If the goal is to manage the herd at the biodiversity CC , then hunters will have no input and WMI supports biodiversity..

Here is what WMI has to say about hunter input.

So they are saying the herd should be managed for societal goals and not the goals of the hunters.

Bluebird, If you dont see the point real there, you are beyond help.

We are Custers army at Little Big Horn. The only thing keeping hunting alive right now is that most of the indians still like us (hunters).

The anti's are doing their thing to change opinion about us every day and our only sensible option is to make sure we stay on the good side of the nonhunting majority. Staying with good science and protecting all species as well as the habitat and also considering the input fromthe nonhunting public is essential to huntings long term survival.

The vast majority of the non-hunting public don't give a rip about how many deer we have unless they hit one with their car. Crying wolf about deer hunting being banned is just plain silly. The last thing the state wants is the expense and aggravation of trying to control the deer herd statewide.

Custer was an arrogant horses ass too. Look where it got him.

The good news is that you and the few other PEOPLE aint in charge
and aint ever gonna be LOL!

Well to resurrect an old thread, not for the purpose of rubbing it in the face of those above whom were wrong, but just to give the conclusion to the topic. It seems the Pa game commissions deer management plan has been vindicated by an outside independent source that they are on the right track afterall. Some tweaks were recommended but overall it got the thumbs up. But then again, most logical thinkers already concluded that.

Youre right, I was wrong. I expected a whitewash from a biased company, and what I got was FAR FAR different than expected. I guess the "slinkster" was right lol. He said the company was trustworthy. I thought he didnt have a stinking clue what he was talking about.

Vindicated? lmao. Id say the exact opposite. I guess you didnt read it, or you one of those with an extra special interest in pgc/dcnr dealings.... Dont care. None of my business.

But to summarize, the deer plan as-is isnt worth the paper to wipe my back side. And now its proven. I honestly wish I could delete this entire thread, because I couldnt have been more wrong and feel bad about some of the things i said about wmis credibility.

But on another note, you can always take that position over to hpa. I understand out of all those users there are 3 or 4 pgc & dcnr employees posting that agree with YOUR sentiment. lmao.

WMI did a very reasonable evalutation and confirmed what many of us felt about the deer plan all along. Nice try at damage control, but no dice friend.

Im sure our fine legislators will see it clearly, and I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But i happen to know some who have given that same sentiment, and are also tired of the "ecofolks" and their involvement.

Imho, this audit is EXACTLY what was needed. Thank you WMI!

Unsupported deer plan for a decade...based on 100% insufficent data on all fronts, both biologically and forest healthwise and poor approach to social issues. Time for legislators to put the squeeze on the pgc.

OMG, are you really going to attempt to spin this to something positive for you anti management guys. rotflmao Give me a break.

Take a break and read the audit and you will see the audit agrees more with those of us who questioned the DMP,then it does with those that supported the plan.

"OMG, are you really going to attempt to spin this to something positive for you anti management guys."

SPin? lmao. No spin necessary. Thanks to wmi. But your nonstop damage control attemps are a bit entertaining.

I also dont think i need to explain my position. All you have to do is look at the latest audit thread i started if you dont know my position.

"Take a break and read the audit and you will see the audit agrees more with those of us who questioned the DMP,then it does with those that supported the plan."

I agree bb, apparently he must not have wanted to take the time to read the 202 page report. Seems just about everything other than the rock bottom basic guidelines was a miserable failure. Wonder how that will effect the usp case?

Bb, you might know more about it than i, but I seem to recall that the lawsuit was based on the contention that the plan for the last decade of extreme management has been based on nothing and that the herd health data was insufficient? Is that the case?

Its no wonder pgc wouldnt cooperate with the audit until USP agreed to not call the auditor as a witness.