If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!

That is an oversimplification and you know it. It'd be just as unfair for me to claim that you oppose all things PGC. I have plenty of areas where I disagree with PGC policy and those issues have been addressed here many times. Onesuch issue is the crossbow. Even the deer program could use improvement IMHO.

Been there, done that and in return you attempted to baffle us with your BS! ( by the truckload no less)

A prime example of your BS is that you are already forming your arguements for what you expect the audit to show. Could it be that you are worried and even expect that an independent audit might not fit into your agenda? Says a lot for your confidence in your position doesn't it?

[quote]A prime example of your BS is that you are already forming your arguements for what you expect the audit to show. Could it be that you are worried and even expect that an independent audit might not fit into your agenda? Says a lot for your confidence in your position doesn't it?
[/quote

No, I am not the least bit worried. When the head of the deer management team can't answer simple questions posed by the average hunter I am more than confident in my position. deer management is not rocket science. The PGC data clealy shows there is no correlation between forest health and the densities at which the PGC is managing the herd. You may call that BS, but you don't know enough to refute it.

The server messed up again.

"If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate! '

no exaggeration. Oversimplification? Maybe. But not for purposes of this discussion. I think we all know each others positions and get the "jist" of it. Generally speaking, you definatelysupport the deer plan as is if asked for a yes or no. I dont. You support giving them license fee increase with no changes and even without an audit I dont. You think for the most part they are doing a good job. I do not. You think they are doing things because of the habitat and herd health and not econuts. I dont. And crossbows arent what this audit is about.

You may think the deer plan "could use a bit of improvement" if and only if pgc so decides to. I think significant improvement should be demanded.

Given these differences of position, it only stands to reason you would be more optimistic about an audits results. I dont imagine you will be very upset no matter the results.

Almost.....

I do indeed support most of the deer management plan but am beginning to be disturbed by some of the silence most likely being caused by the lawsuit. I welcome an audit no matter the results and see it as the first step in ending this idiotic lawsuit so we can get on with things and work together to fix what IS broken.

If there was a willingness on the part of pgc to "fix whats broken", the lawsuit wouldnt be going on in the first place.

What imho is "broken" is simply how hunter nonfriendly the program is. I believe it is scientifically defendable. I believe a much more hunter friendly program could be just as scientifically defendable if that were the goal, instead of extreme biodiversity etc. Only way its gonna be fixed isnt gonna be because of an audit or lawsuit, but a change ofOPINION at pgc. Perhaps the audit will bring that needed change. Or maybe it will not.

BTW, I forgot to address....It was not many of us who are against pgc deer plan who screamed for an audit. I for one wouldve preferred the problems be directly addressed through curative legislation. I see the audit as a very pgc friendly compromise. In fact, if I remember correctly, pfsc and audubon cosigned a letter to prevent any "curative legislation" asking that an audit be done instead.

Oh well. At any rate, Im willing to see what happens. But this isnt by any stretch "MY" audit. Though I do find it a better option than "nothing".

The one thing that I believe would make the audit more credible is if WMI solicited questions that hunters would like the audit to address. If they just determine if the current plan is scientifically sound, the audit will resolve nothing and we will be back at square one. For ,example, as yet no one has been able to explain how forest health is used to determine the number of doe tags that are issued. Just look at the wide range in regeneration in the 17 WMUs where the PGC wanted to keep the herd stable in 2008 and see if you can see any reason why the PGC would want to keep the herd stable in all those WMUs when the goal of the plan was to improve forest health.

Thank you for admitting that your agenda is about what you want and not about what is scientifically sound as you have claimed over and over while you've presented your distortions. In all of your arguements over the past years you have tried to create your own "science" to fit your agenda. You are now obviously afraid that objective "science" will not fit your agenda. That agenda has simply been to produce the maximum possible sustained number of deer without regard to the long term effects on the habitat and on other wildlife and even on the health and survival chances of the deer themselves.

We all need to remember that the forest industry "tolerates" us because they need us to help control the deer. They own or control much of the land available for us to hunt. Even on non PGC owned public ground, the value of the timber crop is what keeps it available for hunters. We represent less than 10% of that public. If we don't cooperate and help keep the deer under control to the point that the desirable timbercan regenerate, they will eventually find a way to control the deer without us and we hunterscould well find ourselves shutout of the vast property holdings to which we currently enjoy free and easy access.

Exactly! Now you are seeing what tyhe money can do in PA! Look at the politicians, it's all about the money, hunters are very low on that totem as we have no concerted/or solidarity of voice that will MAKE a difference in PA. It is split by these small hunting Orgs all trying to do what is best for there members rightor wrong , but ultimately being so weak they have no muscle to push any change into happening. What needs to be done IMO is pick one small project that the orgs and 900K + hunters could agree on (I know I'm dreaming) and ram it threw thew legislature, ram it down the PGC throats to show them what a roused special interest group can do when banded together. That scares politicians, the fact that someone can organize and make it happen. The you have a voice that 'has' to heard and listened to in PA>

Since it is impossible for you to provide logical answers to my questions ,once again you resort to distorting my position. The science behind the plan is obvious and the PGC has admitted it is based solely on the impact of deer on commercially valuable timber and the desires of various stake holders other than hunters. All I ask is that WMI solicit questions that the hunters would like to have answered in order to make the audit worthwhile with the hope that it will help resolve the divide between hunters and the PGC.