bowtruck

I guess we just have to wait for the audit and see then we will know. Right?

bluebird2

Without a doubt the final analysis of the audit will be based on it's contents and omissions. Until then we are just voicing our opinions and there is nothing wrong with that.

BTBowhunter

And your point is? Yes, we all should go into it expecting the audit to be conducted objectively but no, that statement was not a declaration on something that has yet to be produced. You can't reasonably support your position that the audit will be biased so you make a desperate attempt todwell one statement and take it out of context. what a surprise!


Thank you for proving that your claim of bias within the survey has no basis other than your own inherent bias about any and all deer management.

bluebird2

The point is you referred to the audit as being objective ,even though it hadn't even been started.. You say we should all expect a objective audit, but that is just your opinion and carries no more weight that those that think the audit will be biased. We are all entitled to our opinions and they will have no effect on the outcome of the audit ,so expressing those opinions does no harm.

Why would you or anyone else expect an objective audit when WMI has stated they support bio-diversity which requires a much lower deer density than the habitat can support on a sustainable basis ,which in turn results harvests that are 75% lower than if the herd was managed at the MSY carrying capacity.

BTBowhunter

So what you're saying is that in order for you to call an audit objective, the auditing firm mustadopt a goal of managing deer for maximum sustained numbers of deer without considering the habiata or other wildlife.

Thanks for confirming thatyou simply expect PA to be managed as one big deer farm.

Cornelius08

I disagree with Mohr. And the usp "opinion" has no effect on my own in any regard. They agree with me on some aspects of the deer plan and politics behind it, yet are free to disagree without needing my approval or me theirs.

As for the audit, An audit can make PGC look great with biased people doing it or it could make them look terrible with people biased the other way having done it. And either could be acheived without telling one lie by the auditor. Thats why an "unbiased" auditor with no "connections" should only have been common sense and priority number one.

WMI has many ties to pgc, that is undeniable, and that shouldve disqualified them period in my view, and that should be at least understandable to anyone unbiased.. As a "stakeholder", and one of the many for whom this audit is taking place, to supposedly address our concerns, I am not satisfied with the choice of audit, and I for one will not accept anything from them other than reasonable change. That would be the only way the audit would be proven "unbiased".

If we are to accept anything less, it imho, would have to come from a 100% unbiased auditor with NO strong pgc ties as wmi has, and the audit will have to of covered all the important "angles". Will it cover all "considerations"? I don't know, but many over on hpa seem to beleive otherwise, and are very happy with the fact they think it will not. Even if it does however, as i said, there is zero chance I will support a result of anything less than what we should only be able to expect (without this audit in the first place) which is responsible change.

bluebird2

No, all WMI has to do is make it quite clear that the PGC is managing the herd with the goal of biodiversity and that they are not managing the herd based on herd health and forest health.

Cornelius08

"Thanks for confirming that you simply expect PA to be managed as one big deer farm. "

There is a helluva long ways between "one big deer farm" and our econut driven extreme unnatural amount of biodiversity in favor of deer current situation.

Then again, Im SURE the audit will look at our pgc's current misplaced values. (LOL). The goals are econut biodiversity driven and the plan is 100% sound towards that end. Only way there would be suggestion of "change" is if wmi was unbiased and said pgc needed to be more "hunter friendly" and change their goals. I dont think the audit will be looking at changing pgcs goals, but at how well they are headed towards achieving those they already have. And if thats the case, I agree pgc is doing a super job. Not saying that is a good thing though mind you.[8D]

BTBowhunter

It's pretty clear that if God himself did the audit and he didnt say we need more deer everywhere, you'd be calling him an econut as well.

bowtruck