Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Found this interesting, posted on another site;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You ain’t gonna gitcherdeer -- and you deserve to know why
By John C. Street


If you’ve been following the brouhaha over the deer management program, you probably think – based on what you’ve read recently in the outdoor press – that a resolution is at hand, thanks to the hard work and diligence of Rep. David Levdansky (D-Allegheny). Hallelujah!

For over two years, it’s seemed like this controversial program was about to implode. First there was the lawsuit filed by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania that ended up in - and is still winding its way through - the Commonwealth Court and then there’s all the talk about an “audit” of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. And, finally, droning along in the background, there’s the PGC’s long-standing request for a license fee increase that seems to have everyone upset.

Now we appear to be on the eve of having an independent “Examination of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Deer Management Program” performed. Within the year, we’re being told, all this controversy will be behind us.

Nothing, as the following will explain, could be further from the truth.

As a backdrop for what you are about to read, please remember that hunting is one of the largest businesses in Pennsylvania . According to a report commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Keystone State hunters – nearly all of whom are deer hunters - spend $1.7 billion every year in the conduct of their favorite pastime and, as a direct consequence, support 28,000 jobs and add 214 million tax dollars to the state’s treasury.

Given this enormous financial impact (and especially in light of the decline in license sales from nearly 1.2 million to just under 800,000 in the last couple decades), it would be logical to assume whatever the Pennsylvania Game Commission did in relation to managing whitetail deer, its prescription would be deferential to this economic reality. Remarkably, however, this logic was apparently lost on the PGC.

It could be argued the first hint of the troubles we’re now experiencing surfaced at a PGC board of commissioners meeting back in October of 1997 when then Commissioner Sam Dunkle said, “I firmly believe one of the first steps to be taken in regaining the credibility that this agency once held is to have a thorough evaluation by an outside…agency.”

Within a year of Commissioner Dunkle’s pronouncement, but with remarkably little fanfare, the PGC was undergoing an external evaluation conducted by the Management Assistance Team of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. And when the final report (dubbed the “MAT Report”) was completed in July of 1999, Commissioner Dunkle’s call for an evaluation seemed prescient. “Currently,” the MAT Report advised, “in a number of ways, the [Pennsylvania Game Commission] is in the dysfunctional category.”

And the authors of the MAT report didn’t mince words in their final conclusion. The Pennsylvania Game Commission, the report stated bluntly, “has maintained a strong [law] enforcement orientation, but has not achieved concurrently strong orientation for professional wildlife biology.”

Given this stinging indictment, one might rightly expect the leadership of the Pennsylvania Game Commission to have gone to Hades and back to incorporate sound biology in its deer management program. But, as the controversy that soon erupted over the program revealed, it was samo-samo on Elmerton Avenue .

Rather than putting the mechanics of the deer management program on hold until it had the whole biology matter firmly in hand, the PGC’s leadership employed the Wildlife Management Institute to create a public relations campaign “to increase dialogue and communication leading to the development of informed consent on deer management.”

And then, in 1999, it authorized the creation of a stand-alone Deer Management Section and drafted the high-profile Dr. Gary Alt to run it, immediately sending the deer doctor on a statewide speaking tour to “inform and educate the public about managing deer and management challenges.”

Unbeknownst to most people, though, at the very same time the PGC was kicking-off its deer management program, the National Audubon Society was awarded a $3.5 million grant from the Pew Foundation to establish the “Heritage Forest Campaign.”

Interestingly, as a little research revealed (see www.unwatch.com), the “Heritage Forest Campaign” is one small component of the much larger “Agenda 21,” the operating manual of the United Nations’ campaign to achieve a “New World Order.” This just might explain why the National Audubon Society (as you will discover further on in this treatise) and its enablers at the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources are prominent players in this debacle.

Suffice to say, the deer management program was not created in a vacuum. And it most certainly was not created to nurture the economic force that spends $1.7 billion every year, sustains 28,000 jobs and contributes $214 million in state taxes.

With all the vitriol directed towards the Pennsylvania Game Commission, no one was really surprised when, in September of 2007, the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania “filed a petition in Commonwealth Court to stop doe hunting in Pennsylvania until such time as the PGC could scientifically substantiate how many deer there actually were in the state.” But, these sportsmen weren’t the only people, or the first, to take action.

