Here's everyone's chance to disprove the other guys opinions.
There's no sense in arguing here and making claims that cannot be proven, right?

Are you sick of it yet?
Well I am, but I'm not ready to say everyone is a liar and one side is completely right or wrong.

Hang on, don't prejudge.

If there is one claim ever made by the USP that I agree with it is the abundant requests they’ve made for accountability of the PGC deer management programs.
(I do not agree that an injunction against all hunters interests is the way to accomplish this)

Let's face it, none of us average hunters are truly versed in "all" of this stuff and we do tend to go on the faith that the professional biologists are honest and capable.
I don't for a minute doubt that, but I can see where others, who had had poor experiences afield may become doubtful.

Let's give them, our hunting brothers and sisters, our support to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
Let's put PGC on the proverbial spot for accountability.

My suggestion is that we co-join in a simple request for funding of a truly independent audit.

We should stay away from controversial entities such as the "Forest Certification Systems" or Audubon or any of the others whose motives have been questioned by either side.

Can we agree that we want an outfit that is recognized and has experience in doing such surveys for other states?
Can we agree that their primary business plan should be to this type of auditing and not some "all things to all people" conservation concern?

I have no fear, but I am willing to accept that the outcome may not please me personally.
Is that too much to ask from all who claim to have the best interest of our hunting heritage at stake?

USP, PFSC, UBP, any hunting org. and all legislators should welcome this if we approach it as truly "united" in wanting it.

I sincerely hope USP decision makers will be willing to say that this is also what they said they want, and to recognize they will get this accomplished a whole lot easier if we join as a team.

Who amongyou will express support for this and accept the findings, whether I like it or not? I will.

I'm in in a New York minute!

My suggestion is that we co-join in a simple request for funding of a truly independent audit.



Yes I could go along with that, as long as we know who is doing it.
I wouldn't want to see one of FAST EDDIE'S team's doing it. [&o]

I'm for it.But like lost said no politics involved.

Who would put the "team" together, and who would it be made up of?
Unless there is a totally neutral start by the team, I can see infighting developing real quick.

I agree that no matter who does it there would be some on both sides of the issue who would find fault.
I think it would have to be an outside-of-PAentity, and one that has actually done this sort of thing and has a track record of experience.
I do know that other states have had their deer management programs examined for the very reasons of hunter mistrust.

Obviously we have a situation where DCNR, PGC, USP etc. would all want to be calling the shots on "who."

I would guess two routes could be taken, one being a panel with representatives of allinterested parties, USP, PFSC, Farm Bureau, DCNR etc.

Or simply have the governor appoint someone to find out whoother states used and their satisfaction with the contractor and then let him make the decision.
Either way, some will not like it but that's life and it will never change.

I agree. It needs to be an independent, unbiased, out of state group. And not be picked by fast eddie. He has zero credability with PA's sportsmen and women. I seen on another board where someone suggested the Wildlife Management Institute, so I looked into them a little. They do do this type of review on state agencies.

But deep down I feel that whoever gets picked the usp will cry foul or conspiracy the minute the results don't align with their far fetched claims.

Whoever gets picked to do it should have a 100% approval from those who do the picking, and any further decisions from those "pickers" should have a 75% agreement.

Meat hunter, I'm sure you are right. The USP will cry foul, but I'm willing to take achance that the outcome won't suit me either.
At least the offer is made and now it is in their court to make a decision.

There will never be 100% approval on anything.
I agree it would be preferrable but it ain't gonna happen.

Does the name Don Madl come to anyone mind when we speak of trust?