PGC vs. USP case closed?

Yep.  Case was dismissed. 

GAME COMMISSION HAILS LATEST COMMONWEALTH COURT RULING DISMISSING CHALLENGE TO DEER MANAGEMENT CASE

HARRISBURG – A Commonwealth Court ruling, handed down Feb. 8, has dismissed the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania’s legal challenge to the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s deer management program, according to Carl G. Roe, agency executive director.

This decision was the second ruling against Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania since 2007, when Commonwealth Court dismissed the organizations lawsuit on procedural grounds.

Roe noted that, in its latest ruling, Commonwealth Court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Unified failed to present evidence to support its case. As part of the ruling, the Court also cancelled the scheduled hearing that had been set for Feb. 28.

“This court ruling is a strong statement that the Game Commission’s deer management program is being conducted in a sound and scientific manner,” Roe said. “In essence, Commonwealth Court’s latest ruling dismissed the challenge because it lacked merit.

“Our hope is that this second ruling will cease the unnecessary expenditure of sportsmen’s dollars and tax dollars fighting frivolous and baseless lawsuits.”

Roe noted that, since 2000, the Game Commission has worked to implement a deer management program that takes into account the concerns of all Pennsylvanians, and the agency has been consistent and open in its approach.

“The deer management plan, which is available on our website, was developed with public input to improve the health of the state’s deer herd; to encourage healthy habitat, which deer and all other wildlife depend on; and to reduce deer-human conflicts,” Roe said. “We believe this deer management program will improve the health of our deer herd and the habitat that supports it and other wildlife.


“From 2000 until 2005, we sought to reduce deer numbers in all Wildlife Management Units. From 2006 until today, except for our most urbanized WMUs – 2B, 5C and 5D – the goal for each of the other 19 WMUs has been to stabilize deer population trends or allow an increase in the deer population trends where habitat and deer reproductive data support such increases.”

For more information about the Game Commission’s deer management program, visit the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) and click on the “White-Tailed Deer” icon in the center of the homepage.

“From 2000 until 2005, we sought to reduce deer numbers in all Wildlife Management Units. From 2006 until today, except for our most urbanized WMUs – 2B, 5C and 5D – the goal for each of the other 19 WMUs has been to stabilize deer population trends or allow an increase in the deer population trends where habitat and deer reproductive data support such increases.”

That is also a flat out lie. The 2008 harvest decreased the herd in 13 WMUs.

“From 2000 until 2005, we sought to reduce deer numbers in all Wildlife Management Units. From 2006 until today, except for our most urbanized WMUs – 2B, 5C and 5D – the goal for each of the other 19 WMUs has been to stabilize deer population trends or allow an increase in the deer population trends where habitat and deer reproductive data support such increases.”

It is a lie because the PGC issued enough doe tags that would insure that the herd would decrease in most WMU's from 2006 to 2009.
All you have to do is look at the pre-hunt estimates for 2006 to 2009 and the decrease will be obvious ,even though they are still claiming the population trend was stable.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

As i recall that was the prediction of Slinsky whose testimony the judge dismissed as worthless and i would . the court was not the least bit interested in hearing the opinions of disgruntled hunters that were unsupported by independent facts or research. IMHO the USP failed to provide any credible evidence that the PGC failed to in order to balance the herd with the habitat, even though thre is ample vidence to prove that the pGC is managing the herd at less than 50% of the MSY CC of the habitat.

Wait just a minute. I read your name in the depositions, indicting you were providing part of the data the USP was using in their battle. Based on that I would have to conclude the judge wasn’t too impressed with what you fed the USP either.

The fact is that the court could see that the Game Commission deer management program is based on science and though it might not be perfect it is based on sound scientific objectives. The court obviously also recognized that the USP had no evidence to prove any wrong doing on the part of the Game Commission in the deer management objectives and principles.  
 
R.S. Bodenhorn   

I read your name in the depositions, indicting you were providing part of the data the USP was using in their battle. Based on that I would have to conclude the judge wasn’t too impressed with what you fed the USP either.

RSB =The fact is that the court could see that the Game Commission deer management program is based on science and though it might not be perfect it is based on sound scientific objectives

The Game Commission deer management has been BASED ON SCIENCE since 1900. The same type biologists, PHD's, and research scientists have been doing the same research for decades. In Fact nearly ANY current research paper written will reference studies done in the 30.s, 40's, 50's, etc for comfirmation of their findings. The ONLY thing that has changed is the POLITICAL move towards Eco-System Management. The current science based management is just a play on words to sway the opinions of folks who don't understand what is going on. It's the same scientists and biologists using the same formulas and methods to do the same kinds of analysis.

For example --the Mann-Kendall test that the PGC is using in their new scientific estimating was being used in the early seventies.

ORIGINAL: S-10

RSB =The fact is that the court could see that the Game Commission deer management program is based on science and though it might not be perfect it is based on sound scientific objectives

The Game Commission deer management has been BASED ON SCIENCE since 1900. The same type biologists, PHD's, and research scientists have been doing the same research for decades. In Fact nearly ANY current research paper written will reference studies done in the 30.s, 40's, 50's, etc for comfirmation of their findings. The ONLY thing that has changed is the POLITICAL move towards Eco-System Management. The current science based management is just a play on words to sway the opinions of folks who don't understand what is going on. It's the same scientists and biologists using the same formulas and methods to do the same kinds of analysis.

For example --the Mann-Kendall test that the PGC is using in their new scientific estimating was being used in the early seventies.

 
No one in the Game Commission ever said that the deer management program was based on new science. Some parts of the science are based on new studies and the most recently updated information but yes many parts of the program are still based on time tested and proven scientific formulas that have been used with few modifications for decades.
 
Some aspects of scientific formula might never change but that doesn’t mean they are no longer applicable. But, there are some parts of the scientific research that are going to be changing on nearly a constant bases because wildlife populations and habitat are never static and since they are constantly changing some of the science has to be constantly changing with them.
 
One of the problems with scientific wildlife management though is that it both constantly changing and constantly a game of catching up to what has already occurred over the past few years. A good example of that is how there is no preseason deer population estimate for the fall of 2010 until they have an opportunity to calculate the harvest for last fall. Next year’s deer management opinions and direction will all be based on what has already happened instead of what is happening now or might happen in the future.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn      

I agree with what you just said----however the public perception which has been fostered by the Audubon, DCNR, Forestry coperations, and enviromentalists is that what the PGC is doing is something new, that it's finally based on science, and should continue. Every group that testifies pleads with the BOC to continue with SCIENCE BASED MANAGEMENT and not go back to the old ways. THE OLD WAYS WERE SCIENCE BASED MANAGEMENT but were not driven by ECO-SYSTEM MANAGEMENT. The difference between the two is the difference between approx 20 DPSM and 8-10 DPSM and we both know it. The PGC may not make the claim that it is something new in science but neither do they do anything to stop the false perception.

Posts which serve no other purpose than to antagonize other users (a/k/a "trolling") or creating account(s) explicitly for the purpose of creating said posts (a/k/a "troll" account)

BT .... so are you saying your name is not on any of the paper work for this case ????


A simple YES or NO will do for now ...

after years of stirring the pot on message boards, Surely you do not believe many of us do not know who you really are ????

I was even at a PGC meeting years ago when you created quite a scene ... ...

IF that is true I may have you mixed up with someone else .. I'll have to check tommorrow with a few E-mails...


Interesting.. RSB states he read your name in a deposition and you have no idea if there is such a document or not.. BULL!!!!!!

nteresting.. RSB states he read your name in a deposition and you have no idea if there is such a document or not.. BULL!!!!!!

Just because he may have read my name in a deposition doesn't mean I provided that deposition. I definitely was not deposed and I didn't provide any testimony since they didn't even have a trial. Maybe I am the victim of identity theft.

I definitely was not deposed and I didn't provide any testimony since they didn't even have a trial.

Since I did not read any deposition where my name appeared , I can not give a yes or no answer. Maybe RSB's name also appeared in a USP deposition since he has provided a lot of data over the years.