Deer Audit Released ---

Author
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4417
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
  • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
  • Status: offline
2010/02/16 16:22:54 (permalink)

Deer Audit Released ---

click on “Reports Released” in the left-hand column and scroll down to “Game and Fisheries” section.
 
 
http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us  
#1

27 Replies Related Threads

    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 16:51:28 (permalink)
    Thanks doc. Not hard to see who has the connections.
    #2
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 17:07:31 (permalink)
    WOW  --


    I read the second report first.... 

    I know my sources have been telling me how short of man power the PGC has been

    but I had no idea it was that bad.....

    no wonder our SGLs are not getting the needed work done almost every region is two-three ground and cover crew or maintenance workers short !!!!
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/16 17:14:58
    #3
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 17:08:55 (permalink)
    Guess now i can say i told you so.

    Clearly an absolutely ridiculous whitewash.

    The legislators will be getting a big ear-ful about this sham.
    #4
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 17:29:51 (permalink)
    Here is the repsonse from the PGC on the audit...
     
    HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe today welcomed the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s audit titled “The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, A Comprehensive Review and Evaluation.”

    “We believe it was a thorough review of our program and we appreciate the constructive criticism,” Roe said. “We welcome the conclusion that the overall scientific foundation of the Game Commission’s deer management system is sound, and that the design of the current Wildlife Management Units reflect a necessary compromise between the various needs.

    “The report also provides some opportunities to improve our deer management program.  Some of the recommendations we can address easily, but some will require additional resources to be able to implement.”

    Dr. Christopher Rosenberry, Game Commission Deer Management Supervisor, said he and his team concur with the findings of the audit that indicate the Game Commission has implemented a deer management program that is consistent with its mandates through structured public involvement and scientific data collection methods.

    “As with any complex undertaking, such as a statewide deer program, room for improvement exists,” Rosenberry said. “In the past, the Game Commission has actively sought peer-reviews of various components of our deer program, conducted research and analyses to evaluate strengths and weaknesses, and implemented changes when warranted. The recommendations from this audit will be treated in a similar manner.

    “The Game Commission appreciates the thoroughness of this review and evaluation of our deer program. This audit identified current strengths and areas for improvement within the deer management program. As with previous peer-reviews, the Game Commission will use these findings and recommendations to improve its deer management program where possible.”

    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.
          
    #    #    #
    #5
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 17:44:48 (permalink)
    OMG... this is hilarious in my opinion...
     
     
    MARYLAND Assess general herd condition by examining 4000+ animals annually at butcher shops

     
     
    can you image the out cry if that's all the PGC checked ??????
    #6
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 18:03:48 (permalink)
    Based on comparisons of hunter effort and harvest among 14 northeastern states and provinces, it appears that deer hunters in Pennsylvania have relatively good hunting opportunity, ranking fourth in hunter density and harvest success, and ranking second in kill per unit effort and third in kill per square mile (2007)
     
    at what S-10 ......   7 dpsm ????  ......
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/16 18:05:08
    #7
    tmiller
    Avid Angler
    • Total Posts : 164
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/06/08 19:58:46
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 18:31:56 (permalink)
    I was waiting for this to be released and now I know where my area stands. I would have to agree with what it says. Looking at my wmu we have eliminated about 30 to 35 percent of the herd here. That is about the diffrence I see as well. Seeing that and and what I have seen in the woods this year isn't bad at all. To see that the forest has regenerated almost 45 to 50 percent here, I'd say here we can stand to have about 2 more dpsm. It seems mother nature has a way of working out. If we shoot more does but not to many more the doe that are left will have a few more offspring to make it up.
    post edited by tmiller - 2010/02/16 18:39:17
    #8
    tmiller
    Avid Angler
    • Total Posts : 164
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/06/08 19:58:46
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 18:43:33 (permalink)
    I'd say in my wmu we stay the course, if hunters don't "see" the deer in season then they don't get shot. Means more deer the following year.
    #9
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 18:44:12 (permalink)
    Due to my relationship with some at the PGC I have been privy to seeing many of those graphs and charts etc that are now complete and  published for all to see.... and some of them while they were being compiled...
     
     
    again  if you have the time go to an open house the "deer guys" will have all this on their laptops...
    and be more than glad to go over it with you....
     
    I'm going to  love looking at the detailed charts for each WMU now that they are all complete
     
    and I agree with tmiller
     
    the one for 2F is dead on with what I see around here too.....
     
