Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
Pa sportsmen groups speaks out about audit >

Pa sportsmen groups speaks out about audit

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

Pa sportsmen groups speaks out about audit

Old 03-05-2010, 09:52 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default Pa sportsmen groups speaks out about audit

Unified Sportsmen of PA

2010 Deer Audit Analysis

March 3, 2010


Deer management as practiced by the PGC is a complex undertaking that engages the hard sciences of biology and statistics and the soft sciences of ecology and sociology. Together, they are critical components for the PGC to properly manage deer, the State’s most popular and economically important species. On February 16, 2010 the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee accepted a PGC Deer Audit executed by the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) titled “The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission”.
Frequently during the course of the Report, WMI pointed out major deficiencies in the PGC’s deer management program. The Report also periodically mentions successes. Paradoxically, the Report claims the scientific foundation of the PGC deer management system is sound, but there are important components identified that need revision, improvement, modification, abandonment and additional evaluation and assessment.
With so many major recommendations by WMI that bear heavily on deer management, it is difficult to accept that the PGC’s deer management is scientifically sound or on a fundamentally sound foundation. Neither deer population estimates, the Sex-Age-Kill (SAK) model, harvest estimates, deer health evaluation, forest regeneration analysis or the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) process received very high marks from WMI. The determination by WMI that antlerless allocations using PA’s SAK methodology in conjunction with poor harvest data is flawed and unreliable is a theme USP has emphasized for a decade. This is a glaring example of the “garbage in – garbage out” scenario alive and well in the PGC’s deer management.
In overview, on a scale of 1 to 10, the audit must be considered a 5. Scot Williamson must be commended for his hard work as this was no small undertaking. The seven major recommendations of WMI are indeed excellent. These are all improvements our hunters have requested for years. It is satisfying to finally see these recommendations in writing by an organization of WMI’s stature.
However, WMI missed the mark completely in a number of critical areas. Often, Mr. Williamson spoke in generalities or the “general consensus” of the people he interviewed. He glossed over critical issues or didn’t investigate deep into other issues. The audit did not answer the most critical question of all. How many deer die we have in this state before the Gary Alt deer reduction program began?
A comprehensive critique of a 90-page document is no small undertaking, as well. Below is a summary of the positives revealed in this report followed by the areas that should be investigated in much greater detail.
The USP thanks WMI for undertaking the Deer Audit and thereby contributing to the resolution of many long-standing PGC deer management difficulties.

Positives from the Executive Summary:

1 – “Improving the SAK” – While “improving” is always a plus, the PGC’s homemade SAK model is not a nationally accepted, peer reviewed model. It may never function reliably or accurately. More on this later in this analysis.

2 – “Revising harvest requirements” – Our sportsmen have believed for decades that the PGC’s buck harvest projections are quite generous. Regardless of the PGC’s support for their “butcher store feedback” an entirely new system must be developed. Our hunters have no confidence or respect for the current butcher store system.

3 – “Publish herd estimates” – This is a long-overdue procedure that our hunters are demanding. However, it will require significant changes in PGC policy to return us to quantifiable deer management. We may need to abolish antler restrictions and reset the clock to obtain accurate starting numbers.

4 – “Eliminate deer health” as a goal. - While this is an excellent suggestion for the moment at some time in the future deer health monitoring should be resumed. However, examining road-killed female deer and counting their fetuses is a waste of time and resources. PA’s reproduction rate of 1.5 hasn’t changed in 50 years.

5 – “Improve forest regeneration metric” – While improving any system sounds reasonable, our entire forest analysis system is bias, unscientific and must be abandoned. More on this later in this analysis.

6 – “Create a Statewide CAC” – Excellent suggestion and our hunters look forward to the first meeting.

7 – “Increase communication with stakeholders” – Excellent suggestion and our hunters look forward to meeting the other stakeholders.

Negatives from the Audit:

