The Pennsylvania Game Commission has until Wednesday to respond to the allegations contained in a lawsuit against the agency brought by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania.

In the lawsuit, USP is asking the court to order the PGC to halt all antlerless deer hunting on state game lands and state forest land until enough scientific evidence is gathered to assure what they consider an accurate estimate of deer numbers in the state and to assure that antlerless licenses are issued based upon those numbers.

On June 16, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel issued a decision which overruled the commission's preliminary objections to the suit and ordered the agency to present a response within 30 days. The suit was filed last September.

The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, with 30,000 members statewide, has been a vocal critic of the commission's current deer management program, which has led to reductions in the deer herd throughout much of the Commonwealth. The reductions, according to USP, were far in excess of what was necessary.

Reaction to the court's decision among sportsmen and governmental officials has been mixed.

PGC commissioner Tom Boop, of Sunbury, said, "I'm concerned because, philosophically, I don't believe you should make policy through litigation. We have a new commissioner who was just sworn in and two more will be coming on very soon. I'd like to see changes made at the board level, not by litigation. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the USP's concerns, as evidenced by my public statements on the issues, the pendulum seems to be swinging.

"Out of 10 citizens' advisory committees making recommendations to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, seven recommended deer numbers be allowed to increase. These committees are not just made up of hunters. There seems to be, generally, more of a recognition that deer numbers need to be increased," Boop said.

The citizens' advisory committees were organized by the PGC. According to an official commission document, "The purpose of the citizens' advisory committees is to involve diverse stakeholders, at the local level, to formulate a deer management recommendation for a specific management unit. Advisory committees provide an opportunity for stakeholders to have direct input concerning deer population goals that ultimately affect all Pennsylvanians."

Director confident

Shortly after the decision to overrule the commissions' objections was handed down, PGC Executive Director Carl Roe issued a statement saying, "We recognize that the Commonwealth's deer management program is viewed differently by many people, and there are those who do not support some of the current outcomes.

"However, as the Game Commission manages all wild birds and mammals and their habitats for current and future generations, we must do what is right for all based on the best science available.

"We look forward to a speedy trial with few continuances, and the opportunity to have our many expert witnesses expound on the scientific basis and soundness of our management plan. Likewise, as part of the process, those who filed this lawsuit will have to validate their claims by presenting their scientific evidence and expert witnesses," he added.

Roe noted that the only troubling part of the process is the expected costs that will be incurred by the agency and, in turn, license buyers.

"At a time when the Game Commission hasn't received a license fee increase since 1999, and given the rising costs we are faced with to continue to fulfill our wildlife management mission, the agency can ill-afford travel costs and reimbursement fees to the state Office of Attorney General to litigate this case, which could be considerable by the end of the process," Roe said.

"Additionally, we will be forced to redirect staff time and attention away from important research and projects to prepare for court proceedings and to provide testimony.

"However, at the end of the trial, we are confident that this debate over the scientific validity will be resolved once and for all."

Court costs disputed

In a statement on its Web site, the USP disputes Roe's claim, noting "It has been long established that the attorney general's office provides all legal services in lawsuits against the PGC. Furthermore, any supporting documentation of the current deer management plan should be at their fingertips as this program is ongoing. There is practically no cost to the PGC in this matter. It is only appropriate that the PGC defend their actions for the last eight years."

Phil Wagner, of Lewisburg, a USP member and longtime vocal critic of the commission's deer management policies, said of the USP lawsuit, "If it results in changes, I'm all for it. We've tried everything else and gotten nowhere. I'm not in favor of bankrupting the Game Commission -- they're doing that themselves -- but if this lawsuit can get some legislators to pay attention to our problem, I say go for it.

"We don't even have enough interest in deer hunting to open our camp during the deer season. I'm convinced we wouldn't have an issue with regeneration if our forest soil weren't so acidic. If we could get DCNR to burn off some areas, I think we could get regeneration. However, in order to do that some laws need to be changed and we can't seem to get any movement on the issue of getting those laws changed."

Committee member disgruntled

Steve Van Sant, of Lewisburg, a life-long deer hunter, was a member of the citizens' advisory committee for Wildlife Management Unit 4D. He was to represent the interest of homeowners in developed areas of the WMU. Van Sant said, "I think the lawsuit is necessary. In many areas of the state I think we have overharvested the deer herd. I feel that the antler restrictions should continue, I have no problem with them at all. I think there should be an independent audit of the Game Commission's deer management program. We need population estimates based on science, not speculation.

"As far as the citizens' advisory committee, it was a complete waste of time for everyone involved. We recommended allowing the deer herd in WMU 4D to increase. They didn't take our recommendations into account. It made not one iota of difference.

"I was especially upset by the statement issued by the PGC that they own the deer herd. That's baloney. The citizens of the Commonwealth own the deer herd. The Pennsylvania Game Commission is charged with managing them. I spend a lot of time in the woods, and this deer herd is in serious trouble."