PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
04-29-2009, 08:34 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
Legislative Budget and Finance Committee
Hearing Room 3, North Office Building, By Eric A. Failing
The committee met to discuss progress of the Deer Management Study pursuant to HR 642 of 2008.
Members in attendance included Chairman John Pippy (R-Allegheny), Representatives Robert Godshall (R-Montgomery), David Levdansky (D-Allegheny), Steve Barrar (R-Delaware), and Scott Conklin (D-Centre) and House Gaming and Fisheries Chairman Edward Staback (D-Lackawanna).
Chairman Pippy began by explaining the purpose of the day's meeting is to receive an update on the status of the Joint Legislative Budget and Finance Committee's deer management study and to learn why it has taken so long to complete.
John Rowe, Project Manager for the Committee, testified that in November of 2007, Rep. Levdansky proposed a study to investigate the PA Game Commission's deer management program and it was agreed that an outside contractor with expertise would be needed to conduct the study. Rowe went on state that a letter was sent out to stakeholders in November of 2007. Chairman Pippy interjected asking where the list of stakeholders came from. Rowe replied that it is a standard list they have used before that they originally received from the Game Commission. He further explained it is made up of about 30 statewide stakeholder groups.
Rowe then continued with his presentation saying they received input back from stakeholders on what the scope of the study should be in addition to researching for themselves how similar studies were accomplished in other states such as Wisconsin. He elaborated stating that Wisconsin used an expert panel approach and that through all of their research they learned that using an out of state contractor to conduct the study was important.
Rowe then reflected on how after not being able to reach consensus from stake holders on the scope of the study, they took Chairman Pippy's suggestion of defining the scope through a resolution. According to Rowe, the resulting resolution required the study to be completed within 12 months but when the RFP for an out of state contractor was released, only the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) responded. Because of the limited response, Rowe explained how the RFP was again released in June of 2008 which resulted in two more firms in addition to WMI responding. Rowe added that of these two new firms, one was based in PA and one had a field office in PA. After scoring the RFPs on how they intended to address the study they then looked at costs.
Chairman Pippy again interjected and asked for clarification on whether the staff evaluated the proposals before looking at how much money the firms wanted. Rowe confirmed that was the procedure. Senator Pippy then asked how one was recommended over another. Rowe stated that WMI scored the highest based on their past experience in wildlife management issues, the fact that their proposal was in direct response to the mandates of the RFP, the fact that they said they wanted to use and expert panel and on the individual qualifications of their proposed six person panel. He added their bid was also reasonable.
Chairman Pippy asked for the bid ranges on the proposals. Rowe said they ranged from $72,000 to $265,000 and told the committee that WMI's proposal was in the $90,000 range.
Asked by the Chairman why there is such a difference in costs, Rowe confessed he did not know for sure.
Rep. Levdansky recalled how the company that submitted the $265,000 proposal was not going to use an expert panel. He wondered if they demonstrated any additional experience over WMI. Rowe said they did not but acknowledged that they had done some work in the past for the Game Commission.
Rep. Levdansky said it appears as though the staff strongly recommended WMI. Rowe confirmed this is the case saying they scored 10 points higher than anyone else. He added that at different times the Unified Sportsmen and the PA Federation of Sportsmen also supported WMI. This prompted Rep. Levdansky to proclaim that he can't recall any other issue those two groups have agreed upon which should say something about WMI's competency.
Rep. Godshall recalled how the general consensus of the study was to use an out of state contractor to ascertain an accurate count of the number of deer in PA. Rowe agreed with this statement. Rep. Godshall then expressed concern over the fact that the accuracy of WMI's work would depend upon the data the Game Commission provides them. He worried about prior statements from the Executive Director of the Game Commission where he said the Director admitted to not knowing if the state had ten healthy deer or 100 healthy deer. Rep. Godshall also worried about verbiage from WMI about their conclusions being contingent upon the data they receive from the Commission. He stressed that to accurately conduct this study field work would have to be done.
Rowe said he is not going to argue with the Representative's concern but stressed that field work would be a part of the study. He added that "if possible" verbiage was simply related to WMI not knowing at this point in time about the quality of the data they would receive. Rowe stressed that if it is found that the data quality is poor then WMI will make recommendations on how the Game Commission can change its data collection system.
Rowe then went back to his remarks relating how over the summer, WMI became concerned over whether they might get pulled into a lawsuit filed against the Game Commission by the Unified Sportsmen which resulted in them pulling out of the process in the fall. He related how this problem was later resolved in the beginning of 2009 when the Game Commission, WMI and the Unified Sportsmen were able to enter into a written agreement assuring that WMI would not get pulled into the lawsuit.
Chairman Staback related how this deer audit is important and told of how when he heard WMI was going to pull out of the process he called a meeting with the Unified Sportsmen to see if they would agree to drop their lawsuit since the purpose of the lawsuit and the audit was nearly the same. He said after this meeting he believed the suit would be dropped only to find out later it wasn't so he held a meeting with the Game Commission, WMI and the Unified Sportsmen to begin work on a written agreement to give assurances to WMI.
Rep. Godshall then argued that flyovers with airplanes produce a much more accurate accounting for the number of deer in the state and lamented that the Commission no longer employs this method for deer counting. Rowe stated that he would expect WMI to use all the information they have available. He added that knowing these concerns at a staff level will further assist them in overseeing the contract. Rowe also promised to have a meeting with the contractor and the Representative and his staff so that they too can better understand the issues.
This prompted Rep. Godshall to say he would be interested in knowing the difference between the computer models for deer densities in a given area compared to the number of deer counted in that same area through a flyover. Rowe assured the Committee that one of WMI's panel members is an expert in statistical analysis, GIS mapping and GPS data collection.
Rep. Godshall also stressed he wants to see actual field work done especially with regards to regeneration issues.
Rep. Levdansky noted information in his packet from the Allegheny County Sportsmen League and asked when it was received. Rowe said it came in yesterday.
Rep. Levdansky said it's the first time he has heard anything from this group and is a little befuddled that it would come in just now when this is an issue they've been working on for a year and a half. He expressed concern because some of the criticisms levied over this process surrounded groups not being afforded an opportunity to offer their input.
Chairman Pippy recommended adding them to the stakeholder list.
The Chairman then remarked that the resolution was very specific and asked for clarification as to why the RFP had additional items in it. Rowe explained it is not unusual for the Committee to translate a resolution to a statement of purpose and fill in more definition about what the state is asking for in the RFP.
Asked about the issue of utilizing deer embryos, Rowe said the data has shown embryo studies to be indicative of deer health and has been used in previous studies. In terms of any other additions or changes, Rowe said the citizen's advisory council language was not included nor information about the size of wildlife management units.
Chairman Pippy then suggested that one way to alleviate the concerns over a flawed report based on flawed or incomplete evidence would be to structure sound deliverables. He asked Rep. Godshall if he agreed with this idea. Rep. Godshall said he agreed.
Asked by the Chairman how an independent audit could be guaranteed, Rowe stressed it has to be done by an out of state firm that utilizes recognized experts in the field. He also stressed the Committee should work with the contractor early in the process so that all concerns can be addressed and that staff from the Committee keep tight oversight on the project. He added that WMI has stated the study can be done in under a year.
Rep. Godshall sought to clarify that he at no point meant to insinuate that the Commission would give a contractor misleading information but is simply concerned they may not have the requisite amount of information needed for the study. He then questioned what is meant by a healthy deer herd, quipping he's been hunting deer for 60 years and they look the same to him now as they did before.
Rep. Levdansky argued that the fact WMI qualified the accuracy of their study on the completeness of the Game Commission's information is a valid concern and tells him they have not made any premature conclusions.
Rep. Staback asked Rowe if he believes WMI is the best company to handle the RFP. Rowe said that WMI is the top choice for both him and the committee staff.
The committee then unanimously voted to allow staff to enter into contract negotiations with WMI.
Chairman Pippy asked Representatives Godshall, Staback and Levdansky to work closely with WMI and the Committee throughout this process. They all agreed to do so.
Hearing Room 3, North Office Building, By Eric A. Failing
The committee met to discuss progress of the Deer Management Study pursuant to HR 642 of 2008.
Members in attendance included Chairman John Pippy (R-Allegheny), Representatives Robert Godshall (R-Montgomery), David Levdansky (D-Allegheny), Steve Barrar (R-Delaware), and Scott Conklin (D-Centre) and House Gaming and Fisheries Chairman Edward Staback (D-Lackawanna).
Chairman Pippy began by explaining the purpose of the day's meeting is to receive an update on the status of the Joint Legislative Budget and Finance Committee's deer management study and to learn why it has taken so long to complete.
John Rowe, Project Manager for the Committee, testified that in November of 2007, Rep. Levdansky proposed a study to investigate the PA Game Commission's deer management program and it was agreed that an outside contractor with expertise would be needed to conduct the study. Rowe went on state that a letter was sent out to stakeholders in November of 2007. Chairman Pippy interjected asking where the list of stakeholders came from. Rowe replied that it is a standard list they have used before that they originally received from the Game Commission. He further explained it is made up of about 30 statewide stakeholder groups.
Rowe then continued with his presentation saying they received input back from stakeholders on what the scope of the study should be in addition to researching for themselves how similar studies were accomplished in other states such as Wisconsin. He elaborated stating that Wisconsin used an expert panel approach and that through all of their research they learned that using an out of state contractor to conduct the study was important.
Rowe then reflected on how after not being able to reach consensus from stake holders on the scope of the study, they took Chairman Pippy's suggestion of defining the scope through a resolution. According to Rowe, the resulting resolution required the study to be completed within 12 months but when the RFP for an out of state contractor was released, only the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) responded. Because of the limited response, Rowe explained how the RFP was again released in June of 2008 which resulted in two more firms in addition to WMI responding. Rowe added that of these two new firms, one was based in PA and one had a field office in PA. After scoring the RFPs on how they intended to address the study they then looked at costs.
Chairman Pippy again interjected and asked for clarification on whether the staff evaluated the proposals before looking at how much money the firms wanted. Rowe confirmed that was the procedure. Senator Pippy then asked how one was recommended over another. Rowe stated that WMI scored the highest based on their past experience in wildlife management issues, the fact that their proposal was in direct response to the mandates of the RFP, the fact that they said they wanted to use and expert panel and on the individual qualifications of their proposed six person panel. He added their bid was also reasonable.
Chairman Pippy asked for the bid ranges on the proposals. Rowe said they ranged from $72,000 to $265,000 and told the committee that WMI's proposal was in the $90,000 range.
Asked by the Chairman why there is such a difference in costs, Rowe confessed he did not know for sure.
Rep. Levdansky recalled how the company that submitted the $265,000 proposal was not going to use an expert panel. He wondered if they demonstrated any additional experience over WMI. Rowe said they did not but acknowledged that they had done some work in the past for the Game Commission.
Rep. Levdansky said it appears as though the staff strongly recommended WMI. Rowe confirmed this is the case saying they scored 10 points higher than anyone else. He added that at different times the Unified Sportsmen and the PA Federation of Sportsmen also supported WMI. This prompted Rep. Levdansky to proclaim that he can't recall any other issue those two groups have agreed upon which should say something about WMI's competency.
Rep. Godshall recalled how the general consensus of the study was to use an out of state contractor to ascertain an accurate count of the number of deer in PA. Rowe agreed with this statement. Rep. Godshall then expressed concern over the fact that the accuracy of WMI's work would depend upon the data the Game Commission provides them. He worried about prior statements from the Executive Director of the Game Commission where he said the Director admitted to not knowing if the state had ten healthy deer or 100 healthy deer. Rep. Godshall also worried about verbiage from WMI about their conclusions being contingent upon the data they receive from the Commission. He stressed that to accurately conduct this study field work would have to be done.
Rowe said he is not going to argue with the Representative's concern but stressed that field work would be a part of the study. He added that "if possible" verbiage was simply related to WMI not knowing at this point in time about the quality of the data they would receive. Rowe stressed that if it is found that the data quality is poor then WMI will make recommendations on how the Game Commission can change its data collection system.
Rowe then went back to his remarks relating how over the summer, WMI became concerned over whether they might get pulled into a lawsuit filed against the Game Commission by the Unified Sportsmen which resulted in them pulling out of the process in the fall. He related how this problem was later resolved in the beginning of 2009 when the Game Commission, WMI and the Unified Sportsmen were able to enter into a written agreement assuring that WMI would not get pulled into the lawsuit.
Chairman Staback related how this deer audit is important and told of how when he heard WMI was going to pull out of the process he called a meeting with the Unified Sportsmen to see if they would agree to drop their lawsuit since the purpose of the lawsuit and the audit was nearly the same. He said after this meeting he believed the suit would be dropped only to find out later it wasn't so he held a meeting with the Game Commission, WMI and the Unified Sportsmen to begin work on a written agreement to give assurances to WMI.
Rep. Godshall then argued that flyovers with airplanes produce a much more accurate accounting for the number of deer in the state and lamented that the Commission no longer employs this method for deer counting. Rowe stated that he would expect WMI to use all the information they have available. He added that knowing these concerns at a staff level will further assist them in overseeing the contract. Rowe also promised to have a meeting with the contractor and the Representative and his staff so that they too can better understand the issues.
This prompted Rep. Godshall to say he would be interested in knowing the difference between the computer models for deer densities in a given area compared to the number of deer counted in that same area through a flyover. Rowe assured the Committee that one of WMI's panel members is an expert in statistical analysis, GIS mapping and GPS data collection.
Rep. Godshall also stressed he wants to see actual field work done especially with regards to regeneration issues.
Rep. Levdansky noted information in his packet from the Allegheny County Sportsmen League and asked when it was received. Rowe said it came in yesterday.
Rep. Levdansky said it's the first time he has heard anything from this group and is a little befuddled that it would come in just now when this is an issue they've been working on for a year and a half. He expressed concern because some of the criticisms levied over this process surrounded groups not being afforded an opportunity to offer their input.
Chairman Pippy recommended adding them to the stakeholder list.
The Chairman then remarked that the resolution was very specific and asked for clarification as to why the RFP had additional items in it. Rowe explained it is not unusual for the Committee to translate a resolution to a statement of purpose and fill in more definition about what the state is asking for in the RFP.
Asked about the issue of utilizing deer embryos, Rowe said the data has shown embryo studies to be indicative of deer health and has been used in previous studies. In terms of any other additions or changes, Rowe said the citizen's advisory council language was not included nor information about the size of wildlife management units.
Chairman Pippy then suggested that one way to alleviate the concerns over a flawed report based on flawed or incomplete evidence would be to structure sound deliverables. He asked Rep. Godshall if he agreed with this idea. Rep. Godshall said he agreed.
Asked by the Chairman how an independent audit could be guaranteed, Rowe stressed it has to be done by an out of state firm that utilizes recognized experts in the field. He also stressed the Committee should work with the contractor early in the process so that all concerns can be addressed and that staff from the Committee keep tight oversight on the project. He added that WMI has stated the study can be done in under a year.
Rep. Godshall sought to clarify that he at no point meant to insinuate that the Commission would give a contractor misleading information but is simply concerned they may not have the requisite amount of information needed for the study. He then questioned what is meant by a healthy deer herd, quipping he's been hunting deer for 60 years and they look the same to him now as they did before.
Rep. Levdansky argued that the fact WMI qualified the accuracy of their study on the completeness of the Game Commission's information is a valid concern and tells him they have not made any premature conclusions.
Rep. Staback asked Rowe if he believes WMI is the best company to handle the RFP. Rowe said that WMI is the top choice for both him and the committee staff.
The committee then unanimously voted to allow staff to enter into contract negotiations with WMI.
Chairman Pippy asked Representatives Godshall, Staback and Levdansky to work closely with WMI and the Committee throughout this process. They all agreed to do so.
04-29-2009, 08:38 AM
#2
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
I really enjoyed some of the commentary by some of the politcal wannabe know-it-alls on another site. (LOL) The tears are welling up....
Seems some pgc supporters dont like having some of the reps participating etc...
One guy, I think VERY accurately pointed out to one "Bluetick", that "you guys just don't like it because the deck isnt stacked for pgc".
WHile I found the comment funny, and wouldnt be surprise if the guy suddenly comes up missing from the board. LOL, Im not sure I agree. With WMI doing the audit, I dont know that the deck isnt stacked for pgc, and dont know if the hpa jokers are just trying to put on a show, as is their usual sole purpose, but WMI has worked with pgc in the past as well as WMI does have someone who worked with them that has been nominated for a commissioner chair...
But no...Lets not allow anyone who might disagree with pgc to "oversee" things! LMAO. I dont know who these people think they are but there are some real clowns who think they should dictate everything that goes on with our game management!![:'(]
Seems some pgc supporters dont like having some of the reps participating etc...
One guy, I think VERY accurately pointed out to one "Bluetick", that "you guys just don't like it because the deck isnt stacked for pgc".
WHile I found the comment funny, and wouldnt be surprise if the guy suddenly comes up missing from the board. LOL, Im not sure I agree. With WMI doing the audit, I dont know that the deck isnt stacked for pgc, and dont know if the hpa jokers are just trying to put on a show, as is their usual sole purpose, but WMI has worked with pgc in the past as well as WMI does have someone who worked with them that has been nominated for a commissioner chair...
But no...Lets not allow anyone who might disagree with pgc to "oversee" things! LMAO. I dont know who these people think they are but there are some real clowns who think they should dictate everything that goes on with our game management!![:'(]
04-29-2009, 02:17 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
The audit will accomplish nothing unless it answers some very basic questions. For example , the PGC has been claiming that they don't know how many deer we have ,yet every year they calculate the change in the population for each WMU. It is simply impossible to calculate the change in the population unless you know the population or both years they are using to calculate the change.
If order to make this thread a little more productive than some threads, I would appreciate it if you would post specfiic questions that you would like the audit to answer. When the thread has run it's course ,I'll do my best to summarize the questions in a letter to Pippy and Stabach and everyone else can do the same.
If order to make this thread a little more productive than some threads, I would appreciate it if you would post specfiic questions that you would like the audit to answer. When the thread has run it's course ,I'll do my best to summarize the questions in a letter to Pippy and Stabach and everyone else can do the same.
04-29-2009, 02:44 PM
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
Sounds like a good idea to me bb. What are some that you have which you feel important?
Just to start things off...
How do our deer densities compare to other states deer density goals?
Can we havehigher deer densities than currently and stillacceptably address basic issues of habitat and herd health, especially in areas humanconflict is not nor has been an issue?
Can we more "optimise" deer numbers through use of smaller wmus?
How appropriate are the allocationsin each wmu considering whateach wmus goals have been for last several years of increase decrease or stabilization?
Just to start things off...
How do our deer densities compare to other states deer density goals?
Can we havehigher deer densities than currently and stillacceptably address basic issues of habitat and herd health, especially in areas humanconflict is not nor has been an issue?
Can we more "optimise" deer numbers through use of smaller wmus?
How appropriate are the allocationsin each wmu considering whateach wmus goals have been for last several years of increase decrease or stabilization?
04-29-2009, 03:01 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
Those are exactly the kind of questions I was looking for. I would also ask WMI to provide the MSY carrying capacity of each WMU based on the true carrying capacity of all of the habitat the deer use to survive.
04-29-2009, 03:05 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Sounds like a good idea to me bb. What are some that you have which you feel important?
Just to start things off...
How do our deer densities compare to other states deer density goals?
Sounds like a good idea to me bb. What are some that you have which you feel important?
Just to start things off...
How do our deer densities compare to other states deer density goals?
MI.'s target goal is 28.9 deer per square mile and OH.'s is 25 deer per square mile. Pike
04-29-2009, 03:11 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, PA.
Posts: 1,313
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
I would also like to know how they can use habitat study data since the PGC/ DCNR has no idea how many deer have been impacting paticular area's that are currently seeing regen or not seeing any.
For example if an area is seeing adequate regen how do they know the max DD. that area can support and still have adequate regen? Pike
For example if an area is seeing adequate regen how do they know the max DD. that area can support and still have adequate regen? Pike
04-29-2009, 03:15 PM
#8
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
Yes Jeff. Im familiar with quite a few states density goals, which often vary by unit or wmu...and Pa is near the very bottom of that list. Even the highest average deer densities in best areas of Pa wmu wide are lower than the same from any state Im aware of. That says nothing of those lower dd areas...
I just thought it would help keep things in perspective, and raise the questions of; Is pgcs plan extreme & excessive, or is everyone else wrong?
I just thought it would help keep things in perspective, and raise the questions of; Is pgcs plan extreme & excessive, or is everyone else wrong?
04-29-2009, 03:51 PM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
ORIGINAL: J Pike
I would also like to know how they can use habitat study data since the PGC/ DCNR has no idea how many deer have been impacting paticular area's that are currently seeing regen or not seeing any.
For example if an area is seeing adequate regen how do they know the max DD. that area can support and still have adequate regen? Pike
I would also like to know how they can use habitat study data since the PGC/ DCNR has no idea how many deer have been impacting paticular area's that are currently seeing regen or not seeing any.
For example if an area is seeing adequate regen how do they know the max DD. that area can support and still have adequate regen? Pike
04-29-2009, 04:03 PM
#10
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
How did the regeneration in 2A with a much higher herd (just coming off our all time high herd size!), rate 58% regeneration...then have the herd continue to decline significantly, have an increasing regeneration trend reaching 61% regen, then in the next evaluation in the very next annual report....and after even more reduction....the regeneration was rated at FORTY SIX PERCENT??