Cornelius08

Here is some added info from Stabeck:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

State Rep. Edward G. Staback
D-Lackawanna/Wayne
http://www.pahouse.com/Staback







Deer management audit set to begin



HARRISBURG, April 28 – State Rep. Ed Staback announced today that the long-awaited deer management audit called for in H.R. 642 of 2008 is set to get underway.



The resolution mandated a study of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s past decisions on deer management and their future strategy. It was adopted unanimously by the state House on April 7, 2008. Since that time, efforts have been underway to outline the exact points to be addressed by the audit. Legal action involving the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania over deer management decision-making has also delayed the study.



"It took quite a lot of effort to get all parties satisfied to the point where the audit could move forward," Staback said. "I was particularly pleased with the cooperation of the Game Commission in getting this study started."



Wildlife Management Institute will conduct the audit. Wildlife Management Institute was formed in 1911 and is a widely respected, independent and scientific organization. Working with colleges and universities, Wildlife Management Institute will conduct an in-depth investigation into the current deer population in the state, past Game Commission methods of population control, and future plans and goals of the agency.



"Wildlife Management Institute is well-prepared to do a thorough and independent review," Staback said. "The scope of this study is large. The questions it seeks to answer are the same ones I have heard from hunters for years. Whether the question is habitat, herd health, hunter satisfaction or the future of hunting as a sport -- this audit will shed light on a wide variety of important topics.



"I think everyone concerned about the outdoors should welcome the news that the deer audit is set to begin and, like many of us in the legislature who worked on drafting it, should look forward to the study’s results," said Staback.



Staback is chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee.

bluebird2

Since all but one WMU is at or above it's goal for herd health it is logical to conclude that the herd is now being managed based on forest health and the recommendations of CACs. But in the units where the PGC claims they want to keep the herd stable ,regeneration rates vary from 34% in 2F to 61% in 3A. So is the PGC admitting that reducing the herd further in 2F won't result in increased regeneration? Reducing the herd in 2G to 8 DPSM only produced a regeneration rate of 42%, so are there other factors limiting regeneration in many of our WMUs?

BTBowhunter

Good question Jim!

Several posts here from posters who have been actively clamoring for the audit seem to be already forming arguementsto dispute the results that have yet to be arrived upon.

Now that the long awaited audit is about to begin, perhaps we ought to all do our best to be objective about what it may find.

Cornelius08

Considering the strong econut influence on our completely unsupported by data deer plan and extremes that have been gone to, as well as the lies told, I think it very reasonable and only understandable many of us are going to be skeptical. I think I accurately addressed Jims question when I said

"Maybe, maybe not.Im not gonna blindly commit to anything...And anyone who would no matter what, would be a damn fool. It has nothing to do with what I want to or dont want to hear. Only thing I dont want to hear is biased nonsense thats clearly nonsense, or an audit that effectively circumvents the real issues, yet rubber stamps the program.My acceptancewill most definately depend on wether what is stated meshes with whatis definitively already known. But the suggestions are at least something I think should be looked at if they are gonna look at anything and give an opinion, may as well be the important details."

I see that as being open to the results yet notblindly accepting anything and everything that may be said. If some things dont make sense, its not as if WMIhasnt been assocated with Pgc. Having worked with themon more than one occassion as well as having a pgc commissionernominee that worked for them. SOme of the important issues are opinion issues as well. Opinions can vary with very little supporting one opinion over another, just a judgement call.... For example should hunter opinion be givenmore weight then currently? How is a "expert" to answer that in any other way than simply their opinionif its not a matter of biological or other concern. If anyone sees my cautious approach asclose minded, so be it. But that isnt how I am looking at it. Im prepared to hear any good or bad, and no matter the outcome,nothing at all is gonna surprise me.

As for the percieved pessimism, we need to keep things in the proper context. The audit wasnt brought about because everyone sees pgc doing such a fine job.

bluebird2

What do you think the chances are that audit will provide a logical explanation for why 2F is being managed at almost twice the density of 2G? None of the PGC supporter here came close to providing an answer and neither will the audit. Do you think the audit will explain why 5C has the worst regeneration in the state even though it has some of the best soils in the state and a DD that is way below the MSY carrying capacity? Will it answer why statewide breeding rates decreased as the herd was reduced or will that issue be ignored? Will it answer how the PGC suddenly determined that all but one WMU was at or above the target goal for herd health with such a wide range in productivity?

bluebird2

What do you think the chances are the audit will provide a logical explanation for why 2F is being managed at almost twice the density as 2G even though it has poorer regeneration. Dr. Rosenberry,RSB and other PGC supporters haven't come close and neither will the audit. Will the audit explain how all but 1 WMU is at its target goal for herd health with such a wide range in productivity? Will it explain why statewide breeding rates decreased by 5% when they were predicted to increase? Will it explain why 5C has the worst regeneration in the state even though it has very good soils and a deer density that is considerably below the MSY carrying capacity?

The fact is , it is highly unlikely that any of those questions will be answered by the audit and we will be told that the plan is scientifically sound.

BTBowhunter

Bluebird, I don't think you needed to tell us that you will most likely dispute any and every aspect of the audit. It hasn't even begun and here you are already winding up the old spin machine

BTBowhunter

Actually I wouldn't call your approach totally closed minded but you certainly have to admit to aproaching it with a good deal of cynicism.

Cornelius08

Of course my position isnt going to be as optimistic as yours, since you support pgc in the first place even without the audit.

bluebird2

It is not a spin machine as you claim. It is simply a very analytical review of the deer management plan which is above your ability to refute. Anytime you think you can answer the points I raised, please feel free to dazzle us with your brillance.l