BTBowhunter

This deerprogram audits validity, even though it has yet to begin, has been a subject for debate here in recent weeks. The May 22 issue of PA outdoor news contains some interesting quotes from none other than Seve Mohr, president of the USP.

From PA outdoor news May 22, 2009, Front page article titled

At last, deer audit slated:


Personally, I still contend that endorsing or condemning the audit before it happens is foolish at bestbut I also thought these quotes coming from the USP prez were kind of interesting when one considers all the hand wringing over the thing before its done by a vocal few here.

bluebird2

Maybe Mohr doesn't realize that WMI can write an audit that supports the PGC plan without jeopardizing their reputation. The methods the PGC uses for estimating population harvests ,forest health and herd health have already been peer reviewed and found to be valid. Unless the audit requires that specific apparent conflicts in the PGC plan be addressed, WMI can just ignore them.

WMI has already said they support diversity,so they will have no problem justifying the amount of HR the PGC has implemented.

bowtruck

Bb going by that theory you could say they are out to get the pgc or they are this or that. But until they do the job does anyone have any proof or facts to say what they will do

bluebird2

I have the proof that WMI supports biodiversity which means they support the PGC HR plan. What do you have to offer in defense of WMI?

bowtruck

Nodda but i am not saying hip hip hooray the audit will Grrreat either

bluebird2

That is a reasonable position to take and I don't have a problem with that.

BTBowhunter

I agree 100% bowtruck. We need to let it happen before cheering or booing.

bluebird2

But you claimed the audit would be objective even though you had nothing to support that claim. So you were cheerleading!!!

BTBowhunter

LOL, you really need to read before you post or maybe you need to go back and read slower. I've said several times in this thread and another that the audit deserves scrutiny once complete but any audit should have the expectation of objectivity before it starts.

Please point out one example of a state agency or other organization proving bias on the part of WMI in some past evaluation in this field.


If an organization that has done contract work for 40 state agencies and 4 provinces has a tendency toward bias, surely some proof of said bias would be available from some past client.

bluebird2

That is not what you said in the quote I provided. You decared that the audit would be objective based solely on your opinion.
It is impossible to prove an inherent bias when deer management is subjective rather than objective. If the PA audit was based on the number of deer the habitat can support the audit would make the PGC look like idiots. But if the audit is based on the biodiversity carrying capacity the PGC will look like heroes.