"Not really. The audit doesnt have to go out in the field and count deer or count embryos again. They just have to evaluate PA's practices against known, accepted and reliable scientific practices. Peer review is the term often usedto describethe practice."

I agree little fieldwork will be done. They dont have to, to makeit a long and tedious process. There are tons and tons of data from several years to sort through in regards to several processes as well as addressingthe processes of obtaining and using that data in depth.

As well as comparing the same to other states. As well as addressing hunter satisfaction issues and human conflict. Weighing the pros and cons of our current goalsetc. I believe they should be asked for acceptable alternatives that are more hunter friendly, that would require some in depth fact gathering as well...

H-U-G-E study if all is thoroughly addressed as it should be.

2 problems I see. One is the#1 problem of all imho. And they most likely will not evaluate it as a "problem". It isour "goals" and how "weight" is distributed to each. Thats a judgement call, and no science involved when you say "we are gonna manage with more weight given biodiversity and minimal to "hunter satisfaction" and recreational deer uses. Whats appropriate in that area or inappropriate? Judgement call on part of Pgc. Poor judgement imho. How can an audit address that when it doesnt entail science, but is 100% based on individuals values?

Another problem with our current system, which will not be addressed is very basic and by many seen as the root of many of our problems, the commissioner selection process... But thats another topic...