1 – “Factors Facing Regeneration” – Page 40 – 41 - As you read through this critical section you come to realize WMI revealed a great deal of information. Something that wasn’t said that everyone needs to realize and retain is the fact that the PGC nor the DCNR or the commercial foresters can grow hardwood trees with soil pH’s below 5. Can’t be done. It is a biological impossibility. The source for that fact is Dr. Lee Frelich, mentioned in this audit. Even if we are successful at starting certain species behind fences, they are doomed to perish in the future or at best grow so slowly they will not have significant economic value in the future.
WMI speaks of silvicultural prescriptions for our forests, which a fancy word for tree farming. If we are going to tree farm PA, we will always have conflicts with deer. In essence, we are allowing foresters to establish our goals for regeneration in direct conflict with wildlife management. The US Forest Service has been monitoring our regeneration since 1990. It is difficult to recall a year in the past 20 years when regeneration was considered satisfactory and when we had our deer herd under control. Obviously, something is not working or perhaps it is time to revise our goals. WMI found plenty wrong with the PGC’s method of measuring regeneration and finished-up their assessment by stating that the plot sizes established by the US Forest Service are too small. WMI didn’t concisely comment in one or two sentences that our methods for measuring regeneration are unacceptable; they said it in many sentences.
Untouched by WMI, the true, core deer management fallacy is once again, the absence/presence theory. If a tree species is absent from the woods, allegedly there must be too many deer present. This is the erroneous mindset driving our deer management for decades. The US Forest Service’s continuous regeneration evaluation should be abandoned in its entirety. No other state utilizes their services. It would not matter if we killed every last deer in this state, we will not achieve satisfactory regeneration. Our soils are in terrible condition.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 03-05-2010 at 09:56 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 03-05-2010, 09:57 AM
  #2  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

2 - “Factors Affecting Regeneration” Page 41-43. In this section WMI does a good job of bringing together the many problems facing PA’s forests. “There was a consensus among scientists and forest managers that excessive deer browsing was the primary factor limiting forest regeneration, and that forest regeneration could be achieved where deer numbers were regulated” is an unacceptable statement. Consensus is not fact and WMI should have pursued peer-reviewed studies to substantiate the “consensus” among scientists.
The replacement of oak and hickory with beech and birch is a serious concern in PA. It is easy to ascertain deer can not be responsible for this gradual transition of our forests. Acid rain is the culprit and has been over the past fifty years. The PGC and the DCNR have continuously blamed the deer. Consequently, millions of deer have been killed in the name of improved regeneration and the plan has failed miserably.
In these two pages, WMI tries to explain in the most scientific and historical terms that the entire “kill the deer to save the trees” agenda isn’t working. It is far more complex than just killing deer. A major attitude adjustment is needed at the PGC, DCNR and within the forestry community. They need to come to grips with the necessity of liming and/or burning our forests.

Summary:

WMI has clearly recommended eliminating fetus counting to determine deer health. Apparently, the current methods of measuring forest regeneration are woefully inadequate as well. You must read the audit carefully. No responsible deer management program solely based on forest regeneration can proceed in a scientific or intellectual manner without first testing all soils for their pH levels. I am fearful that if we do not change directions we will soon hear deer are responsible for global warming.

3 – “The Deer Model” Pages 11-24 WMI put a great deal of work into determining the response of the PGC’s homemade SAK model. It should be more widely known that there is no deer management industry accepted model when antler restrictions are in place. Antler restrictions and intense doe harvesting cause hunters to be unusually selective and near impossible to pattern their behavior and choices. The PGC’s deer model is complex requiring a three-year look-back to continuously adjust and confirm numbers. There is a high probably of error compared to a conventional SAK deer model, which estimates harvests and populations for the current season and year.
The PGC claims the success ratio, survival and mortality rates plugged into their model was derived from deer research. These ratios are so generous, new research should be conducted immediately.
A major disappointment in WMI’s audit is the declaration that PA currently has 850,000 to 1,280,000 deer. This represents a mere 25% decline in the population from the onset of our deer eradication program. WMI was remiss in not establishing a total PA deer population prior to the current program using old harvest numbers and conventional SAK models. It is believed by many with realistic supporting evidence that in 1999-2000 PA’s deer population was closer to 1 million, not 1.6 million as Gary Alt claimed. Reducing the starting herd number to a realistic level would indeed reveal that after almost 10-years of intense reduction PA’s current deer herd is dangerously low. Combined with extremely high numbers of coyotes and record numbers of bears, PA deer herd may be unsustainable in the commonly referred to “predator pit” scenario. WMI has well established in this report that the PGC’s method of calculating harvests in woefully inadequate.
A written analysis of the PGC’s homemade SAK deer model is a rather lengthy process. The yearly harvest numbers, 1.5 year-old buck survival rate and 2.5 year old buck survival rate injected into their SAK model create unbelievable deer numbers for those who actually hunt and observe the lack of deer in our forests.
If we use an estimated 40,000 square miles of huntable area in PA and deer densities of 5 to 10 deer per square mile, we arrive at approximately 200,000 to 400,000 deer in the Commonwealth. This would match our hunters’ observations and the FLIR flights conducted over a substantial sample area. The error of WMI was to input the PGC’s harvest data without question even after declaring their harvest data collection methods were inadequate. Additionally, WMI should have subjected the PGC’s survival and harvest rates for 1.5 and 2.5 year old deer to intense scrutiny. The lack of 3.5 year old and older deer in the harvest numbers is proof that the antler restriction program is a dismal failure.

