Maverick11, there are many ways to look at your statement. One would be that some states charge fees for some of the public hunting areas. Im not suggesting we do that, because we dont need to when we have 3 to 10 times the hunters of other states, and we shouldnt have to. But the fact is, that money pays for the maintenance etc. of those lands and is included in their budgets. Yet ours is a couple to several times higher than many if not all states.


Could also look at it another way. Is having a so-called "independent" agency benefiting us?? Or is it and outdated worthless system?? If it takes so much more money from us to run it. The way I see it, the gamelands are managed as multi-use areas already. Other interests also have direct say in their usage and management here involving nonhunting interests. In fact some are completely counter to the best interest of hunting on those lands. They are also managed the same as stateforests as far as the timbering rotation and management of nongame species... Most are among the most game poor areas of the state.

I see no benefit of land being designated as "gamelands" over lands that are stateforest here in Pa. Deer densities and Id imagine other game as well are no more abundant on gamelands than the stateforests etc. here. And to compare the hunting on our gamelands to stateforest lands in OTHER states is a complete joke. They are "game" lands in name only.[:'(]