Cornelius08

As for it being a whitewash as was my first impression, im honestly a bit less decided now. I formed a bit too much of an opinion based right off the bat on the very short version summary, not so much the report itself. I then skimmed quickly the report... Having read it thouroughly since, its wide open to interpretation and alot of differing conclusions can be drawn. And some things that were stated could be taken more ways than one. Wont even being to try and summarize the 202 pages but look forward to conversation on the details.

A couple things i notice, While they did ok the wmu size, they didnt rule out smaller ones. They simply stated larger in this case was an "acceptable alternative". There are also other things they didnt really address, and other things still that they were pretty critical of, such as the regeneration study, the deer reproductive data (both found to be very lacking) and also critical of sak, in the exact manner in which pgc is using it.

They condemned the cac process basically, saying that they could continue on perhaps a limited basis, say on a statewide level maybe, but would be more effective to implement surveys, or use surveys in conjunction with statewide cacs.

I'll be interested to hear some opinions given by sporting groups, legislators, and others once theyve had time to analyze it thoroughly.

Maverick 1

Found it Cornelius. Thanks.

bluebird2

I think one indication of just how critical this audit is of the DMP , is the lack of PGC supporters, praising the audit. While the audit supported the PGC's right to manage the herd based on the regeneration of the existing canopy,the audit completely undermined the methods the PGC used to accomplish that goal. Even worse they admit that where the herd has been reduced the most, they aren't seeing the improvement in regeneration that was predicted.

DougE

I support the dmp for the most part but it always had parts that I didn't agree with.It just so happens the audit confirmed what some of my conerns were.I always stated that the roadkill data was way to imcomplete to draw any valid conclusions on herd health.It also bugged me that they stopped using the conception rate of fawns as a measure.To me,that's one of the more reliable measures.The PGC has been telling us for years that one of the reasons for the larger wmu's was because of the need to pool data from larger areas because of the lack of data for smaller areas.Apparently other states agree because some plan on going to larger units because of that reason.The data for the habitat collection is also a tough thing to measure over a short period of time and with limited infoprmation.That still doesn't change the fact that every single professional that I've spoken with or spent time with in the woods has agreed that the habitat is starting to improve.The audit also make it clear that they had plenty of facts and evidence from the scientific community to conclude that the deer are a major cause to the habitat problems we face.They didn't discount other factors and neither has the PGC.

Overall,I thought the audit was pretty fair and balanced.It was critical of the PGC in certain areas and recommended areas for improvement.It didn't however say the plan was a failure or that the plan itself was flawed.I've always agreed with the general direction of the DMP but never claimed the PGC or the plan itself couldn't be improved.The PGC isn't perfect but they aren't out to ruin hunting and they aren't as incompetent as many claim.I feel they do pretty good with what they have to work with.Perfect?No.On the right track?Yes and that's what my perception of the PGC has always been and that was my perception of the audit.

DougE

I give you a hardy thumbs up for going back and re-evaluting you'll original point.We all jump to conclusions at times.Being able to admit gains my respect.

I also originally thought it may be something that had the potential to be biased too much towards the PGC,which would ruin any credability.I read through it once and plan on reading it a second time to get a thorough opinion.Overall,I think it was pretty fair.Just the fact that that hammered the PGC because they refused to release pop estimates made me feel that they were unbiased.They were also very critical of the way the PGC handled public relation issues.Like I said,I generally agree with the PGC on most issues but always felt that sucked at that.Glad to see it was pointed out.

Screamin Steel

Whattya make of this piece, Doug?
I find that a little disturbing to manage the deer statewide based on regeneration evaluation of only 99 plots each year. Evidently WMI raised some eyebrows at this method as well. I still believe that smaller WMU's ae the answer, yes, data needs to be gathered from large areas, but to be applied in smaller areas. There are absolutely some areas with healthy habitat that could carry reasonably higher numbers of deer without excessive impact, but the continued high allocations within the large WMU's contribute to low DD there.

bluebird2

They most certainly said the plan was flawed since they said that all three of the criteria the PGC uses to manage the herd were flawed. Flawed or inadequate dat results in a flawed plan no matter how you spin it.
Using 100 plots /year to determine forest health and antlerless allocations is ridiculous and proves that the PGC was just giving hunters a snow job.

DougE

.

I always had an issue with that.The number plots simply isn't a strong indicator of changes in the habitat.DCNR has miles and miles of transect lines in each district and they try to monitor them annually.They have the manpower to do it though.The PGC does not.I've been aruing with BB over this issue for the past several years.He and others said the PGC data showed no improvements in habitat or herd health.Actually some had a decrease.That simply can't be.If you reduce the herd,there's an immediate increase in food for the ones that are there.Once again,I support the DMP because it's obvious to see improvements in the habitat if you know what to look for.That's why I support it.The PGC's data collection is not adequate and I'm glad it was pointed out to them and made public.It still doesn't change the fact that we needed less deer and it doesn't mean the plan is flawed.Also,some areas can most definately support more deer.I agree with that but it's hard to micromanage smaller areas with the current manpowere and funding.The basis of the plan is sound.Some area need fixed.Hopefully now that it's been pointed out and made public,those issues can start to be resolved.

DougE

I'm not spinning anything.The audit did point out flaws but it never said the basic premise of herd reductions was flawed.Without a doubt,100 plots to monitor the state is ridiculous.That I agree with.We have almost that many on 9500 acres and monitor them every two years.

fellas2

If you reduce the herd,there's an immediate increase in food for the ones that are there.

Possibly,but only if the available food source is either constant or increasing.If the available food source is also decreasing,there is no gain by reducing deer numbers.