Additional Observations and Recommendations:

While much has been accomplished by this audit, there is still great deal more to explore and analyze. USP is requesting WMI be retained once more to explore some of the following issues.

1 – A study to determine the true impact of coyotes and black bears on the fawn and adult deer population. These finding should be incorporated into the SAK model.

2 – WMI should be required per this audit to determine the number of deer in PA per the harvest results of the late 1990’s prior to the deer reduction program.

3 – A study to determine why so few 3.5 year old and older deer are showing up in our yearly harvests.

4 – Harvest data from Special Regulation Areas should be removed from the statewide totals and handled separately starting in 2010.

5 – Soil sampling from every county should begin and become a permanent part of deer management and forest regeneration evaluations.

6 – The PGC has an obligation expressed in Title 34 Section 322 to serve the interest of sportsmen by preserving and promoting recreational hunting and furtaking by providing an adequate opportunity to hunt the wildlife resources of the Commonwealth. The discussion needs to move to the public forum and the goals incorporated in the PGC’s Strategic Plan for all to review.

7 – The US Forest Service’s Nancy Tilghman Study needs to be revisited. An investigation as to why the study revealed PA’s forests can carry 22-30 deer per square mile without significant forest regeneration impacts and today we have far less deer and allegedly continuous regeneration failures.

Compiled by:
Dr. Charles Bolgiano, USP Legislative Liaison
Jim Slinsky, Broadcaster, Columnist, Consultant
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 03-05-2010, 12:32 PM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

I was glad to see the USP didn't label the audit as a sham and gave WMI credit for their efforts. The response was much more rational and effective than some of their previous positions.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 03-05-2010, 12:59 PM
  #4  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

I agree. WHile i often disagree with them on some issues, this appears to be a reasonable position to take for the mostpart. A couple of things I might disagree with in their assessment of certain particulars, but the majority of it seems to be right on the money.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 03-09-2010, 03:19 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Rumor has it that the HF&G committee questioned WMI regarding why HR hasn't resulted in a significant increase in regeneration and has actually resulted in a decrease in the vast majority of WMUs. I hope that at some point the testimony by WMI is made public.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2010, 02:22 AM
  #6  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Default

what is different about the USP's attitude towards the audit vs earlier published reports, is newer leadership both at the helm and behind the scenes.
They are becomming media savy an being accepted more readily by the masses!!!
Hail to the USP
Potterco is offline  
Old 03-10-2010, 03:40 AM
  #7  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 159
Default

ANYONE, and I said ANYONE who thinks that there are more deer in PA than before is CRAZY and completely CLUELESS...end of story..we've been bamboozled and mislead...after reading today's PGC complaint about 15%-30% reporting kills I just had to laugh..I'll give the PA sportsmen alot more credit than that..I think it's much higher, all of the kills that I know of tell me they reported on-line..it was easy..BUT if you don't kill anything you don't report anything..what if the report is 75%..then we are in worse shape than we ever could believe...
Frank in the Laurel is offline  
Old 03-10-2010, 03:43 AM
  #8  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

I don't have a good answer to your question but it may be that they are reacting to feedback from some of their members regarding the audit. Word has it that their input on regeneration was viewed favorably by the HF&G committee.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 03-10-2010, 04:51 AM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by Frank in the Laurel
ANYONE, and I said ANYONE who thinks that there are more deer in PA than before is CRAZY and completely CLUELESS...end of story..we've been bamboozled and mislead...after reading today's PGC complaint about 15%-30% reporting kills I just had to laugh..I'll give the PA sportsmen alot more credit than that..I think it's much higher, all of the kills that I know of tell me they reported on-line..it was easy..BUT if you don't kill anything you don't report anything..what if the report is 75%..then we are in worse shape than we ever could believe...
Anyone that would claim the audit said we had more deer is crazy and clueless.
DougE is offline  
Old 03-10-2010, 04:55 AM
  #10  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by Potterco
what is different about the USP's attitude towards the audit vs earlier published reports, is newer leadership both at the helm and behind the scenes.
They are becomming media savy an being accepted more readily by the masses!!!
Hail to the USP

Oh really?Are you saying the clowns that helped set up the staged mountain lion attack on an deranged Amish guy aren't in the leadership anymore?

How bout the brain surgeons that filed a lawsuit based on the thory that DCNR wanted all the deer killed because they were pawing up the trees with their hooves.What about the clown that tried to say the deer in 2g WERE BEING DEVORED BY COYOTEES AND MOUNTAIN LIONS.That was all in the original lawsuit transcripts.

Sorry but savvy and USP don't go hand in hand.Braindead and clueless is a better way to put it.
DougE is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.