Doug says; 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.
Wmi said while thats sometimes a viable option it wasnt in our case because the adult deer info was already too small of a sample, and fawn data would be smaller still. It also showed our fawn data that pgc does have as being in line with that in other northern states.
"Apparently other states agree because some plan on going to larger units because of that reason."
I dont see any going to larger units. All i see is a few mention that its a consideration they wouldnt rule out. And as scientists, nothings ever ruled out completely in those type cases. Just as smaller wmus have not been ruled out by them.
Wmi stated larger wmus were "acceptable alternatives" to smaller ones. And that was because of exactly how everything else was being done by pgc. They didnt rule out smaller ones, and it wasnt even addressed from a standpoint of possibly implementing them, only whether or not the large were deemed "acceptable". That was pure bull- imho. No doubt the product of wording derived via the flower sniffers who worded the proposal for audit.
Also remember, when wmi led the deer management working group earlier on in the program, the request given was for MORE & SMALLER WMU'S, SMALLER IN SIZE AND GREATER IN NUMBER THAN THE COUNTY BASED UNITS. Course pgc didnt comply.
As for the program basics being scientifically sound I dont think that was ever in question. Many were just hoping to have suggestions of viable subsitutes. That wasnt even explored at all.
The audit was a sham from word go with who was doing it, then the wording and request for analysis as drawn up by the eco-folk was meant for nothing more than a whitewash, and after all that, they STILL found significant problems.