Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 441185" data-attributes="member: 314">BrockW, you are the best supporter of cwd that I could ever ask for.&nbsp; The best thing you can do for my position that cwd isn't a problem is to keep posting.&nbsp; On to the latest entertainment.....Perceptions are the opinions of the authors in biological scientific research.&nbsp; They are NEVER used as evidence for fact.&nbsp; Observation on the other hand are ALWAYS used as evidence.&nbsp; One is numbers, the other is bias or interpretation.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, how does Kansas count their deer herd?&nbsp; Do they use the force or call Ms. Cleo?&nbsp; No, they make observations.&nbsp; They make counts of what they observe.&nbsp; You have no COUNTS of cwd fatalities in any wild deer populations.&nbsp; None.&nbsp; If you did observe 20% of a deer herd staggering around, not eating, and then dieing, that would put me squarely on your side.&nbsp; However, one or two individual deer doesn't warrent pulling the fire alarm IMO.&nbsp; You are long on arguement and short on answers.&nbsp; I'm a &quot;the weather outside is fine&quot; and I open the window to prove it.&nbsp; Your method is to look at a computer screen, analyse the air pressure, wind direction, temperature, and radar image before making a prediction of what the weather is outside without any proof of it and never even bother to go outside to see for yourself to get proof. You claim to use science, but a lower deer population where cwd just happens to have been found does not mean cwd caused it.&nbsp; To make that claim requires scientific evidence WHICH you don't have.&nbsp; You have no proof that cwd has or will cause significant deer population declines.&nbsp; The state of Kansas and their own statements provide me evidence and proof that cwd is not a significant mortality factor in deer and elk herds. The fact Colorado and Wyoming have had plenty of elk and deer to hunt in spite of cwd is evidence that cwd is not the massive herd killer you claim it to be.&nbsp; Nor does it show in any way where dictatorial regulations and massive expenditures for research are required.&nbsp; You are the one claiming cwd is this disasterous deer killer, but you have no proof of that.&nbsp; As the claimant, YOU are required to prove your position.&nbsp; Get some proof and I will then be more inclined to change my position.&nbsp; You say cwd is 100% fatal to deer.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; Getting hit by a semi doing 70 mph is 100% fatal as well, but so what?&nbsp; That's enough for now.&nbsp; I await the next episode of misdirection and ........</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KDM, post: 441185, member: 314"] BrockW, you are the best supporter of cwd that I could ever ask for. The best thing you can do for my position that cwd isn't a problem is to keep posting. On to the latest entertainment..... Perceptions are the opinions of the authors in biological scientific research. They are NEVER used as evidence for fact. Observation on the other hand are ALWAYS used as evidence. One is numbers, the other is bias or interpretation. So, how does Kansas count their deer herd? Do they use the force or call Ms. Cleo? No, they make observations. They make counts of what they observe. You have no COUNTS of cwd fatalities in any wild deer populations. None. If you did observe 20% of a deer herd staggering around, not eating, and then dieing, that would put me squarely on your side. However, one or two individual deer doesn't warrent pulling the fire alarm IMO. You are long on arguement and short on answers. I'm a "the weather outside is fine" and I open the window to prove it. Your method is to look at a computer screen, analyse the air pressure, wind direction, temperature, and radar image before making a prediction of what the weather is outside without any proof of it and never even bother to go outside to see for yourself to get proof. You claim to use science, but a lower deer population where cwd just happens to have been found does not mean cwd caused it. To make that claim requires scientific evidence WHICH you don't have. You have no proof that cwd has or will cause significant deer population declines. The state of Kansas and their own statements provide me evidence and proof that cwd is not a significant mortality factor in deer and elk herds. The fact Colorado and Wyoming have had plenty of elk and deer to hunt in spite of cwd is evidence that cwd is not the massive herd killer you claim it to be. Nor does it show in any way where dictatorial regulations and massive expenditures for research are required. You are the one claiming cwd is this disasterous deer killer, but you have no proof of that. As the claimant, YOU are required to prove your position. Get some proof and I will then be more inclined to change my position. You say cwd is 100% fatal to deer. So what? Getting hit by a semi doing 70 mph is 100% fatal as well, but so what? That's enough for now. I await the next episode of misdirection and ........ [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA