This is a joke right?
Anyone, in any organization has a right to comment on issues or to fund studies.
Penn State does their studies and reports the results and that is that. They do not ask Audubon or anyone else, what the results should be. They simply tell it like it is.
Forest cert. was done by an independant company, plain and simple.
These groups are hired to do a job because they have the technology, personnel, expertiseand equipment.
This slant is like saying some hunters are good Catholics, therefore the Catholic Church controls hunting.
This is th OJ trial all over. Make accusations, with no substance, to mislead away from the actual findings.

Oh, incidently CH, forest cert. was not done for the PGC, it was done for DCNR. And you seem confused between habitat and good forestry practices that ensure regeneration.

As for thelaw suit, the court did no more than tell USP they arenot denied the right to sue. Although, in the first round they sent them packing and told them to re-word the allegations to establish "standing."
If it is, or is not, ridiculous will be determined in the judgment or lack of it.

If you want to point to the legislators as having some higher degree of knowledge of wildlfie, well good luck. The USP doesn't have friends there, the politicians are simply trying to determine where the most votes are. If you believe any different well welcome to Lala land.

You're rooting for the DCNR to take over!!! Who requested forest certification in the first place? Who is accused of manipulating the PGC to futher reduce deer numbers?