2F CAC Correction ===

A while back I posted that the PGC had changed their plan about a CAC in 2F for this year...  well this old brain forgot we moved from 2010 to 2011.. and there is a CAC for 2F and they just had their first meeting.

A gentle man came into the store this morning and ask for me and the boss said I would be in after 12:00pm.

He came in about 1pm and introduced himself and asked if I would be interested in filling out a questionnaire for the 2F CAC.. I answered the questions and will be interested in seeing how the CAC works for this WMU... next meeting is in March...
 
He promised he would let me know how the CAC suggestions ended up and I'll post them here when I get them... stay tuned

citizen advisory committee?

They were a joke from day one. They eliminated most possibility of increase by saying ALL BUT ONE of the stakeholder groups had to agree on result. Thereby effectively limiting the odds of increase!

So if you have 2 farmers, an insurance guy, an 2 environmentalists a timberman and 2 hunters on a cac.... All of them but one must agree to that increase. Bad enough its pretty clear how stacked against the hunter the board is to begin with.... Then to make it so its not even majority rule, but every single stakeholder except for one has to agree to any increase. If every single one of them want increase except 2, then its just too darn bad.

Then if by miracle all but one agreed to increase because the unit has 5 deer in it, pgc can just shut it down by saying no, not enough regen. Sorry fellas.

Then throw in the fact that despite a very limited number of people actually take part, somehow someway every noted antideer internet posters seemed to have been lucky enough to be chosen for the various committees! lol.

Then we have people who are supposed to vote on behalf of those they poll. Well that doesnt happen at times either... One particularly antideer individual gave her poll results... i believe it was 4t total she'd polled. 40 people she polled wanted herd INCREASE or Stabilization. Stabilization had top vote. increase to herd a fairly close sencond... And only SEVEN people out of 47 wanted reduction... Amazingly even after filling out those results on the cac form...She voted for reduction! lmao.

Luckily, Since other members of the committee wanted increase and others stabilization, while she and another wanted decrease, it came down to stabilization automatically as the default automatic compromise.

..>Then to top it all off, if miracle happened and cac agreed to increae and pgc would agree... The increase is stated to be done over a period of 5 years slowly. So if we voted for example on a 25% increase to the units deer herd, it wouldnt take place immediately but slowly over 5 year period....Then when we get there or more accurately IF we did within those 5 years, it wouldve then been time for the next cac to give their suggestions which you would need to beat all the odds once again!!

Its a joke. If they want input, they have email and mailing addresses. Everyone who wants to can give input and it wont be weighed any more or any less imho then the ridiculous cacs circus. They will either take the input to heart or ignore it whether its an email, letter, or a formal proceeding.

I agree though the reason they want to go away from it is because even though the current system effectively prevents any real chances for increases, there are also more effective ways for them to get the "nod" towards DECREASES then our current cacs.

course I did not expect anything different from anti PGC guys here...

and once again they would not agree with any form of consensus or poll if the results did not come out agreeing with their opinions...

I don't know why you would make a statement like that when it is the PGC who is changing the makeup of the CAC's because THEY are the ones not geting the results they expected.
It seems that even after getting many of the folks on the CAC's that the PGC wanted and recommended they still could not get agreement with what they were doing in the majority of the WMU's.
When the only way they have a chance of getting agreement with the Herd Reduction is to change the makeup of the CAC's to include more folks they hope will agree with them the whole process becomes a sham. In spite of that it is exactly what is being proposed.
They can't even count on the farmers going along with them because many of them enjoy having a few deer around. Maybe a few Phili high rise tenants will give them what they want although I wouldn't bet on it.

That would have been WMU 2-A. GTF did some manipulating and got caught. Their a joke.

What are you talking about doc? There are more than one issue with the cacs. You arent understanding what was posted apparently. And yes i did speak of 2a, though i didnt evaluate many others for the same, i wouldnt doubt it mightve happened eslewhere. I gave the example of inappropriate voting on the part of one... You obviously dont understand how they work...

Also, the majority has to agree to compromise when they cant agree on reduction or stabilization. They have no choice. They can all agree except for one....Or disagree and pgc makes stabilization the default choice for them anyway. lol.

Back to the individual vote thing...Each member is supposed to poll others of their stakeholder group. One member did that, and got 47 polled. That member was the representing stakeholder who would have ONE VOTE which was supposed to represent those she polled prior to the cac vote. Of those she polled 40 of the 47 wanted increase or stabilization and she voted for reduction!, yet had no choice but to compromise because with or without the compromise the goal was to be stabization because reduction nor increase could be agreed upon.

Having that happen is proof the system doesnt work, regardless of the end result.

Having the cacs structure as they are, also is nonsensical at best as ive previously explained due to stacking the committee then needing all but one to agree instead of majority rule.

Though since nothing the pgc ever does is wrong, i wont try to convince you further. lol.

she questioned 48 people and the majority wanted the herd to remain the same.. so that becomes her vote...

No doc. Thats not how it worked. Thats exactly how it was supposed to work. The only reason the vote became STABILIZATION is because she had to change vote afterwards because of mandatory compromise! And that first vote is recorded on the cac report in the percentages shed given doc! lol. She also stated at the time she voted for reduction in conversations on hpa, so it was no big secret..lol. She defended the decision by saying that she took the amount of reduction the 7 people were asking for, and subtracted the amount of increase the others asked for... Which made absolutely no sense, because then she was ignoring those that asked for stabilization, and also those that want increase...because 7 people wanted more reduction then the amount of percentage the people wanting increase asked for! lol. The amount of reduction was the difference between the percentage of increase asked for and the percentage of decrease. Even though only 7 wanted decrease! lol And again.... That vote was supposed to be based on those she polled and it clearly wasnt. lol.

Notice the green i highlighted. Proves they didnt want reduction.

Now notice the red highlighted. That was her vote. She explained that she initially voted for the difference between the two percentages. Which wouldve added up to 6% decrease, but for some unknown reason she rounded it up to a 7% decrease because of one guy that didnt have an opinion. lol. Which really shouldnt matter because it shouldve been STABILIZATION vote from the get go considering the majority of the voters! lol

How do you take 25 wanting stabilization, 15 wanting increase and only seven wanting reduction....No matter how much reduction! And end up with a vote of 7% reduction? Thats exactly what happened and the logic boggles the mind!

There was a big "stink" over this when it happened a few years back..

And there are absolutely no rules against this. I can poll 75 people and vote against every single one of them if i so choose. How is that being helpful and representing your fellow stakeholders?

Btw, Id expect nothing less than for you to stick up for your clubs new lobbiest. lol.

Btw, Id expect nothing less than for you to stick up for your clubs new lobbiest. lol

PLEASE drop me a PM about who this Katy is and what she has to do with the PFSC....

Me and the "officals" (good old boys network) do not get along over there...


I'll get E-mails from a couple of the old guys every now and then and go there to check things out.. but I missed this whole CAC thing ????