Here is the link.  Scroll to the bottom of the screen and the WMU's with CAC committees have thier reports posted.

Some interesting reading.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/browse.asp?a=465&bc=0&c=70129

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely have to check out all those reports as time permits

I don't think the GC put alot of faith in these reports, at least in 2C where a majority of members recommended that the herd be alowwed to increase and the GC allocated the same number of tags as last year.

Quote :

Kingb_44 wrote : I don't think the GC put alot of faith in these reports, at least in 2C where a majority of members recommended that the herd be alowwed to increase and the GC allocated the same number of tags as last year.

The CAC committee is to provide recommendations.  It is still up to the deer biologists to make the final determintions.

I believe in the unit you speak of, the biologists could not justify decreasing allocations because of regeneration reports.

An example of the CAC recommendations effecting allocations was in WMU 2A were the committee recommended a decrease in allocations because of EHD and the deer team did cut allocations slightly as a result of the CAC.

I was contacted by a committee member and contributed my thoughts on that unit.

When it come time for one for 2F.. I sure hope you guys can write and support my presents on that CAC

dpms, if it's up to the biologist why have the committees? If I were on a committee and spent alot of time with other people and asked to make recomendations only to have the recomendations ignored it would certainly piss me off and I would be reluctent to help out again.

Quote :

Kingb_44 wrote : dpms, if it's up to the biologist why have the committees?

The committees were established to get public input from each WMU.  These committees include many interests and they all come together and submit a final recommendation to the PGC.

Just like when the floor is open to public comment before the PGC meetings in Harrisburg.

These committees are not intended to set deer managment goals or courses of action, only to inform ther PGC of the public feelings.  

As I said before, the CAC recommendations in 2A did effect allocations in that unit.  But ultimately the professionals within the PGC must make the decisions that matter weighing all factors.  

Many complain that the PGC is out of touch with the hunting public.  Well, with the CAC's in place, that base is covered even though some will disagree with the outcomes.

I thought one of the objectives was to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to have a direct input concerning the deer population goals. Guess that was only the case if the CAC agreeded with what the GC wanted.

Quote :

Kingb_44 wrote : I thought one of the objectives was to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to have a direct input concerning the deer population goals. Guess that was only the case if the CAC agreeded with what the GC wanted.

They do have direct input.  Input being the key word.  I am only familiar with the particulars in 2A(which the CAC did effect allocations).  I have not had a chance to look at all of the differnet committee recommendations to see what is there.

Quote :

Kingb_44 wrote : I thought one of the objectives was to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to have a direct input concerning the deer population goals. Guess that was only the case if the CAC agreeded with what the GC wanted.

I think you are misunderstanding what the CAC are really all about.

First off it is biologically impossible to increase a deer population beyond the food supply for more then short term periods. When you do increase them beyond the food supply, for the even short term, it is always at the expense of having even fewer later. For that reason the professionals that study the deer herd and forest health indicators have to make sure the CAC isn’t making a recommendation to either attempt do the impossible, with more deer then the habitat will allow, or to have more deer then would be responsible for the future of the deer herd or their food supply.

The CAC is mostly a function to determine the social acceptance of having more or fewer deer. The biological function still has to be evaluated and acted on toward the best future of the resource by the resource professionals.

As the CACs become more familiar with their rule in the deer population dynamics for the future I think you will see less spread between their recommendation and the direction of the Agency.

Dick Bodenhorn