In 1998, with the assistance of the Wildlife Management Institute, the Commission chartered a two-year Pennsylvania Deer Management Working Group to increase communications between the Commission and deer management stakeholders, including sportsmen, farmers and foresters.

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

I did a search on the PGC website for WMI and found that they were joined at the hip with the PGC and have an obvious conflict of interest. Not only did the PGC give WMI a grant ,but WMI was involved in the process that produced our current deer management plan..

What we do . . .
Toward the goal of improved management of wildlife resources, WMI is involved in a wide range of issue, policy, research and educational efforts. For example, the Wildlife Management Institute:
[ul][*]is the sole private cooperator in the Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Program at more than 40 land-grant colleges and universities;[*]testifies before House and Senate Committees and Subcommittees on virtually all major wildlife-related legislative matters;[*]produces and publishes authoritative books, informational flyers, booklets and brochures on major wildlife species and related management topics;[*]cooperates with other conservation interests on matters such as endangered species, conservation provisions of the Farm Bill, national wildlife refuge issues, water resources, public land grazing, forest management, appropriations, etc.;[*]conducts in-depth reviews of state, federal and provincial wildlife agencies' organizations, authorities and programs; [*]sponsors and administers the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference-the premiere annual gathering of natural resource scientists, managers, administrators and educators;[*]chairs or coordinates the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Alliance, the Hunting Heritage Program, the National Cooperators’ Coalition of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, the Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (CLfT) Program, and the Bobwhite Conservation Initiative[*]produces the monthly on-line Outdoor News Bulletin[*]and much more.

Anyone that wants to claim a bias is stepping out on very thin ice and slandering a highly reputable firm.

t appears to me that the most likely reason some people are so desperate to make it appear there is a conflict of interest would focus on the fact that they know darn well the Game Commission deer management program is scientifically sound and that any credible audit will come to that conclusion

The PGC can't even answer 3 simple questions about their plan raised by just an average hunter, so there is no reason to expect that a truly independent audit would conclude the plan was scientifically sound when the PGC doesn't even know how many deer we have or how many have to be harvested to reach their goals.

Wrong again. every question you've asked has been answered logically but you simply dismiss the answers.

You dismiss the overwhelming evidence of overbrowsing that took place throughout the state before HR and ignore the fact that the regeneration taking place was often restricted to less desirable and less beneficial species.

I think RSB hit it dead on when he said you're either afraid of what a truly independent audit will bring or know what it will bring and therefore want to promote an auditor that you can later try to discredit when the inevitable results come.

In fact, I am not sure there is any biologist that has experience in deer management could do an unbiased audit since they would all agree with the basic principle that the herd should be managed in balance with the habitat.