"Explain the political influence in the current deer management that you think is present. " Tinpa2


Tinpa2..... is this a real question or are you that far out in left field you don't know??? Can there still be some who are so in the dark that they think there is no politics in wildlife mgmt?

boscola the appointee that started this thread is a part of the Governors sportsmans advisory council. He gets his advice from these folks, THEY PICK THE COMMISSIONERS who are all political appointees. In fact it was members of Governor Ridges GSAC that lobbied to have a Pa game commissioner removed specifically because he opposed the major herd reductions proposed. Either you never read a newspaper or are just clueless. Many of the members( and former members) of the GSAC are leaders in sporting orgs like Melody Zullinger of PFSC, Ralph Saggiamo of USP, Don Heckman of nwtf, etc... and they are there just to play politics and they make no bones about it. Also members of that
council are those in the business of FORESTRY.

If you think that politics plays no part in wildlife mgmt you are out to lunch. Vern Ross WAS THE GOVERNORS SPORTSMANS ADVISOR, and he had no background what-so-ever in Wildlife Managment. He was appointed because he is a political friend of Tom Ridge. He managed a grocery store FCOL before being exec director of the PGC... it was pure politics and being a yes man on the GSAC that got him to the PGC plain and simple. And yes he hand picked Dr. Alt to put forth a more QDM managment plan in pa because that was the way other states were going. How did the money come in to finance studies and justify herd reductions. The Audubon Society through pure politics collected 1.3 million dollars in 'anonymous' donations (at least one of which was the Hienz endowments) and thru politics it was paid to PSU to do studies FOR the PGC. Talk about buying yourself studies to justify what direction you want. The studies were done AFTER the new rules were put in place. Talk about politics ruling where science had not even been done yet....

And we have been under "psuedo scientific management' for 5 years. In each of the last five Dr. Alts team took steps to change the way we do things. Earlier seasons, ML changes (in the use of thier tag), additional doe tags, ARHR, Concurrent seasons, more weapons, changes to SRA's were touted as the answer to different problems. But they all are part of the "deer plan". You can't just single out ARHR as the one thing you want to focus on. It is a comprehensive plan that started in 1999, five full seasons ago.

And the politics is all encompassing in wildlife management. State reps are regular speakers at the PGC meetings. They tout many different things for special interests. Crossbows, outfitters, farmers, deer hunters, spelunkers, turkey hunters you name it. They are politicians and they influence every aspect of our wildlife management. You will see members of the governors staff there, Reps like Staback and Smith, lobbyists from capital hill. Lobbyists for sportsmans groups. Lobbyists for manufacturers, Lobbyists for timber companies (kane collins pine etc...), lobbyists for Pa farm bureau. They are all part of the process.
Its all politics at the meetings.

Probably the biggest political influence is in the PGC's sister agency DCNR pushing its agenda on Pa deer management at the behest of thier largest customers, Big timber and tourism. Big time politics is played regularly. It is Bryon Shissler who works for DCNR that wrote Pas' forest certification which included the stipulation that in order for PA to have the largest certified forest in the country. In order to charge customers premium prices for hardwood timber, the state would have to drastically reduce its deer population. Now thats playing politics with wildlife.

Have you forgotten how just this year DCNR played politics by both withholding lands from the PGC for hunters to use. DCNR refused to cooperate on land sales to the PGC unless they INCREASED herd reductions and gave them more DMAP rules. When that hit the media DCNR backed off slightly.....then they took the ridiculas and tact of having thier biologist Merlin Benner threaten Pa sportsman with the lame threat of bringing in large predators to Pa to control deer numbers if sportsman would not (something the PGC would not have approved permits for anyway) which makes THAT HOLLOW THREATH ONE OF THE WORST examples of playing politics in PA for 2004. And no one is surprised that came from the environmental extremists of DCNR.


Surely people cannot be so dim as to think that politics is not part of Pa wildlife mgmt???? I mean really....are people that out of it?