|
Pa deer management audit whitewash as expected
Report Highlights
For a full copy of the report, please call 717-783-1600 or e-mail us at [email protected] or download at http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us. February 16, 2010 LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission House Resolution 2008-642 directs the LB&FC to evaluate the PGC’s deer management program. Given the technical nature of this study, we contracted with the Wildlife Management Institute to conduct this study. WMI found: �� The public has been given an opportunity to provide input to the PGC’s deer management decision making process. The PGC has encour-aged public debate on the consequences of ab-undant deer on forest health, deer health, and human interactions. �� PGC’s deer management goals are consistent with its constitutional mandate. The PGC is constitutionally mandated to conserve and main-tain all wildlife for the benefit of all people. The PGC has done a good job in balancing the inter-ests of all stakeholders, not just hunters. �� The PGC has developed a credible population model to track population trends, both state-wide and at the WMU level. The PGC uses an SAK (sex-age-kill) model to estimate the size of the PA deer herd. WMI reviewed the factors used in the model and believe it to be credible. Using this model, the PGC estimates the 2007 deer herd to be about 1.03 million, with an upper estimate of 1.28 million and a lower estimate of 0.85 million. This represents a 25% decline from the 2002 estimate of 1.38 million. �� The PGC needs to develop and prioritize poli-cies and procedures to increase harvest re-porting. The declining trend in reporting rate jeopardizes the viability of the PGC’s harvest es-timates. The PGC’s point-of-license system of-fers opportunities to improve harvest reporting. �� The PGC should seek an alternative to em-bryos per adult doe as an index of herd health. Natural variability in embryo data make this a poor measure of herd health. WMI sug-gested several measures that could be used if new data collection methodologies were em-ployed. �� Pennsylvania forests are challenged by many environmental and social factors, but abun-dance of deer is a major cause of forest rege-neration failure. Deer management is an essen-tial part of forest ecosystem management. Progress cannot be made towards the goals of sustainable forestry and better wildlife manage-ment unless deer numbers are in balance with their food supply. �� Forest regeneration is a sound measure of forest habitat health, but insufficient sam-pling jeopardizes the value of the measure. Forest health data as currently collected suffers from inadequate sampling. The report makes several recommendations to improve sampling. �� Citizen Advisory Committees allow stake-holder participation, but is not a fully objec-tive method to assess citizen desires. CACs provide opportunities for public input into the PGC’s deer management plans, but the non-hunting public is not fully represented, and the PGC does not commit to the results of the CAC process when establishing WMU goals. �� Wildlife Management Units are appropriately sized. Large WMUs (such as in PA) allow for better sampling of deer management data, but make it difficult to manage for hunter prefe-rences. The DMAP and other programs help mi-tigate this disadvantage. Recommendations: The PGC should: • Continue to improve the accuracy of the SAK model. WMI makes several technical sugges-tions. • Use the point-of-sale licensing system, in con-junction with increased enforcement of mandato-ry reporting requirements, as a way to improve harvest estimates. • Publish its estimates of the deer herd population for each WMU and explain how those numbers are derived. • Consider eliminating herd health as a goal due to the lack of a good measure of goal attainment. • Improve the sampling size for its forest regene-ration metric. WMI makes several technical suggestions for improvements. • Create a statewide CAC and use statistically va-lid survey methods to obtain public input at the WMU level. • Increase communication with stakeholders http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/ |
Clearly a fraudulent compilation of nonsense. I expected nothing less. Thats what happens when you get an auditing company whose president is the ex pgc executive director.
I bold highlighted what I found to be the most absurd parts of this whitewash. |
While you and others may view this as a whitewash,from my perspective the audit completely undermines the credibility of the current DMP. The three main criteria the PGC claims to use to manage the herd are herd health, forest health and deer/human conflicts as determined by the CACs.
The audit stated that the PGC's method for determining herd health was flawed and should be replaced by other methods. They also state that the method for determining forest health was flawed because of inadequate sampling. Then they criticize the CACs for not being objective while at the same time criticizing three PGC for not complying with the CAC's findings. IMHO the audit shows the PGC's DMP is fatally flawed and needs major revisions. That is much more than I expected from the audit. |
I see only minor revisions.
