Pa deer management audit whitewash as expected
02-16-2010 | 01:17 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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/
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/
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-16-2010 at 01:21 PM.
02-16-2010 | 01:18 PM
#2
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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.
I bold highlighted what I found to be the most absurd parts of this whitewash.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-16-2010 at 01:21 PM.
02-16-2010 | 01:51 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
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.
02-16-2010 | 02:08 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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.
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.
02-16-2010 | 02:28 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
02-16-2010 | 03:30 PM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
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.
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.
02-16-2010 | 04:09 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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.
02-16-2010 | 04:28 PM
#10
Fork Horn
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From:
��
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!
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!