According to information obtained from the Pennsylvania Legislatures’ Game and Fisheries Committee, on June 14, 2007 , John Eveland submitted what was to be the first proposal to perform an examination of the PGC’s deer management program. And he was imminently qualified to do the job; by profession a forester, a wildlife biologist, and an ecologist. Eveland received his education at Penn State University where he also served on the faculty.

More to the point, though, he conducted the first statewide research on black bears and authored the bear management plan used by the PGC to this day.

So extensive was Eveland’s work that Dr. Alt referred to him in a Pittsburgh Tribune Review article as “the bear man … a legend … bigger than life as far as I was concerned.” Interestingly, Dr. Alt, who everyone thought of as Pennsylvania ’s original bear biologist, was a high school student when Eveland was doing this work. And Eveland didn’t stop with bears.

He also conducted the first research on Pennsylvania 's elk herd, discovering in the process the brainworm disease that had, for nearly 75 years, prevented the herd from expanding. And, just as he had with bears, Eveland also wrote Pennsylvania ’s original management plan for elk.

Having conducted the original statewide research and authored the still-in-use management plans for two of the state’s three big game mammals, it’s understandable why his proposal to examine the deer management program was met with a great deal of enthusiasm at the Game and Fisheries Committee and why it was immediately put on the docket for funding. Mysteriously, though, Eveland never received the funding he was promised.

Ironically, on May 8, 2007 , Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, coauthored a letter to the Game and Fisheries Committee asking it to refrain from making any decisions regarding the Pennsylvania Game Commission “until an audit is completed of the PGC’s deer management methods.” Her coauthor – surprise, surprise - was none other than Dr. Tim Schaeffer from the Pennsylvania Audubon Society, the state affiliate of the very same organization financed by the Pew Foundation to develop the “Heritage Forest Campaign.”

Coincidentally, at the same time Rep. Ed Staback, Chairman of the Game and Fisheries Committee, was scrambling to piece together funding for the Eveland proposal, Rep. David Levdansky (from the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee) and that same Dr. Tim Schaeffer showed up at least twice in chairman Staback’s office, attempting to persuade him to dump the Eveland proposal in favor of one they – you probably won’t be surprised to learn – just happened to have already prepared.

And just in case you haven’t figured this out yet, the proposal this didactic duo was attempting to foist off on the Game and Fisheries Committee was craftily designed to reach a favorable conclusion for continuing the deer management program. This, of course, would have given the PGC cover to tell all the nay-sayers to go pound salt. Alas, however, the political winds had not yet reached tempest stage and Rep. Staback refused to participate in this charade.

Seeing he was getting nowhere with Staback, Levdansky launched an effort to conduct the audit of the deer management program through his own Legislative Budget and Finance Committee and danged if he didn’t, as reported in a Pittsburgh Tribune Review article, pull it off. Anyone who read that article would have believed Levdansky was the best thing to happen to deer hunting since the advent of the telescopic sight. But in reality, as we now know, he was about to sell the users of those scopes down the river.

There’s a big black information hole between that enlightening Pittsburgh Tribune Review article and today but one relevant fact escaped from the vortex. Early in 2008, Sen. John Pippy, chairman of the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, sent Levdansky’s version of the audit back to Staback for review. And this time, no doubt sensing a shift in the political winds, Staback approved it and gave Levdansky the go-ahead under the authority of House Resolution 642.

In ricky-tick order, then, a request for proposal (containing the Levdansky/Schaefer language) was sent out and, according to a person who was following the process, at least two bids were received; one from the Wildlife Management Institute (who had already done a nifty little public relations campaign for the PGC back in 1999) and John Eveland (who really hadn’t done much except, on yea, conduct the research and prepare the management plan for the other two big game species in Pennsylvania).

As you might imagine, the people who were aware of these proposals were dumbfounded when they read in the February 22, 2009, edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that “the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee … could find no one - employed or retired – willing to undertake the study because the subject of deer management in Pennsylvania is seen across the country as being particularly vicious and caustic.” No one, that is, except the PGC’s old public relations buddies at the Wildlife Management Institute and -- perhaps the newspaper just forgot to mention -- John Eveland. Guess who got the contract?

Whether this shenanigan was the result of legally contestable malfeasance or simply an example of political mischief is unknown and probably unknowable. Whichever it is, though, Rep. David Levdansky, Sen. John Pippy and Rep. Ed Staback appear to be into it up to their ears.

