Since you claim to be clairvoyant and have predicted the outcome of the audit, it should come as no surprise that you'd also predict how others will view the results. LOL

Unlike you, I have made no predictions or comments in advance about the audit outcome. You seem to have a preconceived idea as to what the audit will show. That is an indicator that you have every intention of dismissing all that you don't like, much like you've done already with the work of Kroll and others. It's also an indication that you are already worried that an audit intended to be objective will not support your position. IMHO, that proves, as you've done in the past,that you are incapable of being objective on the subject of deer management.

BTW, If you believe that I rubber stamp all that trickles down fron the PGC then you either don't read or are incapable of comprehending what you read here.

There is no need for concern btb about our discussion of hypothetical and potential outcomes. IF this audit is on the up and up, it will go a long ways toward fixing the problems we have with deer management and we will all be happy. And although pessimistic, I do believe that possible.

If its as crooked as the day is long, it'll be very recognizable and nothing at all will be accomplished except the further enabling of a failed deer plan amidst some mighty suspicious circumstances.

Wrong again. I did not predict the results of the audit , because I have no idea what issues will be addressed or what the answers will be regarding those issues. I simply raised several questions that I believe need to be answered and gave my opinion that if certain questions aren't answered in a rational manner ,than the audit will accomplish nothing.

IMHO I am more objective that you are since I base my opinions on PGC data and I can back up my position with facts, which is simply something you have never been able to do , even though you try to discredit the facts i present.

BT. Please answer my question in my last post to you. Pike

The problem with the facts you present is that they are always taken out of context, and only enough of the words presentare used to support your position.

One example of just how you twist facts,

The fact that water is a colorless, tasteless, liquid, is a true statement,









except when the temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sorry Jeff,

been busy today and have stopped by the terminal a few times. I read your post butneglected to answer right away.

I am assuming that this is the post..... What I would expect of a good audit is not just an accptance and re-running of numbers and figures but an in depth analysis of how those numbers and figures were acheived.

If the audit doesnt do that, I will become a critic but second guessing the audit now shows a pre-conceived notion as to how it will be conducted and what the results might be.

BTW, I wasn't talking about you when I mentioned the folks that are already forming arguements and disputes with an audit that has yet to take place

LOL! Congrats on your correct and insightful analysis of the [&:]bird, Jim.

"What I would expect of a good audit is not just an accptance and re-running of numbers and figures but an in depth analisis of how those numbers and figures were acheived. "

I agree 100%. And considering doing all that for all data used and collected from deer density to harvest estimation, to reproductive data and regeneration... Plus all the other things that this thing should be concerned with... Brother, thats one helluva undertaking.

Especially in less than one year and for only $90,000!!!And there were bids in the 260,000range!!

Not really. The audit doesnt have to go out in the field and count deer or count embryos again. They just have to evaluate PA's practices against known, accepted and reliable scientific practices. Peer review is the term often usedto describethe practice.

"The problem with the facts you present is that they are always taken out of context, and only enough of the words presentare used to support your position."

Funny how often you say that, yet how infrequently you've proven it. Id say bbsposts are as accurate asanyones on here. IVe found them to be about 99.9% spot on. Maybe if youaddress the issues which you have a problem with and prove your point, someone other than only BTB will agree with youon BB's posts.