We further agree Sportsmen failed to demonstrate the
Commission's management of the deer herd has reduced the deer
population to below sustainable levels
, as alleged in the petition for review.
Our review of the deposition testimony reveals that Sportsmen do not
contest the Commission's management of the deer herd generally;
<u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>the
concern is limited to specific WMUs</span>.</u>
Documents, Vol. II, Ex. F. at 90-92; Ex.
G, at 36,118-119; Vol. III, Ex. I, at 54. In fact, Slinsky testified he believes
hunters are generally happy with the Commission's antlered deer
restrictions, but are unhappy about the doe program
, Documents, Vol. III,
Ex. I, at 58, and nearly every Sportsmen witness testified some WMUs have
too many deer and others have too few
In addition, Bolgiano testified
sustainable population is not the important thing
. '" [T]he [Commission]
must provide adequate opportunity to hunt the wildlife resources of the
State." Documents, Vol. II, Ex. F, at 66.
We recognize the Commission does not physically count the
deer population and perhaps it needs to look at arguably more efficient
methods of estimating deer counts/harvest rates and communicating such to
the public. Nevertheless, the WMI provided an estimated deer population
per WMU in its report. Documents, Vol. IIIJ Ex. K, at App. e. Sportsmen
offered no evidence estimating the number of deer in Pennsylvania contesting the WMI's estimate.
Sportsmen's witnesses base their testimony
regarding an inadequate opportunIty to hunt on anecdotal statements from
other hunters who complain that they are not seeing deer while hunting.
This is Insufficient to raise a material issue of fact as to whether the
Commission's Management plan is reducing the deer herd below a
sustainable level and/or whether hunters are deprived of an adequate
opportunity to hunt.
Finally, the petitIon for review alleges the CommissIon does
not allow for public input.
All witnesses, Including those of
Sportsmen, testified that Sportsmen are members of the CAC, or community
When the CAC members reach a consensus on a
particular matter, they submit their recommendation to the Commission.
Indeed, the Commission based its current Management Plan goals in part on
the recommendation of the CAC.
Although Sportsmen would like a bigger
voice in the Commission's deer management related decisions, they must
recognize it is not the only member of the CAC
and the Commission is in the
unenviable position of trying to satisfy all CAC members and their divergent
views. Perhaps each WMU could have a representative on the CAC.
In sum, Sportsmen's position is merely a disagreement with
the Commission's method In managing the deer herd.
nothing to suggest the Commission based Its Management Plan on fraud or
bad faith or that the Commission's actions constitute capricious action or an
abuse of discretion.
"<u>Bold unsupported assertions of conclusory accusation
cannot create genuine issues of material fact</u>." Brecher v. Cutler, 578 A.2d
481,483 (Pa. Super. 1996); see alsO .Mld-Aflantic
ower SupPlY [censored]'ri v.pa.
Public Uti!. Comm'n, 746 A.2d 1196, 1200 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)
( "mere bald
assertions, personal opinions or perceptions do not constitute evidence").
ccordingly, we grant the Commission's motion for summary judgment.