They said the herd health didnt need to be used, though it wasnt really anyway as it was never at a point where it effected management actions and other considerations over rided it anyway. They gave suggestions of collecting a bit more data, which pgc already said they planned on doing. They gave suggestion of increasing NONHUNTER input, and made no mentions of doing anything in regard to addressing hunter concern, in fact just the opposite. And the regen. based stays. I see nothing that will lead in any way shape or form to "more deer" or cause the program to be altered in any manner of any significance whatsoever. Just on more slap in our face as far as im concerned. |
The PGC should seek an alternative to em-bryos per adult doe as an index of herd health. Natural variability in embryo data make this a poor measure of herd health. WMI sug-gested several measures that could be used if new data collection methodologies were em-ployed. IMHO there is a lot more to be gained by supporting the audits criticism of the PGC DMP than we will gain by attacking it's flaws. |
Here is the PGC's response to the audit.
Release #017-10 GAME COMMISSION ISSUES COMMENTS ON LEGISLATIVE RESOURCES AUDIT HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe today issued the following statement on the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s audit titled “Examination of Current and Future Costs and Revenues from Forest Products, Oil, Gas and Mineral Extraction on Pennsylvania Game Commission Lands.” “I have to say that I was disappointed in the report, and we have major concerns with the report,” Roe said. “At the beginning of the process, I asked that two things be taken into consideration as this audit was being conducted. The first was to keep in mind that, at all times, we produce habitat first; forestry is a by-product of that operation and is not the primary mission of this agency. Every part of the evaluation has to be taken in the habitat context and not a forestry model. “Second, we asked that this not be an academic exercise, but that the team would understand our situation and produce a report that takes into the context the real world environment we are operating in. We are a wildlife agency; we are not the forestry division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources or the U.S. Forest Service. Unfortunately, I believe the report failed to take into consideration the two concerns we raised.” Roe continued: “As I stressed to the team, the Game Commission operates under a habitat enhancement model; not a forestry model. If I may give some examples as to a habitat approach compared to a forestry one. First, suppose we have growing on our State Game Lands an oak stand that is 125 years old. Under the forestry model, this stand is at its primary value and should be harvested. For the Game Commission, operating under a model which emphasizes maximizing habitat for wildlife, if that oak stand provides hard mast for wildlife living in the area, then we will likely let it remain untouched for the next 50 years. “The second example is that if we have a State Game Land that is surrounded by either state forest or commercial forest. A forestry model would mandate an attempt to maximize regeneration in order to increase the commercial value of the forest. However, using a model which focuses on habitat, we would attempt to create a landscape that is 90 percent early successional forest or grass lands, so as to provide a diversity of food and cover for the wildlife in the surrounding area. “I believe these cases are anathemas to a forestry model because we strive to create habitat which benefits wildlife. Unfortunately, in creating the report, the team based its recommendations and findings upon an analysis which is based upon the forestry model, not the habitat model under which we operate. “We also were disappointed with the report’s examination of our oil, gas and mineral program as the analysis is superficial at best. To come up with an outlandish figure of $1 billion for the specified State Game Lands is beyond comprehension. If you use the data presented by the report, it rightly states that we only own 24 percent of the gas rights in the northeast region of the state. “Nonetheless, the report includes projections that we could realize revenue in excess of $1 billion dollars, based upon assumptions that we own all of the mineral rights, an assumption that the report itself noted is false. The revenue projection also failed to take into account market factors and environmental concerns and limitations. To include such outlandish projections has no basis in the real-world limitations under which we operate. “I believe the quickest way to summarize our concerns was that we anticipated a report that was going to attempt to answer the question of whether we doing everything we can based on our current resources to maximize our programs. We all know we could do more with more resources and clearly the report points out things we can do with more resources. But are we doing what we can with what we have? I will offer that we are exceeding standards in our wildlife habitat approach to both timber and OGM with the resources we have. For a complete copy of the audit and the Game Commission’s comments, please go to the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s website (http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/), click on “Reports Released” in the left-hand column and scroll down to “Game and Fisheries” section. |
Thats a different report. Thats something entirely different. Not the one done by wmi of the deer program.
|
Did you read the full report? I just did. They basically talked about not having sufficient amounts of herd health data anyway, and also seemed to believe nothing was wrong with herd health, stated the herd health as an indicator wasnt really necessary. Thats the way i took it. Makes sense to. I had no doubt about that in the first place.
|
Btw, the herd apparently declined by over 144,000+ deer since 2004.
|
��
The public has been given an opportunity to provide input to the PGC’s deer management decision making process. The PGC has encour-aged public debate on the consequences of ab-undant deer on forest health, deer health, and human interactions. Funniest thing I've read in a long time! |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3578209)
Did you read the full report? I just did. They basically talked about not having sufficient amounts of herd health data anyway, and also seemed to believe nothing was wrong with herd health, stated the herd health as an indicator wasnt really necessary. Thats the way i took it. Makes sense to. I had no doubt about that in the first place.
|
What a complete Joke!!
