PDA

View Full Version : USP's Position on the PA Deer Audit



venado
03-24-2010, 04:58 PM
by PJ REILLY from LancasterOnline.com



Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania's leadership has read and reviewed the so-called "deer audit" commissioned and recently released by the state Legislative Budget and Finance Committee.

Not surprisingly, while Pennsylvania Game Commission staff view the audit as a vindication of the agency's deer management program, Unified believes the audit condemns it.

In a written analysis of the audit performed by Wildlife Management Institute, Unified says WMI "claims the scientific foundation of the PGC deer management system is sound, but there are important components identified that need revision, improvement, modification, abandonment and additional evaluation and assessment.

"With so many major recommendations by WMI that bear heavily on deer management, it is difficult to accept that the PGC's deer management is scientifically sound or on a fundamentally sound foundation."

Some of you might be thinking, "Enough with the deer audit already."

And with the warm days of the past week pushing my thoughts to trout and turkeys, rest assured, I'm with you.

But Unified's view of this audit is a critical component of the ongoing debate over the success or failure of the PGC's deer management program.

Unified is suing the agency for allegedly mismanaging the state's deer herds.

This WMI audit, no doubt, is going to be a hammer both sides turn to as the fight progresses.

Unified's report was crafted by the group's legislative liaison, Charles Bolgiano, of East Hempfield Township, and radio broadcaster and newspaper columnist Jim Slinsky.

As one might expect, Unified claims the audit found that the Game Commission's efforts counting embryos in road-killed does are insufficient and should be scrapped and that the annual harvest estimates and forest regeneration assessments are pure bunk.

Those flaws in the program, the Unified analysis states, have led to a "garbage-in-garbage-out" method of deer management.

"The determination by WMI that antlerless [license] allocations using PA's ... methodology, in conjunction with poor harvest data, is flawed and unreliable is a theme USP has emphasized for a decade," the Unified report states.

Unified rates WMI's audit a "5" on a scale of 1-10.

A glaring omission from the audit, Unified states, is any discussion of what Unified calls "the true, core deer management fallacy" which is "the absence/presence theory. If a tree species is absent from the woods, allegedly there must be too many deer present," Unified's analysis states.

"This is the erroneous mindset driving our deer management for decades. ... It would not matter if we killed every last deer in this state, we will not achieve satisfactory regeneration. Our soils are in terrible condition."

Unified claims acid rain is the main reason regeneration is so poor in Pennsylvania, and the organization recommends "liming and/or burning our forests" to improve conditions.

"WMI speaks of silvicultural prescriptions for our forests, which is a fancy word for tree farming," Unified's report states. "If we are going to tree farm PA, we will always have conflicts with deer.

"In essence, we are allowing foresters to establish our goals for regeneration in direct conflict with wildlife management."

(This point is particularly interesting, since researchers at Penn State University recently concluded the PGC hasn't been aggressive enough with its "tree farming" in recent years. And the PGC says that's because the agency doesn't manage forests for timber sales, it manages them for wildlife habitat.)

Game Commission spokesman Jerry Feaser said agency officials saw no need to respond to Unified's report on a point-by-point basis.

In essence, he said the report is what the PGC expected.

"It's clear Unified does not support the deer management program," Feaser said. "We're not surprised by that, and we are engaged in a lawsuit with Unified over the program."

Altjaeger
03-24-2010, 10:16 PM
Any bets that the results of this USP lawsuit will be any different than the outcomes of the last one?:hmmmm2::laugh:

GF.
03-25-2010, 10:09 AM
As one might expect, Unified claims the audit found that the Game Commission's efforts counting embryos in road-killed does are insufficient and should be scrapped and that the annual harvest estimates and forest regeneration assessments are pure bunk.

Let's see..... You have an estimate of how many deer are out there; you have an estimate of the sex ratio, so you have a good estimate of how many does are out there; you have data on projected fawns/doe from the embryo count; you know how many tags you'e selling; you have data (only as good as the hunters will provide) on how many hunter-days of effort per buck/doe taken in the fall; so then you know how many days of hunting opportunity your seasons will need to provide in order or hit your target number fore the overall hunter success rate....