And if it is allowed to proceed, Pennsylvania hunters will be no closer to having an independent and honest examination of the deer management program than they were on that day back in 1999 when the Wildlife Management Institute was hired by the PGC “to increase dialogue and communication leading to the development of informed consent on deer management.”

Even more frightening, though, if it goes unchallenged, Pennsylvania ’s deer hunters will continue to be unwitting participants in their own demise, victims of the United Nation’s quest for a “New World Order,” brought to them courtesy of the National Audubon Society and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

But perhaps, as this treatise suggests, that was the real goal of the deer management program all along.

John Street is an inquisitive contrarian who writes, frequently with humor, about current events in fish and wildlife research as well as the ethical and societal issues that affect the outdoor life. He can be contacted at [email protected]

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

If this was posted on that other site that I am thinking of, I bet those lunk heads are having a field day tearing it apart. I can just about imagine the rhetoric they are spouting.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Id be very surprised if that article got posted on that site. I think the other site would blow up if it appeared on there.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Not surprising coming from Street. I guess he finally stepped off his decades long anti bowhunter campaign.

Corny, are you aware that thishack has tirelessly campaigned to rescind the last two weeks of bow season since we got it back in the 90's claiming that archers are taking all the good bucks by getting an unfair first crack at them? His latest mantra is that we take all the best bucks out before they can breed.

What is intesting is how he left just enough of the truth in there to allow the intelligent reader to see through all the smoke and mirrors.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Over 50% of the bucks harvested in 2B and 5C are harvested during archery. Those that were against X-bows often stated that too many bucks would be harvested. Looks like Street isn't the hack you claimed he is, but that wouldn't stop you from calling him names.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Does it really matter if they are killed by Ford trucks,or bow hunters.Many of the problems being argued about are what ifs. What if blah blah...............:eek:

The biggest problem with the deer program as it is, is the infighting it has caused between hunters.We have two ears and one mouth,maybe we should spend a little more time listening?:eek:
WE get ,and always have gotten one buck tag per license, when or how it gets used is inconsequential.
As hunter numbers drop so do the harvest numbers.As deer numbers drop(HR) so will Buck (AR) harvest numbers.




I know.............I know Alt said.......Blah Blah and breeding rates .....blah blah and RRD says.........;)

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

I wouldn't exclusively be using 2B and 5C BB to compare how many bucks are harvested,gun vs. bow. Don't forget, many area's in those two WMU's, you are hunting near a metropolitanarea. That's the only weapon you can use.[/align]

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Well said blkpowder

A huge amount of land in those urban areas is eliminated for firearms simply by safety zones. There is also the fact that many landowners in those WMU's are willing to allow bowhunting only. Street's articles tend to demonstrate the same kind of spin and deception as Bluebirds posts often do here and the above post is a very good example.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Those buck are still dead whether and the fact that they are in 2B and %C doesn't change the fact that they won't be doing the breeding.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Your playing twister again.;)

Remember plenty of those bucks are shoot with bows during the fire arms season, and as you know to well that happens because of the safety zones in those two particular areas.

Its funny how many people are beginning to see how you use half truths to promote your agenda.:)

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Those buck are still dead whether and the fact that they are in 2B and %C doesn't change the fact that they won't be doing the breeding.
[/quote]

Say what? And what does this reply have to do with that reply?

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

If you have to ask , there is no sense trying to explain it for you.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Prove it!! You have no idea how many bucks are killed by archers during the rifle season. I have yet to see a bow hunter during rifle season in 40 years of hunting the areas included in 5C.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Hell you can't even find a deer and thats what your supposed to be hunting for, I'm sure a man capable of killing deer with archery equipment would be smarter than to hunt anywhere near where you deemed fit.[:-]
I know plenty of people that bow hunt through the fire arms season.Of course they are friends ,something that I'm sure is foreign to you.

Whats with the "Prove it!" just cause you toss'em up doesn't mean I have to hit them all outta the park.;)
Why don't you try to prove me wrong?;)

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

I don't need it explained to me.But I do think you need to read over your own reply's so you understand Your first reply was:Over 50% of the bucks harvested in 2B and 5C are harvested during archery. Your next reply to your first response was: Those buck are still dead whether and the fact that they are in 2B and %C doesn't change the fact that they won't be doing the breeding. [/align][/align]I'm sorry BB. I get it now! If that buck is harvested in 2B or 5C, his little willy wiggle doesn't work anymore.Your right,that makes sense.[/align]

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

I suppose you would rather read something from the likes of Ben Moyer or Mark Nale?

