First, Id like to make a sincere public apology to WMI for saying the audit was a "whitewash". (I said so only after reading the introductory statements)... And also for my previous statements that they would not be objective at all.

--------------------
It seems they agree 100% with what most of us knew all along....

1. The rock bottom "basics" of the plan were sound as in the structure and basic goals. Only common sense actually. Noone had ever challenged them anyway.

2. Its been said over and over and over, and in fact is one of the reasons pgc was being sued by usp if i recall correctly, the data on herd health was BADLY insufficient, and found not to be a good indicator of herd health. That was confirmed.

3. The regeneration studies were insufficient and therefore the hr was based on nothing. Gee who didnt see that one coming??

4. The Cac they found to be a joke. I said that since day one.


Gee fellas....What else is there left to the deer program???

Pretty clear WMI, of course, was trying to be as polite as possible, but they still tore pgc a new one. Time for the legislators to take some curative actions or at the very least force pgc to do so themselves. We've just found out our last decade was wasted with a completely flawed management program in place..... Oh yeah, but the basic goals were acceptable. lmao.

Im seeing the generally consensus across the span of a few different boards and with those ive spoken to on the issue, that the audit is a good thing, supporting what many of those who have been seeking change have been saying all along.