So if you head in to January at 1,000,000 deer at 80% does = 800,000 does X 1.5 embryos/doe = 1.2 million fawns dropped; figure 50% pre-hunt mortality due to coyotes, cars, & cougars ( ;) )and then you're adding 600,000 deer/year to the system. If you sell a million tags per year, then you need a 60% success rate to get back down to 1,000,000 deer in January.

Yeah, that's pure crap as a model for managing a resource.


:hmmmm:

There may be something to the point that PGC isn't being active enough in forestry if they're not permitting some timber sales or prescribed burns; if ash would offset some of the effects of acid rain and if regeneration is poor, it would only make sense to open up some areas to increase the early-successional growth in spots. You have edible seedlings popping up 1 here and 1 there under a heavy canopy and they're gonna get browsed off; clear-cut blocks of a few acres (or a few dozen, or a few hundred) here and a few there, and the supply might begin to outstrip the demand. Refuse to increase supply, and the only reasonable response is to cut demand (herd size) until the forests can keep up, and with the population they have down there, it would likely take a very large removal effort (as a percentage of existing herd) to get things in balance again, no?

Seems to me, though, that the USP has their heart set on maintaining the deer herd at levels which are (or may be) in conflict with the interests of other wildlife and/or the human population. That's an easy thing to do when you really only care about deer hunting and you don't have to live with the deer, dealing with crop depredation, deer-car incidents, landscape destruction, & so forth. But have they forgotten that the PGC works for the whole State of PA? They seem to get their noses out of joint over 'tree farming' - as if it would be a detriment, rather than a benefit to the deer herd - but they apparently exist solely to force the PGC into proceeding as if Deer Farming were its only responsibility.....

News Flash, fellas: Trees = Deer Food and Deer Cover. Farm the trees, increase the supply of Deer Food and Deer Cover. Increase the supplies of Food and Cover, increase the carrying capacity of the land; increase carrying capacity, increase target herd size.

Now, again, maybe the social carrying capacity is already exceeded and adding F&C would only make matters worse. In that case, I guess the USP simply have to make a case for why their desire to be able to shoot 'X' number of deer per year at an average effort expenditure of 'Y' days per deer outweighs the rest of the state's population's desire to reduce deer-car collisions, raise crops cost-effectively, and yes, maybe even have a nice-looking yard that doesn't serve as a de facto salad bar for deer that can't find enough food in the woods.

venado
03-25-2010, 04:46 PM
GF, yours is one of the better analysis of the situation I've read on here...!:top: Thanks for staying with this issue and thanks for your thoughtful comment. Now you only have one flaw in your evaluation, you failed to consider that it is only PA deer that leave no tracks in the snow but are killed by the thousands by real hunters that don't know they should be whining instead of hunting.:cool1:

Badger
03-25-2010, 06:03 PM
GF,

Are you saying we have 1,000,000 deer in Pennsylvania going into January? HOW many deer per EVERY square mile of PA would that be since the state is 45,333 square miles? Now, deduct the roads, cities, malls and housing developments for 12 million residents and WHAT is the number of PA deer per square mile WHERE a deer could live?

Your "Model of the PA deer herd" is WAY overstated. The PGC makes the same mistake. Did it ever occur to you that all those "Estimates of Deer" should be backed up by FLIR Data or check stations? Why not come to PA and see all those PGC Estimated Deer? When have you been in Pennsylvania to hunt deer? BEWARE! There are 22.05 deer FOR EVERY square mile of PA! Your 1,000,000 deer data says so! LOL. Yes, another "PA Expert" has weighed in on PA. LOL! I like the way folks here PRETEND to know about PA.

Badger

GF.
03-25-2010, 06:50 PM
Umm... badger?

I threw out 1 million just to keep the math easy.

