---

SCS acknowledges that solutions to the Pennsylvania deer density problem
cannot be designed and implemented solely by BOF because currently the
Pennsylvania Game Commission regulates deer seasons, bag limits, antlerless
licenses and all other regulatory functions used to reduce deer density by
hunting. Within these realities, SCS requests that BOF take meaningful actions
that are within the Bureau’s control. Thus: by the 2004 annual audit, the BOF
shall develop a 1st draft of a written deer management plan and shall initiate
earnest and aggressive strategic, public advocacy, and political actions aimed at
liberalizing hunting regulations in ways that reduce the deer density on State
Forests. Possible strategic, public advocacy, and political actions include:grant monies for use in purchasing State Game lands stating that he could not,
in good conscience, help fund projects with an agency that is preventing him
from meeting his public trust responsibilities of managing DCNR lands
sustainably.
The Secretary was invited to meet with the President of the Pennsylvania Game
Commissioners, Pennsylvania Game Commissioners, and Pennsylvania Game
Commission (PGC) Executive staff to address the deer and other resource
management issues. As a result of the meeting, the Secretary believes that the
deer issue and the department’s perspectives are receiving serious attention and
consideration by the Game Commissioners and PGC Executive staff. Due to this
open dialogue, the Secretary has lifted the moratorium on the use of DCNR
grant funds for potential PGC acquisitions. The Department has submitted
written statement to the PGC for consideration. Subsequent meetings with
Commissioners and PGC Executive Staff are scheduled.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

...and yet you havent let that stop you? (LOL)[:-]

Still waiting on your well thought out input on this subject. [:-]

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

We dont even need bother complaining about results not yet given, when a 100% biased company is doing the audit and also concern that many things that matter wont even be planned to be addressed from the very start. Perhaps you can understand that buttsuck.;) When who is doing the audit is an issue, there is a legitimate complain PRE-audit.[8D]

Maybe you can understand with your limited capacity, but i highly doubt it seeing as how you are a closet pgc brown-nose, and it takes a special "kind" to blindly follow.:eek:

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

Before we even talk about results, Before the audit even began, the auditor was not supposed to have connections to pgc. Case closed.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bowtruck

alright see we can gain ground when we put some of the childish stuff behind.
Other than the name calling and mud slinging
No there shouldn't be connections but is anyone without them volunteered to do the job?

---

---

Ha ha ha BTB, you are such a friggin' tool, I dont know how youve learned to work a keyboard. (LOL) You have ZERO respect for usp or its president or their opinions, yet now all of a sudden their words are golden to you when its convenient to your lyin' arse? LMFAO....AND LMFAO a second time I quoted you on that, just so when you went back and read how stupid and asnine that statement really was, you couldnt edit it! LMAO a third time.!![8D]

---

---

The world of wildlife management is not that large. What is true is that the bird and cornboy have not come up with anything to discredit WMI except to say that they've worked with the PGC before. The other two bidders have also worked with or directly for the PGC.

_____________________________

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Wrong again . I pointed out that WMI supports managing the herd for bio diversity rather than at the MSY carrying capacity. That is a clear bias in favor of DCNR, the timber industry and the Audubon and against the interests of hunters,

---

---

Wrong yourself!

A position supporting management for that considers all wildlife does not discredit them unless we're asking them for the best way to to run a deer farm.

---

---

Deer management in Pennsylvania lies within the interface of the three pillars
mentioned above and the PGC must address each independently and
comprehensively. Deer are a public resource and the public has the right to
understand and influence deer management goals. PA deer hunters are motivated
by their hunting experiences to influence deer management goals and feel SPECIAL
DISPENSATION because of their financial support to have their desires translated to
agency policy. And finally, the PGC must interact with the public, deer hunters and
the wild deer resource itself, only within a scientifically defendable program of
work.

---

---

Here is what WMI has to say about PA hunters.


[blockquote]quote:

Deer management in Pennsylvania lies within the interface of the three pillars
mentioned above and the PGC must address each independently and
comprehensively. Deer are a public resource and the public has the right to
understand and influence deer management goals. PA deer hunters are motivated
by their hunting experiences to influence deer management goals and feel SPECIAL
DISPENSATION because of their financial support to have their desires translated to
agency policy. And finally, the PGC must interact with the public, deer hunters and
the wild deer resource itself, only within a scientifically defendable program of
work.
[/blockquote]

---

---

PA deer hunters are motivated
by their hunting experiences to influence deer management goals and feel SPECIAL
DISPENSATION because of their financial support to have their desires translated to
agency policy.

---

---

I see nothing incorrect about that statement and see it as WMI recognizing that hunters should have input but not an absolute say. Hunters like you and Cornboy are examples of why a statement like that would even come from a game management organization. You have a one track mind when it comes to deer management and that track is more deer no matter what. You seem to keep forgetting that hunters alone own only a small percentage of the land that supports the herd. You seem to think that those who provide feed and habitat for the majority of our deer all year shouldn't be on equall footing with deer hunters when it comes to managing the herd.
You've also proven by your previous posts that you don't care about the effect of deer on other species or on the habitat, timber and food sources so long as we manage deer at MSY. I see that WMI statement as reasonable and practical if hunting is to survive well into the future.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08


Ha ha ha. Get a life Patsy. People want reasonable responsible management that doesnt cause our states management agency to become the joke of the nation, getting sued, audited, prevented fee increases...cause themselves to be financially run into the ground, reasonable numbers of deer as there SHOULD Be, and stop alienating hunters. If you are nuts enough to equate that to "wanting to fill the freezer for $20". Odds are you have some asnine connection to this moreso than simply as a concerned hunter.

---

---

In reality we hunters are nothing more than a wildlife management tool. we should be grateful we have the privilege to hunt instead of crying you don't have enough deer to kill.

---