Bluebird do you happen to know what the harvest #'s were the last time our herd size was estimated at about 1 million deer? Pike |
When we had 1M OWD in 2000 the buck harvest was 203K and the antlerless harvest was 301K.The PSDD in 2000 was approx. 1.6 M deer.
|
PLEASE show me rationally thinking, sane person(s) whom believe the PGC considered anything the majority of sportsmen have been telling them all along...anterless harvests are to high an continue to be.
Where does the report state the PGC's rebuttal to our complaints of low deer numbers??? I surely did not read anywhere the PGC's statement that "hunters are fat, lazy and don't know how to hunt that is why they aren't seeing deer"......DID ANYONE ELSE?? That doesn't seem to this sportsman that they allowed us to voice or opinion to an open ear. |
the audit was jaded from the start and IMHO an insult to the intellegence of all sportsmen statewide to even think for a moment we couldn't see through this shame!!!!
I continue to preach don't buy a back tag this year let the PGC choke on their present deer management goals!!!!!! |
IMO, they suggested dropping the current m,easure of herd health because it reflects negatively on the DMP, since breeding rates and productivity declined in the wake of HR. In fact, if herd health continued to be a factor in the DMP, than we would have to assume that the PGC's constitutional mandate of wildlife conservation has been compromised directly by the plan, as it had a direct negative impact on herd health...which coincdentally was the oposite of what would have/ should have been expected. And so, we should eliminate herd health as any sort of management guideline entirely, shifting the focus ONLy to include forest health and human conflict...and the agency has basically become that DCNR, USFS apendage that Carl Roe argued so adamantly that they were not, in any uncertain terms.
We are a wildlife agency; we are not the forestry division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources or the U.S. Forest Service. Unfortunately, I believe the report failed to take into consideration the two concerns we raised |
maybe a bat fungus management plan is more within the capablities of the PGC...no on second thought I guess they have them messed up as well.
|
Yeah, but they need more $!!!!!! I guess in the world they live in, negative work performance = a payraise. Sorry fellas. Improve your performance, THEN we talk payraises.
|
I love this tidbit:
Quote: Antler restrictions adopted by PGC in 2002 required a correction factor to be employed in estimating the age structure of antlered (adult) deer in the conventional SAK model. In Pennsylvania, antler restrictions violated the assumption of equal representation (because a percentage of the yearling male cohort was protected) and eliminated the feasibility of using the yearling cohort variables without transformation. |
They might not need to worry about squeezing a few more dimes out of us for long!!!!....
Here are some highlights from this newly released report done by the Pa legislative budget & finance committee!!! PGC SGL #12 and #36, containing a combined 43,466 acres, appear to represent the most valuable PGC property. Should these two parcels lease at the level of recent transactions, the signing bonus would be over $249 million. Assuming a royalty rate of 20%, these lands could eventually net the PGC $1.07 billion above and beyond the signing bonus (given $4/1000 cfe gas). SGL #13 and SGL #57 consist of a combined 95,021 acres in parts of Luzerne, Sullivan, and Wyoming Counties. This is by far the largest nearly contiguous acreage in the PGC portfolio and much, if not all of it, is prospective for Marcellus gas. It is reasonable to suggest that SGL #13 and #57, which is double the size of SGL #12 and #36, may well realize twice the revenue as the former. http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2010/42.PDF Carl Roe replied that in that region they only hold 24% of the gas rights. Thats still 24% of over 3 BILLION dollars estimated! Which is well over $700,000,000!!!! And could concieveably be higher!! + a portion of that 249 million signing bonus spoken of! And thats in just one part of the state!! |
heck with that much cash on hand an the PGC's pechant for wasting it they should be able to cover their "administrative costs"
|
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3578574)
They might not need to worry about squeezing a few more dimes out of us for long!!!!....
