"Funny how the very guys who claimed that PGC was dragging their feet on the audit are now very obviously worried that the results won't fit their agenda. "

Sorry, if its crooked it crooked, if its not objective and thourough its not. if it IS, you neednt worry as we will see it for what it is.

On the other hand, it seems you pretty much have your mind made up though. ITs already a great audit that should be swallowed whole no matter who does it or what is said, just because ifwe dont, you will accuse anyone who doesnt of having an agenda. As if anyone here cares more about your ridicule than they do the realsupposed purpose of this audit![8D]

Sorry, but you dont dictate what is acceptable and what isnt. Especially100% blindlywith nothing even having taken place yet. Noones said the audit is definately gonna be crooked or not address the pertinenet details for sure.The very realPOSSIBILITY most certainly does exist the audit could be done in a manner not conducive to solving a thing. Though you may not believe that, just as you dont believe pgcbeing 100% direction dictated by econuts.

Most here would undoubtedly liketo see an attempt ataddressing these issues, thats why suggestions were asked for here, which it seems you still havent given, all you can do is pizz andmoan about others posts, as usual.

Dont like the discussion? Sorry bout yer luck, but it is what it is, and there isnt a thing out of line here or that isnt consistent with hunter feelings about pgc. This audit is because of gross mismanagement and rock bottom hunter satisfaction level. It shouldntevenNEED to be occurring, if it werent for pgcs head beingfirmly up thier own arses. Dont expect those of us who aredisgruntled to all of a sudden trust everyone involved just because you think we should! No offense, but if we did what YOU thought we should, pgc woulda probably had a license fee increase of twice it is they are asking....8 years ago, along with half the deer we already have. And as for someone being on the "expert panel" affiliated with say... Audubon, Most hunters wouldnt trust them any more than you'd trust Jim Slinsky himself todo an unbiasedaudit.

Most wouldve liked legislative intervention to immediate fix the problems. Most didnt need an audit to know pgc where full of it. We can thank ol' "MEL" and Tim Shaeffer of Audubon for that not happening, and us having to settle for an audit in the first place. As stated, I find an audit better than "nothing". Nothing more, nothing less.

Dont like my position, well im sorry but that is my position and always has been ever since pgc trying to get out of the audit from the beginning. I dont support a license fee increase with absolutely nothing done. I think an audit far from ideal, but am open to the option at the moment.