Myself, I am not too quick to dismiss what this guy has to say. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to where the un-truths are. Show us how he is spinning and deceiving. Enquiring minds want to know.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

As usual , that is quite easy since 77% of 2B is forests and farmland ,rather than developed areas with a high percentage of safety zones.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

After reading his anti-bow drivel for years, sorry, but it's easy to dismiss this buffoon with a pen.

As for where the deceptions are, please reread this from my previous post and pay attention to the undelined part

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

You didn't do your self any credit with that response. Pretty weak. I thought for sure you would be able to do better than that.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

While the 77% may have been factually correct at one time, it certainly is not accurate in the CONTEXT you are attempting to use it.

Theres that pesky word context again eh?

You obviously have zero knowledge of the makeup of 2B. I live on the outskirts of 2B by the 2D border and even out here in the "forests and farmland" the tendency for people to build on larger lots results in houses and buildings that are spaced just far enough apart to allow for plenty of wildlife cover but not enough to allow much in the way of safe firearm hunting. Remember that a safety zonedoesnt simply apply to where a hunters feet are parked but also to where his projectile will cross and ultimately stop.

Besides the vast amount of land consumed by the larger firearm safety zones, many landowners will allow archery only even on land that is outside those safety zones in this particular WMU.

Also, add in the fact that being close to a higher population also provides forfar more "after work"and "half day" hunts close to home that skews the archery harvest up as well.

But then, you knew all that didn't you? Too bad it blows your whole point as posted above aint it?

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

OK here's a little hint from the article....

Go back and look for the storyleading tothat statement and the timeline afterward. Street never was that smart and kinda shoots himself in the foot with the facts.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

No Btb, I had no idea of that. I don't know much about the guy or anything. Just saw the post on another board, knew some of it was accurate, and found it interesting. If his views differ from mine on the bowseason, then I disagree with him in THAT AREA 100%.

I do see that he had some pretty accurate assessement of the Audubon involvement, and found the Tim Shaeffer dealing to be "underhanded" to say the least. Audubon has been pretty obvious in their attempts to "undercut" us in the wildlife management arena. Alot of this brings into question the validity of any upcoming audit. It should be looked at with a MICROSCOPE by the sportsmen of our state, and not just sucked up and accepted no matter how it is done.

You're sweating the small stuff in regards to your opinions on small details in the article, wether accurate or not. Fact is, enough is accurate beyond doubt, to make one question this "audit" due to heavy audubon involvment, and also yet again call good ol' "Zullinger's" motives into question.

Only thing that was new to me, was the fact audubon had their hand in the "audit" proposal, and naturally want the results to be what THEY desire. Not surprised. On the other hand, Alot of thisare things that many of us already had been following for some time now and knew, yet posting from anothers perspective and perhaps enlightening a few is never a bad thing. Especially when it comes to protecting our hunting heritage in Pa from the #1 enemy we face today. Eco-extremists.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

He has a regular column in Pa outdoor news and seldom misses the chance to snipe at the "excessive" archery season we enjoy. He has also tended to be one of those crying too few deer when we had FAR FAR too many so the BS detector tends to go off the minute I see his byline;)


Another take on this whole thing could easily be that Street is starting pre-emptive damage control in anticipation of the audit not producing the desired results he wants.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

You could look at it that way. But if indeed Tim Shaeffer and 'Mel had dealings with legislators and any of that stuff is true, it definately isnt something the sportsmen of our state should turn a blind eye to.


Some things that I have thought odd, were:

1. LEVDANSKY took the initiative???? I thought that VERY bizarre at the time!
2. Noone else was available, andEveland was never even mentioned? and 2B. (LOL) WMI backed off due to the pgc unwillingness to comply because of the lawsuit...So why not go with Eveland now? Why?...Because he wouldnt be going with a proposal that was stamped by audubon.
3.The "ties" of all the players to the same "forest heritage campaign" does NOT look good.
4. I remember well when Zullinger and Shaeffer wrote their letter asking for more time before changes are made...Then proceeded to give THEIR audit proposal? Sorry, but that stinks to high heaven.
5. Anytime AUDUBON is involved in GAME management, I can guarantee its not a GOOD thing, and good things are not about to happen. Mr. Shaeffer gave far more input into our deer plan than ever shouldve occurred, along with the rediculous deermanagement report bythe "deer management team" captained by audubon.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

You have some fair questions that I'm not totally prepared to answer without looking into it some more.