Here are some highlights from this newly released report done by the Pa legislative budget & finance committee!!! PGC SGL #12 and #36, containing a combined 43,466 acres, appear to represent the most valuable PGC property. Should these two parcels lease at the level of recent transactions, the signing bonus would be over $249 million. Assuming a royalty rate of 20%, these lands could eventually net the PGC $1.07 billion above and beyond the signing bonus (given $4/1000 cfe gas). SGL #13 and SGL #57 consist of a combined 95,021 acres in parts of Luzerne, Sullivan, and Wyoming Counties. This is by far the largest nearly contiguous acreage in the PGC portfolio and much, if not all of it, is prospective for Marcellus gas. It is reasonable to suggest that SGL #13 and #57, which is double the size of SGL #12 and #36, may well realize twice the revenue as the former. http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2010/42.PDF Carl Roe replied that in that region they only hold 24% of the gas rights. Thats still 24% of over 3 BILLION dollars estimated! Which is well over $700,000,000!!!! And could concieveably be higher!! + a portion of that 249 million signing bonus spoken of! And thats in just one part of the state!! |
get whom out from under the BOC's desk ? The eco weenies that have been wooing the BOC to kill a deer save a tree?
|
Man I donno what to think ss. Those figures also have upside potential for that area. And considering how many other areas in the Marcellus zone there are gamelands... wow.
Certainly enough to promote their supposedly "expensive" birth control policy. Heck they could maybe drive all the deer out of Pa into neighboring states and just fence the whole darn border off. lol Cant be sure how this will effect us, but im not expecting good things. The ONLY reasonable possibility I could ever see coming of this is it being a wake-up call to legislators whove seen they cannot be trusted and something like pgc restructuring takes place. Not only is current management a disgraceful joke, but they also lie continually, most recent, roe when lying to the public and oversight committees previously when addressing this potential HUGE windfall.:arms: |
The audit states that the PGC is using just 495 plots to monitor forest regeneration and only 20% of those plots are monitored yearly. That means the PGC is basing the antlerless allocations based on less than 100 plots of forest land that are .25A in size. So the PGC is managing our herd based on the results from 25 acres of forested out of the 27,000 SM of forested land in PA.
then we have this quote from the audit which presents a sad out look for the future of deer hunting. "" This consistent regulatory approach has been effective,but it may take 15-20 years to balance deer numbers with habitat and achieve the goal of good forest health in all WMUs." Therefore hunters can't expect to see any increase in the herd for 15-20 years" |
From Wmi LOL:
Although most states have had a period never waned.of time when deer management goals, practices or decisions were controversial, Pennsylvania is unique in that the period of controversy seems to have |
I need to read over it first before I form any real opinions. I was over at the greenie wheenie board though and saw that they were gushing with joy about the findings. Based on that observation, I can't believe that their is any favorable outcome for us. Hope your optimism is well founded Bluebird.
|
Is that link correct Cornellius? It doesn't seem to work for me. Maybe the website is getting too many hits?
|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3578861)
The audit states that the PGC is using just 495 plots to monitor forest regeneration and only 20% of those plots are monitored yearly. That means the PGC is basing the antlerless allocations based on less than 100 plots of forest land that are .25A in size. So the PGC is managing our herd based on the results from 25 acres of forested out of the 27,000 SM of forested land in PA.
then we have this quote from the audit which presents a sad out look for the future of deer hunting. "" This consistent regulatory approach has been effective,but it may take 15-20 years to balance deer numbers with habitat and achieve the goal of good forest health in all WMUs." Therefore hunters can't expect to see any increase in the herd for 15-20 years" |
Im guessing the report you want to see is the deer audit Mav? In that case, go to the first post in this thread. Click the link at the bottom of my first post (not the ones at the top)....Then scroll down to "game & fisheries" section. Then click on "the deer management program of pgc".... You must click on that. Do not click on the text beside it saying "report highlights"
I cant post a direct link for some reason, although you can for some of the other reports. |
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. |
Found it Cornelius. Thanks.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3579163)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Cornelius08
(Post 3578983)
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. 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. |
Whattya make of this piece, Doug?
The audit states that the PGC is using just 495 plots to monitor forest regeneration and only 20% of those plots are monitored yearly. That means the PGC is basing the antlerless allocations based on less than 100 plots of forest land that are .25A in size. |
It didn't however say the plan was a failure or that the plan itself was flawed 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. |
Originally Posted by Screamin Steel
(Post 3579264)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3579265)
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.