How can Pa deer audit results be trusted?
 

When all the Pa connections exist, such as high ranking officers at the auditing company wmi including the pres. of wmi held high ranking positions at PGC and wmi the auditor also has worked with pgc on more than one occassion.

It also seems the president of the company was fired from PGC for reportedly altering payroll records. Real trustworthy bunch it seems.
.....................

http://http://www2.ljworld.com/news/...ice_not/?print

good question

Here is the article.

-----------------------------
Wildlife Service not reconsidering nomination


The Associated Press
August 15, 2001

Topeka — A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman says the nomination of Kansas parks head Steve Williams to lead the agency is not being reconsidered.
Williams, 44, has been secretary of Kansas Wildlife and Parks since 1995. He was fired earlier that year as deputy executive director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. He said Monday that he was surprised that questions were being raised about an issue he thought had been resolved long ago.
A Pennsylvania newspaper, the Erie Times-News, reported over the weekend that Williams was fired after an investigation of altered payroll records.
Williams said he has never hidden that he was a target of an investigation. He was fired after allegations that he told an employee to doctor computer records to give him and another employee raises.
Williams was never charged in the case and denies any wrongdoing. He said he has a letter from the former executive director of the Game Commission that clears him.
"There was never any indication I did anything wrong," Williams said, adding that he had told federal officials about the Pennsylvania firing.
"The department is completely confident that he will be confirmed by the Senate and will be a superb director of the Fish and Wildlife Service," said Mark Pfeifle, a spokesman for the agency, which is a division of the Interior Department.
President Bush has announced his intent to nominate Williams to head the service, and that nomination will stand, Pfeifle said.
Williams said his record as head of the Kansas agency and the support he has received for the federal job "speak louder than folks who obviously have ill will toward me for something that happened more than six years ago."
According to Pennsylvania Supreme Court documents, Williams told subordinate Robert Toth in January 1993 to alter computer payroll records so that Williams and another Game Commission employee would get longevity raises.
The request came after a Pennsylvania Office of Administration policy change that granted longevity pay seven years after an employee was hired, instead of after one year.
The altered payroll records were discovered after two two-week pay periods. Williams was told to repay the state $55.50, which he did.
After the state's inspector general finished an investigation, Toth and Williams were both fired in January 1995.
Williams said he recalled telling Toth to "check into" the payroll maneuver. When his paycheck increased, Williams said, he assumed that officials had approved the move.
A year after Williams was fired, Donald Madl, the executive director who fired Williams as ordered by the Game Commission, wrote a letter to Kansas Gov. Bill Graves.
The letter, saying Williams was "exonerated from any wrongdoing," arrived as the Kansas Senate was ready to confirm Williams' appointment.
Two Pennsylvania game commissioners, however, said Madl's letter was not authorized by the commission.
The questions of Williams' credibility came as a surprise to Gordon Stockemer, who serves on the Wildlife and Parks advisory commission.
"I've sat at commission meetings for six years and never once felt like Steve was trying to put something over on the commission," he said.

Originally published at: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/au...e_service_not/

Excellent article on the audit:http://www2.theclarionnews.com/Opinions/79616.shtml




It was a simple question, really, and I guess the man thought – since I had written a lengthy article on the subject (“You ain’t gonna’ gitcherdeer … and you deserve to know why,” Clarion News, March 12) – that I must have a crystal ball to see into the future. Did I have, he asked, “any opinion on how (the current audit of the deer management program being conducted by the Wildlife Management Institute) will be received by the state’s hunters?”

Well, yes, I do have an opinion. In big, broad-brush categories, I would opine that there will be three – vastly different – ways the audit will be received: One: those who generally support the current deer management program will be delighted with the results of the audit; Two: those who have been opposed to the current deer management program from its inception will be furious with the results of the audit, and; Three: those who haven’t paid attention up to this point still won’t have a clue. Unfortunately, I would also opine, this last group is in the majority. And here’s why I say “unfortunately:”
Arguably, no other “game” animal has had more research done on it, is more visible and recognizable or evokes stronger feelings (both pro and con) than our ubiquitous whitetail deer. It literally lives and thrives in every nook and cranny of the Keystone State from the suburbs of our largest cities to the remotest sections of our big woods. It’s probable safe to assume, as a biologist was once heard to say, that “If an atomic bomb were dropped tomorrow, the only critters that would survive would be rats, ****roaches and whitetail deer.”
On one hand, the whitetail deer is credited with being the backbone of the multi-billion dollar hunting industry and on the other it is believed to be the scourge of agriculture, a destroyer of forests and farm crops alike.
It would be logical to assume, therefore, that an “audit” of Pennsylvania’s whitetail deer management program would take all this – both sides - into consideration but that, as it is now becoming obvious, would be an erroneous assumption. The audit that is being conducted by the Wildlife Management Institute will amount to little more than a rubber stamp of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s current deer management program. And that, no matter which of the three categories listed above describes you, is a crying shame.
From the very beginning (as documented in the above referenced article, “You ain’t gonna’ gitcherdeer …”) it was believed – hoped – that the audit would be a thorough evaluation of the deer management program, a process that would look not only at the deer themselves, but at the condition of the state’s forest and the economic impact (again, both pro and con) as well. Alas, thanks to the shenanigans of Representative David Levdansky ( D-Allegheny County ), this hoped for result is not to be. (Author’s Note: A full history of this debacle, replete with documented details, is available at the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League web site at www.acslpa.org under a series of articles titled, “Deer hunting under attack - Is the deer audit a con?”)
Before this summer is over, the Wildlife Management Institute is going to produce a report (the “audit”) that will state that the “kill-all-the-deer program” is hunky-dory and should continue without change. The people who support the Pennsylvania Game Commission will be happy as clams, the people opposed to this program will be fit to be tied and – unfortunately – a majority of license buyers will continue to sit back and take whatever comes … until there is no longer a viable population of deer to sustain the hunting industry.
Without a viable population of deer, a domino series of events will take place. First, since a preponderance of the hunting industry is built around deer hunting, license sales will plummet which will, in turn, have a ripple effect on Pennsylvania ’s economy as retail establishments that provide goods and services to this industry contract even further. Secondly, with a drastic decrease in income (and industry support), the Pennsylvania Game Commission will become dependent on general tax revenues for survival, increasing the probability that it will be merged into the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. And finally, as a causal consequence of these first two events, hunters will lose what little clout they have at the wildlife management table as other “stakeholder groups” (like the National Audubon Society) exert mounting political pressure.
A number of people are working very hard right now to alert the hunting community to the debacle that has been set in motion by Representative Levdansky and his simpaticos within the Pennsylvania Game Commission. And they are to be commended for their effort.
Unfortunately, though, they’re preaching to the choir and, baring a miracle, will have no impact on the sequence of events that have been set in motion.
Unless the Pennsylvania hunting community can develop the unity to address this situation with one voice, the sequence of events described above is inevitable.
And that is beyond comprehension.
John Street is an inquisitive contrarian who writes, frequently with humor, about current events in fish and wildlife research as well as the ethical and societal issues that affect the outdoor life. He can be contacted through the Clarion News at [email protected]