“Ayuh” by John C. Street 

Up in the New England states there is an old-time colloquial utterance that sounds something like "Ayuh" which means, "I hear what you are saying but I don't agree with you."  

For going on ten years, Pennsylvania deer hunters have been questioning the “science” driving the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s deer management program. “Ayuh,” they kept telling each other, “we hear what you’re saying but we don’t agree with you.” 

Now, thanks to the hard work and diligence (and, although most people aren’t aware of it, the courage) of John Eveland and the support (and an equal dose of courage) provided by the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, the full extent of the “mismanagement of Pennsylvania’s deer herd” has come to light.  

But even though (to paraphrase the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives) Pennsylvania’s deer hunters have now lived through ten years of this abomination to find out what’s in it, there is no consensus on how to proceed.  

Some deer hunters – by all indications a vast majority – want to throw it out (repeal it) entirely while others argue for tweaking it around the edges to make it better. But what is it they’d like to tweak? 

As John Eveland’s report (“The mismanagement of Pennsylvania’s deer herd” available at www.acsl-pa.org) reveals, both the “objectives” of the program and the “science” driving it are more than just flawed, they are irreconcilably wrong.    

Neither Pennsylvania’s forest nor its deer herd (as evidenced by research documents prepared by the PGC and the DCNR and referenced in John Eveland’s report) are unhealthy.  

How, therefore, does one go about “tweaking” a management program that was designed to produce “A healthy deer herd and a healthy forest?”  

Reportedly, at least four members of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s sitting Board of Commissioners have decided the program is too flawed to be tweaked and, consequently, believe it’s time for a fresh start.  

There have even been rumors (reported in the January 7 edition of PENNSYLVANIA OUTDOOR NEWS) that these four Commissioners are considering “terminating the ‘science personnel’ employed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission to conduct the deer management program.” 

Despite the persuasive evidence provided by John Eveland, however, not all the Commissioners seem convinced that starting over is the best idea. In response to written questions, Commissioner Ralph Martone (northwest region) opined that “It is difficult to reduce a deer herd statewide without causing too few deer in some areas.”  

And then he explained that “The Board of Commissioners recently began addressing these problems but it is a difficult process and requires some patience.”  

Still, despite the difficulty, Commissioner Martone made it clear he is not one of the board members calling for the termination of the agency’s science personnel. 

“Personnel matters are operational and under the jurisdiction of the Executive Director,” the commissioner explained and he has “complete confidence in Executive Director Roe and the agency staff to effectively carry out the policies of the Board. 

”All my decisions,” Commissioner Martone concluded, “are based on the resource and the recreation.Unfortunately, it is difficult to balance what is best for the resource and the needs of the hunters of Pennsylvania but I assure you - the Board is trying.”   

Research documents referenced in John Eveland’s report reveal that both Pennsylvania’s forests and its deer herd are healthy. Importantly, though, this is not just John Eveland’s opinion. 

These conclusions are drawn from the research reports prepared by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

But rather than addressing these inconsistencies, the “science personnel” of the Pennsylvania Game Commission chose instead to impugn (in the pages of the January 21 edition of PENNSYLVANIA OUTDOOR NEWS) the character of the person who exposed them.  

So, “Ayuh,” Commissioner Martone, we heard what you said about “what happened and why it happened [not being] as important as how we proceed from here.”  

But we’ve read the Eveland report. And we know “what happened and why it happened.” 

And, frankly, Mr. Commissioner, after ten years of this program, we don't need to pass any more of it to find out what's in it.