TWOWITHONE

BTW it took quite a long while for this auditing firm to be selected.

Your kidding arent you. They did the Swan study for the GC. they had the inside edge for this study to be done. And as you stated apparently they were not the only company too put bids in for this contract. I honestly think theres more to the whole audit. You got Staback approaching USP to back down,then GC. saying they were hesitant to cooperate theres something that smells here and I dont think it,s USP. Your prognosis for WMI being sued after the study dont flush either. The judge would throw it out of court a audit was done and here are the results everybody plain an simple.

DennyF

It took the legislature a long time to award the audit contract for one reason: No one other than WMI applied for it, that was qualified to do it.IF indeed, anyone elseever applied to do it?

WMI does not want to do the audit while USP's lawsuit is still active, for one reason: They do not want to get drawn into the lawsuit itself, in the event USP trys to useWMI's findings as evidence one way or the other. Your contention that a judge would dismiss any attempt by USP to use audit findings, isfar from the mark.

Go with what Staback says, because it's probably the closest thing to reality.

bluebird2

I think you have the cause and effect mixed up once again. The USP suit was filed before WMI was awarded the contract. The USP did not tell WMI not to conduct the audit, WMI choose to not perform the audit and the PGC said they were reluctant to cooperate with the audit. So it is WMI and the PGC that is causing the delay,not the USP.

Furthermore, the only group that is getting screwed by the delay is the PGC.

explorer_Jack

Why would someone drop a lawsuit? Hey BTB drop your multi million$ you have in a lawsuit so we can audit your defendent? Guess what, BTB is the cause why the audit isn't getting done with the defendent. He refuses to drop his lawsuit.

sproulman

well said,USP members have pride too, i know, i was original member long ago.

it breaks my heart to to see our hunting and game get to this point.

what has PGC/DCNR done too us,they got hunters HATING them .for good reason too.

Maverick 1

BlueBird is right. The USP suit was filed before WMI was awarded the contract. WMI is the one that chose not to conduct the audit for whatever reason. There is nothing preventing them from proceeding and if the truth be told I am sure the PGC is very content to have the audit delayed or even cancelled. Yes, the sportsman are the ones who are losing out, again, but the blame can hardly be put on the USP who have nothing to do with the audit.

bowtruck

You can blame the usp it sounds like pgc is trying to bully there way out by making the usp look bad
or look worse then they do now

Cornelius08

Dennyf said: "It took the legislature a long time to award the audit contract for one reason: No one other than WMI applied for it, that was qualified to do it.IF indeed, anyone elseever applied to do it?"

According to Kdavis on Hpa, there were 2 or 3 other applicants for theaudit. Dont know the details, nor do I care.

Cornelius08

"Again, Staback is no real friend to the hunters or the PGC IMHO. He is the consumate "which way is the wind blowing" politician "

He is a friend to us currently and not pgc. Thats because currently pgc is FAR from "our" friend. 2nd. He is not what you have a problem with. Its more accurately him doing his job description. He was appointed as part of the committee that was set up as a check and balance system. He also represents the people. In fact its the very title of his job. That is exactly what he is doing in both cases. Representing the will of the people and acting as the current check and balance system of the pgc. EXACTLY both as intended in the first place.

"Perhaps something good would come from the lawsuit. I've heardsome USP membersimply that the USP actually generated the audit singlehandedly. Clearly the audit will shed light where some beleive things were dark.Clearly the audit can not hurt and can only help those who want the real truth to come out. The USP suits demands are completely unrealisticand I think most rational hunters who have read it agree with that. So why is the USP standing in the way?"

Their money. Their lawsuit. Their right. Their call. There is VERY strong evidence of their claims of insufficient breeding data to support the extremes of the program. Anyone can see that easily by glancing for one moment at the annual reports. Its rediculous. I just don't think they will be granted exactly what they are seeking based on that.

My only concern with the audit is will it take on the real issues? Or will it avoid the very problems we have in the first place? Pgc whined as soon as the audit was proposed that they supported is as long as it didnt dwell on the numbers. Thats b.s. That should be a PART of the deal. Also, the main thing imho should be simply this... Is there or is there not changes that can be made that would be scientifically sound as currently or moreso, yet appease more sportsman than this joke currently. It needs to offer solutions and other options that need to be considered. There IS a problem or this wouldnt be going on inthe first place. Only question is is it social alone in nature, or both social and scientific.

bluebird2

What doesn't make any sense to me is why the PGC switched from deer density goals that were established based on 20 years of research and 20 years of field data, to a system based on the number of embryos/doe when they knew that the sample sizes were too small to yield statistically valid data on a yearly basis.Now ,the PGC makes yearly decisions on antlerless allocations based on 3 year averages rather than year to year data. Therefore, they can't adjust allocations due to reduced recruitment due to a severe harvest or higher than expected antlerless harvest. That is unless they are really managing the herd based on the actual deer density rather than on breeding rates and forest regeneration.