BOC/staff at odds over WMUs

http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/20...nagement_u.html

the Board of Game Commissioners on Tuesday was disappointing for anyone hoping to see major changes in the commission's system of 22 wildlife management units across the state, including some commissioners.
A group of mostly biologists working since last August in the current five-year review of the WMUs found no reason to go along with most of nine proposals for changes in WMU boundary lines they had received from the field.

When they recommended no changes in WMU 2G, the unit covering much of the state's traditional, northcentral, Big Woods deer hunting range and the source of a majority of hunter complaints about the commission's deer management program, Commissioner David Putnam objected.

"This is disingenuous. This is dishonest. This is bad science," he charged. "I've sat at this table at least four different meetings, maybe 10, and I've brought up one issue for 2G. Where is it? Where is the issue that I brought up?"

Putnam has advocated a north-south split for WMU 2G since he first came onto the board of commissioners in 2009, based on the differing forest types in the two areas of the WMU.

He noted that the southern half of the WMU is mostly oak-dominated forest, while the northern half is mostly mixed hardwood forest, explaining that the two types of forest differ in how much food they produce for wildlife, how frequently the commission cuts the trees to revert from mature forest to new growth that generally supports higher deer populations and other key characteristics.

In their presentation staff referred to a large scale forest-cover map for the entire WMU to note there is little difference in the forests of the unit.

"That is a purposeful misrepresentation of the question I asked to be addressed," Putnam said./p

Commission Executive Director Carl Roe interjected, "I asked the question, 'Is there a difference in forest type?'"

Putnam replied, "This needs to go back to the drawing board. I think we need some different people looking at this."

Staff continued to present reasons for not making changes in various WMUs, including impacts of any changes on data they collected previously by WMU in areas such as deer harvest. They also contended that moving to smaller units would not produce as reliable data in the future.

When they moved to WMU 3D in northeastern Pennsylvania, Commissioner James Delaney Jr. joined Putnam's protest.

"I'm not satisfied with the information here," he said. "I want to see the township level deer harvest. I'm done. Thanks for all your work so far."

Tuesday's meeting was a workshop session for staff to present topics that will be on the agenda at the commissioners' voting meeting in June.

To that end, staff agreed to come back to commissioners with additional information and a revised presentation at that time.

While many Central Pennsylvania hunters travel to deer hunting camps in WMU 2G for the annual November opening of the rifle hunting season for deer, none of the proposed changes presented on Tuesday covered any on-the-ground changes in the region.

The boundaries for WMUs is a hot-button issue for many hunters because the commission allocates doe licenses by WMU, and sets some deer seasons differently by WMU. Some believe too many doe licenses are issued for some WMUs, while some others believe the current system is not effective in directing hunters to areas where deer numbers need to be reduced.

Interesting, no doubt.  Pretty sure there is a strong will among the current commissioners to make some changes to the WMUs. Obviously, the wildlife bureau(at least the heads) are hesitant to do so.

The situation is quite simple:  The biologists work for the PGC, meaning their chain of reporting goes up through the biology section, including the deer management unit, and eventually to the Executive Director.  That is who they must work with every day and who not only signs their pay checks, but does their performance reviews.  Who's position do you think they are going to take?

I heard some vocal dissent coming from just a couple/few of the boc about the boundaries of a few wmus.    Kinda meaningless in the whole scheme of things.   Just a few units spoken of, and no evidence that the MAJORITY of the board is on the same page.   At any rate,  atoken splitting of a coupla units when they can simply still issue same numbers of tags is meaningless, making no real commitment to "Change" of number of units that might be in some way meaningful.   These commissioners have supported the deer plan drivel and ignored many many things that have been pointed out that have shown that same "dishonest, disingenusous, etc" stuff and worse.  The boc is no more trustworthy than the staff.   Easy to see in their credentials,  and more importantly their voting histories.
Perhaps this is nothing more than a ridiculous distraction to the fact that some staff have been recommending going back to 2 week concurrent seasons across the board, and the board has basically said that they will support it, to be implemented in the very near future. 
I also found the proposed expansion to greatly multiply the area of the sra area in the southwest to be quite comical. Clearly attempt to wipe out even more deer as is always the case. 
 
'this is disingenuous.  This is dishonest.  This is bad science.'
 
And he just figured this out?   Where has he been the last 10 or 12 years?  In a cave?
 


True story.
 
Spoke to my regional fish commissioner once about some proposed trout regulations that were up for vote.   After going through my stance, he told me "I really don't know too much about trout, I'm a warmwater guy.  I usually just vote for stuff like this however _________(so and so) votes.  So and so was another commissioner from a nearby unit.
 
Point of my story is you don't know who to trust in something like this.  Just because a commissioner is clamoring for one thing or another doesn't necessarily mean he's well informed on everything.  And, as you know this stuff is so policital that maybe someone has his ear and is pushing their own agenda.  Oh my, you mean that stuff really happens?
 
I like the fact the biologist are standing up to the commissioners like this, but they have to be transparent in where they get their data, etc for it to hold up.
 
 
 
.