You worry about the ecoextreme influence yet the resistance by ( a minority IMHO) hunters to a license increase is setting us up for the money to wind up comingfrom those that you claim already have too much influence."
That money isnt gonna come from them. I dont expect the bill toget the support, just as similar past bills have not. Andcertainly not in the economic situation the state is in currently. Also, ourlegislators who are prohunting definately dont wantto see that happen. Also, if an audit goes through within a year asis being stated, and pgc complies with the findings,Itsvery likely legislators are going togrant the fee increase, and that can and will be pointed to any time an argument for alternate funding arises.
I also find it interesting that even though Levdansky knows the audit is in the works, and so is addressing of the funding through license fee increase that will result thereafter, he still pushed forth this legislation. So one must ask themselves, is this because he is so extremely concerned that our wildlife management be funded or that we take a first step in further removing hunter voice from the equation? Im guessing his motives arent ALL bad, so Id guess a combination of both.
If we as hunters don't provide funding the PGC needs, someone else surely will and that just sets us up to have less clout than we do now. "
As I see it, we have no clout now. Only good thing at all is the fact pgc cant completely ignore the legislators and the legislators cant completely ignore us! (LOL) I see zero sense in not attempting to change things for fear it might get worse, when its much more likely the outcome would be favorable or at the very least no worse.
Pgc is still operating, still holding out and the cuts to this point have not been staggering. Wildlife management hasnt been significantly effected, and there is at least some time to seek solutions or for pgc to have a change of heart. Can also look at it as SOMETHING has been done. The audit proposal and the fee increase that hinges on it.
Also, I find it curious that you support pgc, even if they were to allow themselves to be in asituation where wildlife management COULD suffer because of decision making and inflexible deer plan, orperhaps even themselvesbe "dissolved". What does that say of responsibility? Could that ALSO not be considered blackmail?? Seems like the attitude they have, and which you seem to support is pgc basically saying to us
"The hunters of PA must pay us more, no matter what, no matter who we cater to, or anything else we so choose,or the wildlife of this state will suffer.....So no matter wether you guys like it or not we AINT changing no deer plan and your gonna pay us or else, and if worse comes to worse YOU GUYS are the ones to blame!!"
Sorry, I do NOT think they should be rewarded for going on a "hunger strike" for not very good reasons. I dont see things as totallypanic timeand no reason to rush immediately to any conclusion right this second. 3 commissioners are being replaced, and we have an audit hopefully soon on the horizon which could have significant policy effects. IF neither solve any problems and the trends stay the same or worse, and pgc stays on their "hunger strike" I saylet them starve, because things CANT get any worse if pgc is THAT DEADSET against the hunter and their duty to wildlife management which they are willling to watch go down the toilet. PGc is waiting for legislators to blink and vice versa. Problemwith that is legislators are listening to the people, according to their very job description!! Pgc on the other hand is NOT doing its job if they are neglectingtheir dutiesby allowingtheir financial situation to prevent proper management of all the game and nongame species in the near future.
Hopefully less anal commissioners will make a difference or theaudit...because if not,nothing short of significant legislative actions will ever rectify the situation of treehuggers dictatinggame management, which imho is DEFINATELY a fight worth fighting.