     
    #10
    tmiller
    Avid Angler
    • Total Posts : 164
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/06/08 19:58:46
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 18:48:35 (permalink)
    I work for the township here and travel the backroads virtually all day/ almost everyday. I know the deer are there just a little less. Remember I am plowing them early when all the deer tracks are going across them. Then after I pass most of the evidence is plowed away.
    #11
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 19:14:08 (permalink)
    what unit tmiller  ?? .. want to look at wmu charts for your area next...
     
    I know one thing...  after printing out the 140 pages of the deer plan I am not about to start printing the audit until I get more INK for a spare.. it's another 100 pages 
     
    The older guys at the club will appreciate it though.. most do not have computer access..... but will want to read them...
    #12
    tmiller
    Avid Angler
    • Total Posts : 164
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/06/08 19:58:46
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 19:18:29 (permalink)
    That would be unit 2D Doc.
    #13
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 19:40:45 (permalink)
    Doc- you really should take the time to understand what you are reading before going off half cocked. What's so hilarious about a state the size of Maryland checking 4,000 deer. Also, compare the size of our rural area with the combined size of 2/3 of the other states we are compared to before bragging about 7 dpsm harvest. By the way 7 is not 9 . I've barely had time to read the report much less understand it and you seem to need to go back over it yourself.
    #14
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3509
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 19:45:18 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

    Based on comparisons of hunter effort and harvest among 14 northeastern states and provinces, it appears that deer hunters in Pennsylvania have relatively good hunting opportunity, ranking fourth in hunter density and harvest success, and ranking second in kill per unit effort and third in kill per square mile (2007)


     
    Interesting......  I have skimmed through some of it and find it to be pretty fair thus far.  Kill per unit effort is something I want to look at closer.

    My rifle is a black rifle
    #15
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 20:14:36 (permalink)
    DPMS-- I believe that is a function of days hunting as compared to deer kill.
    #16
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 20:50:57 (permalink)
    Maryland harvests around 90,000 deer per year for such a small state.. so it must be like hunting deer was here in the 80s and early 90s.. deer everywhere...
     
     
     
    and I just find it odd (FUNNY) they are happy checking only  4,000 of them for herd health...
     
     
    but that's my opinion...
     
    and actually could care less about what some other state does.. I do not live or hunt there
     
    #17
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 20:56:36 (permalink)
    DPMS--Careful on those comparisons, there are some obvious errors in them.-- Compare the days hunted with number hunters. Some number of hunters with number kill seems odd in a couple cases also.
    #18
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 22:12:52 (permalink)
    I have skimmed through some of it and find it to be pretty fair thus far.


    Ha ha ha. Of course you do.
    #19
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 22:16:10 (permalink)
    "Doc- you really should take the time to understand what you are reading before going off half ****ed. What's so hilarious about a state the size of Maryland checking 4,000 deer."


    Lol. They also mentioned comparing to "Canadian Provinces". They have VERY low deer densities and deer hunter densities nearly nonexistent by comparison. lol
    #20
    MuskyMastr
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3032
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
    • Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/16 23:28:44 (permalink)
    Still reading and compiling notes.......Once again though no discussion of reporting rates for those who self butcher in the PA SAK Model, Can anyone get a clear picture of the antler base map? mine when blown up is fuzzy and unreadable

    Better too far back, than too far forward.
    #21
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 10:00:45 (permalink)
    Wellll---After the first reading the most biased item I have seen is the WMI reaction to the "Citizen Advisory Committees" There are 6 pages devoted to them.

    HISTORY

    The CAC's were first suggested by the WMI in another audit they did of the PGC done several years ago.
    They (WMI)said getting citizen stakeholder input was critical for any deer management program to succeed.

    The PGC started them but made sure some of the members were suggested by PGC personnel or "other outside organizations perhaps to load them in the PGC's favor.
    The members were from all groups of stakeholders--Farmers, Forestry, Hunters, Non-Hunters, Homeowners, etc, anyone who might be impacted by the deer in a positive or negative way.
    It started off on the wrong foot when at the same time the PGC personnel were stating how important they were some of the Commissioners went on record saying they didn't care what consenses the CAC's came to the Board would do what they wanted.
    That proved to be correct as many of the CAC's recommendations were rejected.
    The Cac's were instructed in the PGC's deer plan, why it was necessary and given all the data to back up the plan.
    After all of the above,in most cases the CAC's came to the consenses That herd reduction had gone too far in most WMU's
    The CAC'S members also stated that they were willing to accept some negative interactions with the deer in order to see more animals.
    Remember, the CAC members also had to go out and poll other outside citizens and bring back that information.

