I support the dmp for the most part but it always had parts that I didn't agree with.It just so happens the audit confirmed what some of my conerns were.I always stated that the roadkill data was way to imcomplete to draw any valid conclusions on herd health.It also bugged me that they stopped using the conception rate of fawns as a measure.To me,that's one of the more reliable measures.The PGC has been telling us for years that one of the reasons for the larger wmu's was because of the need to pool data from larger areas because of the lack of data for smaller areas.Apparently other states agree because some plan on going to larger units because of that reason.The data for the habitat collection is also a tough thing to measure over a short period of time and with limited infoprmation.That still doesn't change the fact that every single professional that I've spoken with or spent time with in the woods has agreed that the habitat is starting to improve.The audit also make it clear that they had plenty of facts and evidence from the scientific community to conclude that the deer are a major cause to the habitat problems we face.They didn't discount other factors and neither has the PGC.

Overall,I thought the audit was pretty fair and balanced.It was critical of the PGC in certain areas and recommended areas for improvement.It didn't however say the plan was a failure or that the plan itself was flawed.I've always agreed with the general direction of the DMP but never claimed the PGC or the plan itself couldn't be improved.The PGC isn't perfect but they aren't out to ruin hunting and they aren't as incompetent as many claim.I feel they do pretty good with what they have to work with.Perfect?No.On the right track?Yes and that's what my perception of the PGC has always been and that was my perception of the audit.