It wasnt my job to send out requests for bids. Of the few choices that were supposedly available. Id say none of them, including the one being used should have qualified. Thats no excuse to go with the one with the very most connections to pgc (which i believe was by design in the first place). A 100% biased audit is 100% worse than NO audit. We needed meaningful legislative actions, not a sham audit that will do nothing but rubber stamp the program and not even address the real issues.
I would suggest that by criticizing this audit and calling it a sham before any word of the results has even come close to being released tells us that you apparently have a preconcieved notion as to what the results will be. That suggests a lack of fairness and open mindedness on your part. What you have inadvertently done is undermine any credibilty you would hope for when it does come out and you attempt to state your case.
But instead of reiterating, here is a post that should straighten things out for you.
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...h-control.html
Here is the exact pertinent quote from pgc:
"Given the unproven nature of these drugs to control or manage a free-ranging deer population, any Game Commission guidelines for their use will be designed to rigorously test this drug in real world circumstances."
Thanks for that link. What it clears up is that those who disagreed with you in that link are absolutely correct that the only public comment by the game Commission on that issue is one of a high degreee of skepticism and certainly nothing close to being an endorsement of deer contraceptives and their use in PA as you suggested. The deer chronicle article is highly critical of the whole concept. Do you have some other evidence of what you call suppport for that drug that I havent seen? Please tell me where to find it if you do.