    NOW THE AUDIT RESULTS

    WMI Statement---Public stakeholder input is essential in developing and executing a sound deer management program and success of the program will only occur with stakeholder support. ALSO- Cac's provide a valuable means for the PGC to gather stakeholder input.

    (BUT gee the PGC has tried everything we can to get the public to buy into the deer eraducation program but they keep saying we are going to far. What else can we Do????? (my wording)

    WMI RESPONSE

    The screening process should be modified to ASSURE NON-HUNTING individuals are represented to a GREATER DEGREE.
    GREATER participation by the AGRICULTURE industry Specifically the PA FARM BUREAU.-------- In other words the WMI is telling the PGC to keep overloading the CAC's with folks they think might support them until they get the results they want.-----Doing that should really get the PGC some credibility in the public's eye.

    #22
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 10:48:53 (permalink)
    Rather than me getting bashed for being negative how about someone going to page 52 and tell me if tables 14 and 15 are as screwed up as I think they are. You will need to go to Info Please and get the Land and Water area of States for some of the calculations. They used land area only for Pa and I think the rest. I find errors in half the hunter Sq mi, a couple harvest %, effort, etc. Maybe I'am wrong but I don't think so. A few numbers way off by my calculations.
    #23
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 10:48:56 (permalink)
    WMI RESPONSE

    The screening process should be modified to ASSURE NON-HUNTING individuals are represented to a GREATER DEGREE.
    GREATER participation by the AGRICULTURE industry Specifically the PA FARM BUREAU.-------- In other words the WMI is telling the PGC to keep overloading the CAC's with folks they think might support them until they get the results they want.----


    DUhhhhhhhhhhh.. did you not read the stakeholder threads we were doing  yesterday.. I even added one of concern today....  legislators wanting the oil and gas lease money for their own pet projects...???


    I warned about letting politicians get involved...

    hope I do not get in trouble for this BUT...

    The reason the audit did not get out at 1pm.......  one of the legislators had questions and would not or could not except the answers....  wanting to delay the release as long as possible..

    I'm telling ya.. they want control of our SGLs it is that SIMPLE !!!!

    we had better start to find some sort of common grounds and begin to stand as a complete unit soon....
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/17 10:56:18
    #24
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 11:02:09 (permalink)
    S-10 the "effort" part leaves me in the cold.. I see no good explanation of just what that is.. or how it was used in those tables... they are confusing... 
     
    I understand leaving out areas of water.. I thought about doing that with my figures from the other day... not too many deer shot in Lake Erie which still is part our square miles..  maybe some city limits were left out too.. you know using forested/wooded areas... 
     
    that's why I like the open houses you can sit and talk to the guys that created the charts, graphs etc....
     
    one in your area soon guys !!!!!!
    #25
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 11:03:53 (permalink)
    Must add that some times having them explain how they do some of the figuring is WAY OVER MY HEAD..
     
    the forumlas for some of that stuff  are awesome !!!!
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/17 11:04:25
    #26
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 11:26:48 (permalink)
    The more you read the more you wonder? I understand the "effort" part, it's days afield per deer killed but some of the numbers are way wrong. Ex- Deleware shows 15,000 hunters who spent 1,382,713 days hunting deer. That means on average each hunter hunted deer for 92 days. Must be a lot of divorces in that state. That's more days than even I hunt them. I wonder who proof read the report.
    #27
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Deer Audit Released --- 2010/02/17 12:32:14 (permalink)
    DUhhhhhhhhhhh.. did you not read the stakeholder threads we were doing yesterday.. I even added one of concern today.... legislators wanting the oil and gas lease money for their own pet projects...???


    I warned about letting politicians get involved...


    From what Im seeing, Politicians are the absolute least of our concerns as hunters currently. Unless you are speaking of the ones appointing the boc, pushing for alternate funding for pgc, or similar characters.

    After all the new developments such as this audit & legislative report on pgc finance & resources, Id say the legislators will be getting ear fulls. I know i'll be doing my part.
    post edited by wayne c - 2010/02/17 12:33:28
    #28
    Jump to: