There is nothing in the policy statement that addresses stalking. I respond to RSB posts and he responds to mine. So is RSB stalking me or am I stalking RSB?

FishUSA.com Forums Acceptable Use Policies
It is the policy of FishUSA.com that the discussion boards and fishing reports should be enjoyable and appropriate for all. We use the "young viewer" standard - if a post is not appropriately viewed by a younger user, then it is not appropriate here and is subject to being edited or deleted. The following are the standards by which we judge the appropriateness of posts and the rules we will apply:

Disagreeing with the views of others is fine. However, name-calling and personal attacks on others is not acceptable.
Use of profanity is prohibited.
Advocating or encouraging illegal or unethical fishing practices is prohibited.
Mentioning specific fishing locations on private property which may cause increases in angler traffic (a/k/a "spot burning") is prohibited.
Posts which contain lewd or vulgar content are prohibited.
Posts which are disparaging of others based on their race, gender, age, religion, national origin or physical handicap or disability are prohibited.
Posts which serve no other purpose than to antagonize other users (a/k/a "trolling") or creating account(s) explicitly for the purpose of creating said posts (a/k/a "troll" account)
Use of the board to advertise or promote the commercial sale of goods or services is prohibited.
Use of the board to promote other commercial web sites or tackle shops, or web sites or tackle shops which compete with the FishUSA.com, FishErie.com or FishSalmonRiver.com web sites is prohibited.

Really!?!?!?

Really!?!?!?

Hmmm. I think you better look at who signed up here first. Deerfly signed up 3 months earlier then RSB. Maybe he has esp, and had a premonition that rsb would soon be signing up? lmao.

The only thing that has happened is the so called small vocial minority has gotten much larger and some folks don't like it

Yep. Thats what im seeing.

I know alot who think 1 is too many if they are vocal, knowledgable and damaging to "the cause". Though even if it were only 3, thats triple what it had been. Though there are more, that, just like many of the pgc supporters, dont post as often...

Some also dont like to engage in conversation when they get attacked like has been done in this thread. Only understandable that many dont. I on the other hand, laugh at the clear damage control attempts. lmao.

I seem to recall a vote on hr... Didnt go so well did it? I seem to recall just a few more than 3 votes against.

Just sayin'.

The hunting boards on this forum are no longer hunting boards. They are now deer wars message boards. Every topic regarding hunting gets sucked into the debate. Pics of big bucks, stories of success, hunting reports, etc.. all get turned toward the deer wars arguement by a couple of guys.

Those couple of guys could take anything the PGC says and disagree with it. If the PGC made the statement "the sky is blue" it would not suprise me if these guys would say "No, it's purple!".

Those couple of guys could take anything the PGC says and disagree with it. If the PGC made the statement "the sky is blue" it would not suprise me if these guys would say "No, it's purple!".

I dont know about that, but you can bet your hiney id be looking out the window before id be believin' it.

Yep, it usually starts by someone jokingly saying something along the lines of "There aren't any deer left in PA" which is generally followed by one of the PGC haters saying "wrong again" or "that simply isn't true" followed by a pile of meaningless data that has no relevance to the particular conversation.
 
But thanks for proving drake right, you guys will argue with everything and anything. 

I wouldn't call this meaningless data but was the basic debate on this thread. A WCO made this statement.

Quote:The professional managers set the ball in motion to bring those unnaturally inflated deer population back down to where they matched the long-term sustainable habitat, but by the time they started it was too little and too late to stop the natural deer population crash that resulted from the back to back harsh winters we experienced in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004. Had we only had the one harsh winter the recovery would have been pretty fast, just as it always is when you have your harsh winters spread out with a mild or more normal winter between the harsh ones, but some nature doesn’t allow a reprieve and we do get back-to-back years of harsh winter. This wasn’t the first time it happened and resulted in a major herd reduction and I am sure it is the last time it will happen either.

Now here is what Chris Rosenberry said about the same two winters-------

Quote: Even in the unusually deep snow winters of 2002-03 and 2003-04, survival rates of the collard deer were 95% and 98% respectively. We do lose deer in the winter but we don't lose a lot of them.

Now, why is it ok for someone to post the first claim but not ok for someone to post a rebuttal. If you really take the time to read some of these long winded debates you may find there is some very good information to help the open minded person make their own decision. That's all for me on this topic.

The way I see it is, if mistakes were made 10 years ago and just now are admitted to, the credibility, of those in charge, has to be questioned and not blindly accepted. This country got in bad shape by leaving status quo and now has to stand up and account for its leaders actions. Should the PGC not escape the same type of distrust? Just my way of lookin at things...WF

Even in the unusually deep snow winters of 2002-03 and 2003-04, survival rates of the collard deer were 95% and 98% respectively. We do lose deer in the winter but we don't lose a lot of them.

Id say thats pretty reasonable. I spend a fair amount of time in the early spring woods and you just dont find winterkilled deer.