"WMI has a national reputation to uphold, and I can't see that they would jeopardize that reputation by reporting something that is not true"
Maybe Mohr doesn't realize that WMI can write an audit that supports the PGC plan without jeopardizing their reputation. The methods the PGC uses for estimating population harvests ,forest health and herd health have already been peer reviewed and found to be valid. Unless the audit requires that specific apparent conflicts in the PGC plan be addressed, WMI can just ignore them.
WMI has already said they support diversity,so they will have no problem justifying the amount of HR the PGC has implemented.