If there was a willingness on the part of pgc to "fix whats broken", the lawsuit wouldnt be going on in the first place.

What imho is "broken" is simply how hunter nonfriendly the program is. I believe it is scientifically defendable. I believe a much more hunter friendly program could be just as scientifically defendable if that were the goal, instead of extreme biodiversity etc. Only way its gonna be fixed isnt gonna be because of an audit or lawsuit, but a change ofOPINION at pgc. Perhaps the audit will bring that needed change. Or maybe it will not.

BTW, I forgot to address....It was not many of us who are against pgc deer plan who screamed for an audit. I for one wouldve preferred the problems be directly addressed through curative legislation. I see the audit as a very pgc friendly compromise. In fact, if I remember correctly, pfsc and audubon cosigned a letter to prevent any "curative legislation" asking that an audit be done instead.

Oh well. At any rate, Im willing to see what happens. But this isnt by any stretch "MY" audit. Though I do find it a better option than "nothing".