have nothing more to add.

ORIGINAL: thedrake

Danesdad,

The topic of deer numbers, AR, and HR will rarely be a discussion. It will nearly always be an arguement....for a couple of reasons.

One big reason is the rumors that get started, and are exaggerated from one person to the next. Take the insurance company/PGC secret partnership that some believe exists. A lot of guys will tell you the pgc gets payouts from insurance companies for lowering deer numbers. Others will tell you the pgc stocks coyotes and mountain lions to eliminate the deer herd. Some even try to say they saw coyotes with tags on them indicating they were stocked by the PGC. In the end these lies that get spread make many people not trust the game commission. Some of those people get on forums. We've seen it here.

Another reason the topic will always be an arguement is that there are guys who believe nothing the pgc says. The pgc could say the sky is blue, and these guys would say it's purple. On the other hand, if the pgc said the sky is purple, there would be some who would agree simply because they support the pgc to no end and would never disagree. We have both types on this forum, and both believe they're going to change each others mind over the internet. When they don't change each others minds things get heated.

Mark Twain once said "there are 3 kinds of lies.... lies, dam lies, and statistics". I think of that quote all the time when you guys start throwing numbers at each other. Ther are numbers out there to support both sides of many arguements. Take the AR topic for example. If you google the topic, i'd bet you'll find studies on each side complete with statistics. Someone reading these studies would read the ones on both sides of the agruement, but will only post the statistics from ones that support their side, without mention of the other studies. My point is, we all see the numbers that support our beliefs and ignore the ones that don't. When we argue this way nobody's mind gets changed, and once again it gets heated.

I could go on and on, but will stop there on the topic.

Also, I've gotta tell you guys I'm done here, at least for a while. The forums aren't interesting to me any more. The deer arguement has been beaten to death on here over and over, and gets tied into every thread regardless of the topic. I have nothing more to add.

OK, good answer. I kind of suspected as much.

You know, 25 years ago, lack of regeneration was caused by acid rain; thats what we were told or do us older people forget that........WF

DCNR fences are a bit silly but I'll use those areas to ask the question, because they fences are usually put up are a clear cut.
 
If acid rain is such a problem (and many believe it), why is the growth in these areas so thick, I can't get my fat****through them ?  The deer certainly do little damage to the area even after the fences are taken down.
 
I believe deer are a contributing factor for problems with habitat regeneration, but I believe it's primarily lack of sunlight/age of forest.

You dont think acid rain is harder on some species than others? Because I would bet that acid rain slows the growth of oak seedlings more than it does, say, Hemlock or rhododendron.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Id invite you to point out anything extreme in regards to any of my actual "positions" on these issues, and maybe even how different are they from your own?? I could hold the exact same views on the issues and because im more vocal, wouldnt mean the positions themselves were any more or less extreme.

 
In a past post you said the pgc is a lameduck agency.   That's pretty extreme.  And those exact words were once said by the one and only... Slinky Jim of the Unified Sportsman.  Pretty extreme if you ask me.