Now they are on a mission to badmouth the whole audit. The unbiased audit that they wanted and even their president praised for being the best choice for a fair and un-biased firm to conduct the audit.
What have you seen from the USP where they bad mouthed the audit? How can a firm that supports biodiversity do an unbiased audit, when managing the herd based on biodiversity supports the goals of one group of stake holders while dismissing the goals of the hunters who actually do the work of controlling the herd?