Altjaeger
03-25-2010, 08:20 PM
How funny Badger. A few years ago you were complaining about the inaccuracies of the FLIR studies. Despite the cries you make for check stations of they did not produce the info you wanted you would whine that they too were poor management tools and probably call for "Scientific estimates". And you cannot discount any land as the presence of deer in urban setting is well established in urban as well as rural landscapes.

Gf's analysis may be too simplified to be accurate in detail, but it does encapsulate the selfish and immature emotions of member of the USP and its supporters accurately.

southtexas
03-26-2010, 12:51 AM
GF,

Now, deduct the roads, cities, malls and housing developments for 12 million residents and WHAT is the number of PA deer per square mile WHERE a deer could live?

psst: you fergot to deduct the 450 square miles of inland waters and the 750 square miles of Lake Erie.

venado
03-26-2010, 11:04 AM
GF, I don't know if you remember from quite some time ago but Badger has difficulties with numbers. He tried unsuccessfully to convince us, his Representative and the PGC that the PGC didn't have any financial issues. Of course he was wrong then which time has confirmed. Even in PA numbers work the same way they do in TX or elsewhere; however it takes a bit of intelligence to grasp what they mean.

As a sidelight, there are efforts underway in PA to attempt to improve the hunter reporting system through the new automatic licensing system. That should make some of the complainers happy until the results confirm the PGC just as the audit was a great idea until it too confirmed the management plan. The complainers remind me of Kerry, "they were for it before they were against it."

It is simply that the complainers don't understand the difference between micro and macro.

Renegade
03-26-2010, 01:16 PM
Well said GF.

It’s been predictable that they would try to spin this into something negative, no matter how positive, but I guess it’s taken them so long to respond because they first had to make up a list of negative adjectives they could use to randomly throw in there in their attempt to spin it into something bad, since obviously the audit’s final report didn’t. So it’s not surprising which direction their response would take. Not once in the report does it say anything was “fatally flawed”. My truck ran through a mud puddle and it “flawed” the shine of the paint. Nothing “fatal” there. Or I like where they called their deer model a “homemade SAK model”, yet several states use this same model.

And to think that a retired chemist and a hydraulic oil salesman turned columnist feel they have the credibility to critic the work of several expert biologists who do this for a living in several states is beyond laughable. That’s like having a locksmith and a fast food cook review a brain surgery. These are two guys who when deposed under oath for their lawsuit against the sportsmen and women, couldn't even remember which management unit they hunted in!! There's only 22 of them and your doe tag is specific for that unit!:withstupid:

I liked this part ” A glaring omission from the audit, Unified states, is any discussion of what Unified calls "the true, core deer management fallacy" which is "the absence/presence theory.” :questionmark::confused1:
It’s omitted because no one has ever heard of it. Slinsky made that up and now he tries to pawn it off as some legitimate theory within the wildlife management world and he’s so familiar with it it’s like brushing your teeth in the morning. You made it up Jimmyboy, get over yourself.:stupid:
There’s something for you to do Badger. Why don’t you link us to a wildlife or biology website, book, heck any website that mentions this supposed “theory”. It’s no wonder the sportsmen of PA think this guys an idiot. He keeps proving it to us all the time! And let’s not forget this little gem explaining things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDEzYE6GIcA :star:

GF.
03-26-2010, 02:04 PM
Gf's analysis may be too simplified to be accurate in detail....

WHAT???? How dare you, Sir? How dare you suggest that a 2-minute, cocktail-napkin analysis could possibly fall short in comparison to sum total efforts of (probably) dozens of MS and PhD scientists who've made their careers out of looking at the problem??? :fight:

I'm just so offended by that, Alt:aetsch:

GF.
03-26-2010, 03:31 PM
I liked that renegade brought this one up:

[quote]A glaring omission from the audit, Unified states, is any discussion of what Unified calls "the true, core deer management fallacy" which is "the absence/presence theory. If a tree species is absent from the woods, allegedly there must be too many deer present," Unified's analysis states.[/]quote]

Now just how is it PGC's responsibility to discuss something that never entered into their thinking??? :hmmmm: