Youre right, I was wrong. I expected a whitewash from a biased company, and what I got was FAR FAR different than expected. I guess the "slinkster" was right lol. He said the company was trustworthy. I thought he didnt have a stinking clue what he was talking about.

Vindicated? lmao. Id say the exact opposite. I guess you didnt read it, or you one of those with an extra special interest in pgc/dcnr dealings.... Dont care. None of my business.

But to summarize, the deer plan as-is isnt worth the paper to wipe my back side. And now its proven. I honestly wish I could delete this entire thread, because I couldnt have been more wrong and feel bad about some of the things i said about wmis credibility.

But on another note, you can always take that position over to hpa. I understand out of all those users there are 3 or 4 pgc & dcnr employees posting that agree with YOUR sentiment. lmao.

WMI did a very reasonable evalutation and confirmed what many of us felt about the deer plan all along. Nice try at damage control, but no dice friend.

Im sure our fine legislators will see it clearly, and I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But i happen to know some who have given that same sentiment, and are also tired of the "ecofolks" and their involvement.

Imho, this audit is EXACTLY what was needed. Thank you WMI!

Unsupported deer plan for a decade...based on 100% insufficent data on all fronts, both biologically and forest healthwise and poor approach to social issues. Time for legislators to put the squeeze on the pgc.