Cornelius08

Lengths? WMI took care of the lengths.

" Ha ha ha. Thats funny. Did find it kinda interesting though, you being a member here since 2005 only have 50 posts in all that time, and every single one of them are pgc damage control. lol.

bluebird2

It's a shame RSB doesn't post here anymore since I would love to see his response to this quote from the audit.

" Based on the analysis of embryo and forest regeneration data,their appears to be no correlation between reproductive rates and forest health at the WMU level."

RSB claimed that the improved habitat would result in a big enough increase in recruitment to offset the HR and the audit proves he was dead wrong.

Cornelius08

Thats not surprising.

Sincerely, I honestly cannot remember anything hes ever been RIGHT about in regards to deer management issues.

Tony_Loyd

He knew he was blowing smoke, and high tailed it out of here when he knew, he been outed.So he ran to the safety of HPA before the report came out. He is part of the DAMAGE CONTROL.

BTBowhunter

Is the DMP flawed? I think most agreed before the audit that there was room for improvement. Critically flawed? Not hardly. Nothing short of a return to the deer behind every tree numbers of the 90's and mowing down every spike will satisfy some. On the other hand, some substantial fixes are being called for. The fact that the audit has ruffled feathers on both sides is a good thing. The purpose of the audit was to get an objective third party assessment and that appears to be what we got.

IMHO, the audit is a first step in fixing whats broke, keeping what isnt broke and moving on.

Tony_Loyd

We knew right from the start that the system was badly flawed and all about money.
The large WMUs was the key to their attack. Larger WMUs = more money pocketed.
Take a real hard look at the WMUs and show any evidence of how that setup had anything to do other than permit more tags sold.

Also more proof about it being about money and not the deer herd.
Taje the 1st 2nd and 3rd choice for WMU you wanted to hunt. They knew and used the way that they wouldn't of had to return a single dime to the hunter.

BTBowhunter

[quote=Tony_Loyd;3580532]We knew right from the start that the system was badly flawed and all about money.
The large WMUs was the key to their attack. Larger WMUs = more money pocketed.
Take a real hard look at the WMUs and show any evidence of how that setup had anything to do other than permit more tags sold.
[QUOTE]

While most agree that WMU size is too large, WMU size has no effect on revenue or doe tag numbers. The doe tag numbers could have been exactly the same with the old county units


Not true. All a hunter had to do was not make a second or third choice. No hunter was forced to buy a doe license if his preferred WMU was sold out

Cornelius08

"Is the DMP flawed? I think most agreed before the audit that there was room for improvement. Critically flawed? Not hardly."

There is more than enough justification to put an end to the pgc enviro- era. All the legislators have to do now is show that they have a "set". Im not counting on it, but hey, miracles happen.

glew22

Are you aware that the pgc is required by law to manage ALL pa wildlife for current and future generations????

Look, you can comment til youre blue in the face on whether or not that's fair being as we (hunters) foot the bill for everything (I think you would have a very valid point that it's not fair). But I also do not believe its moral or ethical to manage our forest resources solely for the benefit of deer. Bottom line, the pgc is required by law to manage for all wildlife. What the he!! do you want them to do?

Cornelius08

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 dont know if i should be insulted, or if i should just shake my head that that is as deep as your knowledge on the deer program goes?? Unreal.

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.

What just about every other single friggin state in this nation does. Manage in a flippin normal manner which takes hunters into account, normal deer densities and less extremes. I could go deep into detail, but i hardly think its necessary, its only common sense. I think thats pretty fair for starters.