The fact that Street is way out in left field doesnt totally dismiss all this and I'm willing to take another look but It would be my suggestion that anything he said in that article needs to be triple checked. Thats what I plan to do over thenext few days.

DennyF, whats your take on this whole thing?

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

There is no way I took that data out of it's proper context and you can't provide a single fact to prove otherwise. It is just your personal, opinion that a significant number of archery buck are killed in safety zones or that many are killed during the concurrent season. You try to make the case that a large portion of 2B can't be hunted with fire arms ,but you ignore the fact that it is legal to hunt within a safety zone with written permission from the owner. Also remember homes owned by hunter effectively have no safety zone unless his land is within 150 yds . of another residence.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

That is still an accurate statement and explains why 2F is being managed at almost twice the DD as 2G.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

You obviously know very little about 2B except perhaps where to find it on the map.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Are you sure you can find 2B on a map?

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Wull I gosh durn shore can find it on a map quicker'n you kin find a deer to shoot at now caint I?

I done found 2B on a map a coupla times since 2003 but you aint done found a deer to shoot since then. Ya done told us so yisself!

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Wrong again. I found quite a few deer to shoot since 2003, but I chose not to shot them or I wasn't carrying a weapon when I found them. Harvesting a deer really is all that important to me at this stage of the game since I am over the bragging phase of deer hunting.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Are you at a loss for words?

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Im at a loss for words!!!!!!!!!How in the ever living f'n hell can youREAD that article posted by Cornelius and then in the same forumargue bowhunter killsin wmu 2? and 5?? There aint no damn wonder deer hunting in Pa. has gone to s!!T! That article gave ya plenty of powerful info. to hash about (if all is true) and ya'll wanna whine about wmu's and bowhunters?

It may help some of you who can read and comprehend to fall back to page 1 and reread Bawanajim's 1st response

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

By the way Cornelius,,,,great article and great reading,,,thanks for posting it,,,im gonna research some of the articles from prior years just so i can better understand where and when all went wrong

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

You got that right.

That's good. I am impressed. I hope you do and I would be interested in knowing what you find out.

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

Yeah rem, thats the impression I got too when I first read the piece. Definately should make any Pa hunter raise an eyebrow at the very least.

Ive been doing some re-reading on the netof some of the things spoken of in the piece and everything appears to be as stated, at least that which can be corroborated.

I also dont doubt the meetings with Schaeffer/Zullinger with legislators. They were very passionate in their letter requesting no moves be made to change pgc or the deer plan. I also know how Schaeffer and audubon have been VERY pushy andover eager to delve into the deer management plan for years, and have little doubt they also tried to force their way into the particulars of the audit deal. Audubon was one of the groups asked forthoughts on deer management goals prior to the plan. Audubonwas instrumental in the inception and continuationof our extreme hr, they are among those whose opinions are asked whendetermining game land usage issues and from the looks of it, they apparently had a finger in the audit pot. Those fools are like a TERRIBLE rash that just won't go away. Why is that? Because they apparently have "pull" through pgc higher ups. Otherwise, in a hunter friendly system, theyd have been put in their place long ago. They have been permitted to be a FAR too big of a part of game management. And they do so, because they can.[:'(]

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

A large part of Street’s comments focused on his belief that John Eveland is not only qualified but the best choice for doing the deer management audit.

Can anyone even find a link with information about John Eveland or his work?

I have been a round for a long time and I don’t think I have ever even heard of him. I tried researching him on the internet and all I can find is some stuff on one who is a photographer in, I think it was the state of Indiana and some pay reports from Rand about a john Eveland that doesn’t seem to have much relevant information.

I wonder if this guy is really what Street made him out to be since I don’t seem to be able to find anything credited to his name. I have never heard of a researcher that can’t be found on the internet. My thinking is that if this guy really has some qualifications he would show up in something.

If someone can find a link with a bio on this John Eveland how about posting it, I would like to learn more about him and his qualifications.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

This is what I found,

www.rand.org/pubs/authors/e/eveland_john_d.html

RE: Interesting article on Pa Deer Audit
 

I found that too and is what I was previously referring to concerning the Rand reports.

But, I still don’t see any bio on this John Eveland and little in the Rand reports that would lead me to believe they have the qualifications to do the kind of audit that would include deer management. Perhaps they could but looking through their listing of topics I don’t see anything even remotely similar in their past reports.

R.S. Bodenhorn