stakeholders --

I post this more for info and thinking  rather than debating --


On the page where you clicked to get the deer audit there are also two other audits.... one on compliance to deer plan April 2009 and one on gas, oil and timber  .. lt's interesting reading to say the least

However ...  I have metioned in the past about being careful with getting legislators involved in wildlife management or having control of our SGLs ....  well if you read the oil & gas audit here is the PGC response to that audit... notice Director Roe seems to voice strong concerns about mananging for anything other than wildlife FIRST !!!!

GAME COMMISSION ISSUES COMMENTS ON LEGISLATIVE RESOUCES AUDIT
 
HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe today issued the following statement on the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s audit titled “Examination of Current and Future Costs and Revenues from Forest Products, Oil, Gas and Mineral Extraction on Pennsylvania Game Commission Lands.”

“I have to say that I was disappointed in the report, and we have major concerns with the report,” Roe said. “At the beginning of the process, I asked that two things be taken into consideration as this audit was being conducted. The first was to keep in mind that, at all times, we produce habitat first; forestry is a by-product of that operation and is not the primary mission of this agency. Every part of the evaluation has to be taken in the habitat context and not a forestry model.

“Second, we asked that this not be an academic exercise, but that the team would understand our situation and produce a report that takes into the context the real world environment we are operating in. We are a wildlife agency; we are not the forestry division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources or the U.S. Forest Service. Unfortunately, I believe the report failed to take into consideration the two concerns we raised.” 

Roe continued: “As I stressed to the team, the Game Commission operates under a habitat enhancement model; not a forestry model. If I may give some examples as to a habitat approach compared to a forestry one. First, suppose we have growing on our State Game Lands an oak stand that is 125 years old. Under the forestry model, this stand is at its primary value and should be harvested. For the Game Commission, operating under a model which emphasizes maximizing habitat for wildlife, if that oak stand provides hard mast for wildlife living in the area, then we will likely let it remain untouched for the next 50 years.

“The second example is that if we have a State Game Land that is surrounded by either state forest or commercial forest. A forestry model would mandate an attempt to maximize regeneration in order to increase the commercial value of the forest.  However, using a model which focuses on habitat, we would attempt to create a landscape that is 90 percent early successional forest or grass lands, so as to provide a diversity of food and cover for the wildlife in the surrounding area.

“I believe these cases are anathemas to a forestry model because we strive to create habitat which benefits wildlife. Unfortunately, in creating the report, the team based its recommendations and findings upon an analysis which is based upon the forestry model, not the habitat model under which we operate. 

“We also were disappointed with the report’s examination of our oil, gas and mineral program as the analysis is superficial at best. To come up with an outlandish figure of $1 billion for the specified State Game Lands is beyond comprehension. If you use the data presented by the report, it rightly states that we only own 24 percent of the gas rights in the northeast region of the state.

“Nonetheless, the report includes projections that we could realize revenue in excess of $1 billion dollars, based upon assumptions that we own all of the mineral rights, an assumption that the report itself noted is false. The revenue projection also failed to take into account market factors and environmental concerns and limitations. To include such outlandish projections has no basis in the real-world limitations under which we operate.

“I believe the quickest way to summarize our concerns was that we anticipated a report that was going to attempt to answer the question of whether we doing everything we can based on our current resources to maximize our programs. We all know we could do more with more resources and clearly the report points out things we can do with more resources. But are we doing what we can with what we have? I will offer that we are exceeding standards in our wildlife habitat approach to both timber and OGM with the resources we have.

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.
 
#    #    #

It is apparent that quite possibly our largest failure in PA as sportsmen was to allow the PGC to admit that there are other stakeholders as they relate to game management, while we continued to foot the bill.

So while we are continually told that no group receives preferrential treatment by the PGC regarding deer management, it is obvious that they do as they are now included in all discussions regarding the matter.

And that fact sickens me. Persons and groups with management goals detrimental to sportsmen now have equal footing and that is a shame.