Wow, it appears that Allegheny County Sportsmens League sees the audit to be a complete sham.

ACSL

Here is part of what they had to say, see the link above for full information...seems they have a firm grasp of reality:

"Pennsylvania Deer Management
Audit History and Stakeholder Input
Review and Analysis
Members of the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee:
We have watched with growing concern the continuing controversy over Pennsylvania
Deer/Wildlife management practices. During this time representatives of the ACSL have made every
effort possible to participate, at virtually every available opportunity, in hearings and committees that
involved the issues of wildlife management. Our experiences, thus far, can best be described as
bittersweet.
When the Pennsylvania Game Commission revamped the Deer harvesting and management
approach and Gary Alt conducted a series of seminars across the state (which we attended) we were
dismayed to find that there was a lack of adequate research available to show the justification for these
changes. On April 30, 2001 Kim Stolfer (ACSL Legislative Chairman) visited the PGC headquarters
in Harrisburg attempting to obtain the background material and studies that supported the newly
introduced deer management policies. We discovered that nothing was available and Kim Stolfer left
with a deepening sense of concern as to the direction and reasoning behind these new deer
management policies.
On May 7th 2005 we joined with the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and 15 other
groups to call for an ‘independent’ audit of the deer management program in order to provide all
stakeholders with the best available information to make informed decisions. We collectively called
for, in a communication with the legislature and the PGC, an ‘examination’ of this program and ‘all’
the factors involved in coming up with appropriate deer/wildlife management policy (as the excerpt
below represents):
. . .we suggest that you call for a transparent examination of the methods and data used by the
Game Commission to measure and make decisions on harvest reports and the three factors of
habitat condition, deer health, and deer-human conflicts.
Sportsmen and women and their representatives have a vested interest in being able to examine and
evaluate all information that is used to develop policy on hunting issues. This air of transparency
benefits not only a better understanding of these issues but could lead to innovative concepts from the
‘true’ stakeholders-hunters.
In the course of our investigation into these issues we have communicated with a diverse collection
of individuals, outdoor writers, and government entities, elected representatives and sportsmen and
women. We have discovered a wide array of information and documents that paint a troubling picture.
Above we referenced a letter to the legislature from 17 Pennsylvania groups soliciting an independent
audit of the deer management program, and yet when the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee
sent a letter out to stakeholder groups, December 6, 2007, soliciting input, the Allegheny County
Sportsmen’s League was not contacted. Considering the list of groups that were contacted, we find it
difficult to accept that this was an oversight.
Now our review is leading us to the possibility that Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), a group
that is not, in our view, independent and is connected to the current controversial deer management
policies, may be the front runner in examining deer management policies. The history of WMI is
replete with proposals and conferences calling for drastic cuts in the Pennsylvania deer herd. This, we
believe, presents a conflict of interest for them that violates the call for independence by the PFSC,
ACSL and 15 other Pennsylvania groups."