From all the posts Ive shown that Ive followed just about every move theyve made for years now,...and in depth.... what on earth would lead you to believe i wouldnt be aware of pgcs mission statement???..Which has nothing to do with anything being discussed anyway??

I couldnt care less who foots the bill, though perhaps pgc should... Aside from that, 1. we are stakeholders just like the others but are the only ones currently ignored. 2. we are the management tool itself! That has to count for something. To ignore both is nothing but pure irresponsibility. Especially when all it is doing is causing HUGE levels of disgust & distrust with hunters towards the agency. Not a good situation period. And pgc can easily fix it. Fact is, they dont care.

Deer management program has a few flaws

Buzz up!
By Bob Frye, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, February 21, 2010
About the writer
Bob Frye is the Tribune-Review outdoors editor. He can be reached at 724-838-5148 or via e-mail.




The Pennsylvania Game Commission's deer management program is scientifically solid, defensible and largely credible.
But is it working?
That was a matter of debate this past week.
The Washington, D.C.-based Wildlife Management Institute earned more than $90,000 to do an audit of the commission's deer management program. Its findings were released this past week in Harrisburg.
The audit's five-man team of scientists determined that Pennsylvania's means of managing deer treats all stakeholders equally and — despite some complaints to the contrary — is producing good hunting, relatively speaking.
When compared to 13 other Northeastern states and Canadian provinces, Pennsylvania ranked first in overall deer harvest, fourth in hunter density and harvest success, second in kill per unit effort and third in deer killed per square mile.
One of the team members reportedly told a Game Commissioner that — if forced to give the plan a letter grade — he'd give it an A-minus.
Still, the commission's method of managing deer has room for "continuous improvement," said Scot Williamson, vice president of the Institute.
One aspect of the plan in particular that could use some tweaking drew the most debate this past week.
Commission biologists have said for a decade that the reason they lowered deer numbers between 2002 and 2005, and have tried to hold them steady since, is to keep deer in balance with their habitat. That's critical to promoting forest regeneration, they and others have claimed.
But, according to the audit, Pennsylvania's forests are not yet responding.
The report notes that the number of wildlife management units with good to fair habitat has decreased since 2002, while the number with poor habitat has increased.
That's a bit misleading, said one of the report's authors, Bill Healy, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service research biologist. The decreases in forest health have been so slight as to be almost negligible, he said, meaning that the forests are in about the same shape today as they were in 2002.
That's still not good.
"It is not at a point where there is good regeneration in Pennsylvania's forests," Williamson said.
State Rep. Bob Godshall, a Montgomery County Republican and frequent critic of the deer program, questioned how that can be.
"So could it be something out there other than deer, which are always getting the blame, that's the problem?" he asked.
Yes and no, said Healy. It's true that there are "many, many problems" influencing forest regeneration, he said. The list includes acid rain, invasive species, insect pests and more.
But whenever and wherever in the Northeast those problems have been experienced, solutions have only been possible when deer numbers are first controlled, he said.
That prompted state Rep. Dave Levdansky, the Allegheny County Democrat who requested the audit be done, to ask if the deer herd — reduced an estimated 25 percent since 2002 — is small enough to allow forest regeneration to occur.
"I hate to answer that because I fear you're not going to like it, but I think you're not quite low enough in deer numbers yet. That's my personal opinion," Healy said.
"Twenty-five percent looks like a big change. But it may not be quite enough."
In fact, at the current pace at which the commission is operating, it may take "15-20 years to balance deer numbers with habitat and achieve the goal of good forest health in all wildlife management units," the audit report reads.