RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

I agree QDMA supports much higher DDs than the PGC will allow, but they do their very best to avoid disclosing what DDs they support while saying little or nothing about the low densities the PGC promotes. IMHO, by supporting the plan without voicing opposition to the excessive HR ,they are doing a disservice to the hunters of PA and are contributing to the split among hunters.

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

Wow, it appears that Allegheny County Sportsmens League sees the audit to be a complete sham.

ACSL

Here is part of what they had to say, see the link above for full information...seems they have a firm grasp of reality:

"Pennsylvania Deer Management
Audit History and Stakeholder Input
Review and Analysis
Members of the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee:
We have watched with growing concern the continuing controversy over Pennsylvania
Deer/Wildlife management practices. During this time representatives of the ACSL have made every
effort possible to participate, at virtually every available opportunity, in hearings and committees that
involved the issues of wildlife management. Our experiences, thus far, can best be described as
bittersweet.
When the Pennsylvania Game Commission revamped the Deer harvesting and management
approach and Gary Alt conducted a series of seminars across the state (which we attended) we were
dismayed to find that there was a lack of adequate research available to show the justification for these
changes. On April 30, 2001 Kim Stolfer (ACSL Legislative Chairman) visited the PGC headquarters
in Harrisburg attempting to obtain the background material and studies that supported the newly
introduced deer management policies. We discovered that nothing was available and Kim Stolfer left
with a deepening sense of concern as to the direction and reasoning behind these new deer
management policies.
On May 7th 2005 we joined with the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and 15 other
groups to call for an ‘independent’ audit of the deer management program in order to provide all
stakeholders with the best available information to make informed decisions. We collectively called
for, in a communication with the legislature and the PGC, an ‘examination’ of this program and ‘all’
the factors involved in coming up with appropriate deer/wildlife management policy (as the excerpt
below represents):
. . .we suggest that you call for a transparent examination of the methods and data used by the
Game Commission to measure and make decisions on harvest reports and the three factors of
habitat condition, deer health, and deer-human conflicts.
Sportsmen and women and their representatives have a vested interest in being able to examine and
evaluate all information that is used to develop policy on hunting issues. This air of transparency
benefits not only a better understanding of these issues but could lead to innovative concepts from the
‘true’ stakeholders-hunters.
In the course of our investigation into these issues we have communicated with a diverse collection
of individuals, outdoor writers, and government entities, elected representatives and sportsmen and
women. We have discovered a wide array of information and documents that paint a troubling picture.
Above we referenced a letter to the legislature from 17 Pennsylvania groups soliciting an independent
audit of the deer management program, and yet when the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee
sent a letter out to stakeholder groups, December 6, 2007, soliciting input, the Allegheny County
Sportsmen’s League was not contacted. Considering the list of groups that were contacted, we find it
difficult to accept that this was an oversight.
Now our review is leading us to the possibility that Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), a group
that is not, in our view, independent and is connected to the current controversial deer management
policies, may be the front runner in examining deer management policies. The history of WMI is
replete with proposals and conferences calling for drastic cuts in the Pennsylvania deer herd. This, we
believe, presents a conflict of interest for them that violates the call for independence by the PFSC,
ACSL and 15 other Pennsylvania groups."

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

"us that both proposals submitted by WMI are virtually identical and do not provide for field analysis of
habitat, forest regeneration or surveys of deer population. Instead the WMI proposals, and indeed all
of the proposals except the Eveland proposals, rely on data gathered and submitted by the
Pennsylvania Game Commission with ‘zero’ field work. This negates the spirit and intent of calls for
an independent study of this issue.
If it is the intent of the audit to simply answer questions regarding the ‘scientific’ nature of certain
concepts then ‘all’ of the submitted proposals will accomplish that. However ‘if’ it is the desire of the
legislature to address the concerns of their constituents, sportsmen and women and our heritage of
hunting, then there is only one study submitted thus far, Mr. Eveland’s, that will accomplish these
goals.
In addition, the Levdansky, Schaeffer, WMI Audits use PGC data with PGC assistance, PGC
personnel will accompany the auditor, the audit will not involve scientific field studies, PGC will be
presented with the draft prior to legislators, and PGC will make comments and changes to the audit.
This is not our view of independence and autonomy on the part of auditors reviewing the conduct and
actions of others.
Having waited for over a decade for these concerns to be addressed we implore this committee to
hold hearings for stakeholders to testify on these proposals. At a minimum, to allow each entity
submitting proposals to be offered the opportunity to present open testimony to the Legislative Budget
and Finance Committee that will be a matter of public record.
To restate the desires and requests of the 17 groups/organizations (May/2007 letter) involved in
calling for an audit we insert the selected sections below as a reminder:
. . . Instead, we suggest that you call for a transparent examination of the methods and data
used by the Game Commission to measure and make decisions on harvest reports and the three
factors of habitat condition, deer health, and deer-human conflicts.
. . . We also suggest expanding this analysis to the field to examine actual habitat conditions
on Game Lands and other representative properties within select Wildlife Management Units
so that legislators and the public can better understand deer densities and habitat conditions.
A rush to judgment and implementation of a proposal that does not adequately address the concerns
of all will only worsen the divide and distrust for the entire process. This we cannot afford!
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Stolfer

RE: PA DEER AUDIT UPDATE.....
 

So are the ACLS folks finally gonna take off the blinders, hate to inform this group but its a little late for any intervention at this point in time.