Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
12-20-2009, 03:15 PM
#462
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
I see I've missed alot during my several day hiatus. I should've bought a MAC.
Maybe I will.
Truthfully, it would take me a he11uva lot longer to prove my points using facts than the 5 minutes would allow. I've spent the summer and fall emailing our BOCs about several concerns and the truth is that they are truly clueless and can and will blow smoke up your arse. Several of them aren't there to represent us, they are there for the prestige. But hey....anything is better than Kathy Davis I reckon.
My time is better spent communicating with our legislators.
Maybe I will.Truthfully, it would take me a he11uva lot longer to prove my points using facts than the 5 minutes would allow. I've spent the summer and fall emailing our BOCs about several concerns and the truth is that they are truly clueless and can and will blow smoke up your arse. Several of them aren't there to represent us, they are there for the prestige. But hey....anything is better than Kathy Davis I reckon.
My time is better spent communicating with our legislators.
Last edited by ManySpurs; 12-20-2009 at 03:44 PM.
12-20-2009, 04:26 PM
#463
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
I have said all along that with the decline of the deputy program there would also be a decline in the protection of our resources. But, that is what many of the hunters and politicians of this state demanded, so now they will just have to live with the results of their demands.
R.S. Bodenhorn
R.S. Bodenhorn
The biggest decline in the protection of our resources was when they implemented the current DMP. Poachers could not even come close to causing the devastation to our deer herd that the PGC has caused. At this point I don't know why any hunter would choose to become a deputy to protect a resource the PGC choose to destroy.
12-21-2009, 07:23 AM
#464
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
A few pages back (47 or so!)...the discussion was gain about harvest reporting and how to get more accurate results/ higher hunter participation. I've thrown a few out there of my own just for kicks...now I've got a new one. The implementation of the PALS system and the online reporting this year will make this one a piece of cake. Here we go.....
Each hunter, regardless of success, is required to submit a report at the end of the season. It could be done online, over the phone like states such as MD....or write it out and snail mail it, from a form in the hunting digest. What tags they filled and accompanying required harvest data, as well as some questions on days hunted, wildlife observed,...maybe a few opinion surveys. Purchasers of the second spring turkey tag are already similarly required to report, kill or not. Until the PGC receives your report, and enters it into the system, you have a hold placed on your licensing, preventing you from purchasing the next year's license. Participation would be mandatory, or no license for you next year. There would be a few kinks to work out, but that's the general idea.
Alright...lynch me! I for one would love to see an accurate harvest report, and verified through independent audit. No crazy logarithms (sp?).....no guesswork other than the honesty of the hunters who reported, which of course would be hard to ever enforce without mandatory check stations...(which seems to be about as desirable as the plague, among hunters, and the PGC.) I think the harsh reality of the low harvest..esp. the buck harvest would hit the hunting community like a ton of bricks.
Each hunter, regardless of success, is required to submit a report at the end of the season. It could be done online, over the phone like states such as MD....or write it out and snail mail it, from a form in the hunting digest. What tags they filled and accompanying required harvest data, as well as some questions on days hunted, wildlife observed,...maybe a few opinion surveys. Purchasers of the second spring turkey tag are already similarly required to report, kill or not. Until the PGC receives your report, and enters it into the system, you have a hold placed on your licensing, preventing you from purchasing the next year's license. Participation would be mandatory, or no license for you next year. There would be a few kinks to work out, but that's the general idea.
Alright...lynch me! I for one would love to see an accurate harvest report, and verified through independent audit. No crazy logarithms (sp?).....no guesswork other than the honesty of the hunters who reported, which of course would be hard to ever enforce without mandatory check stations...(which seems to be about as desirable as the plague, among hunters, and the PGC.) I think the harsh reality of the low harvest..esp. the buck harvest would hit the hunting community like a ton of bricks.
12-21-2009, 07:56 AM
#465
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Weathersfield ,VT
Posts: 40
Check stations may be a pain in the butt, but I think it's the most accurate way to get REAL deer numbers. It's mandatory in VT. I think you guys in PA have to have as close to real numbers as possible before the pgc can even think of good way to manage the herd. IT only takes afew minutes to check them in anyway.
12-21-2009, 08:42 AM
#467
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
A few pages back (47 or so!)...the discussion was gain about harvest reporting and how to get more accurate results/ higher hunter participation. I've thrown a few out there of my own just for kicks...now I've got a new one. The implementation of the PALS system and the online reporting this year will make this one a piece of cake. Here we go.....
Each hunter, regardless of success, is required to submit a report at the end of the season. It could be done online, over the phone like states such as MD....or write it out and snail mail it, from a form in the hunting digest. What tags they filled and accompanying required harvest data, as well as some questions on days hunted, wildlife observed,...maybe a few opinion surveys. Purchasers of the second spring turkey tag are already similarly required to report, kill or not. Until the PGC receives your report, and enters it into the system, you have a hold placed on your licensing, preventing you from purchasing the next year's license. Participation would be mandatory, or no license for you next year. There would be a few kinks to work out, but that's the general idea.
Alright...lynch me! I for one would love to see an accurate harvest report, and verified through independent audit. No crazy logarithms (sp?).....no guesswork other than the honesty of the hunters who reported, which of course would be hard to ever enforce without mandatory check stations...(which seems to be about as desirable as the plague, among hunters, and the PGC.) I think the harsh reality of the low harvest..esp. the buck harvest would hit the hunting community like a ton of bricks.
Each hunter, regardless of success, is required to submit a report at the end of the season. It could be done online, over the phone like states such as MD....or write it out and snail mail it, from a form in the hunting digest. What tags they filled and accompanying required harvest data, as well as some questions on days hunted, wildlife observed,...maybe a few opinion surveys. Purchasers of the second spring turkey tag are already similarly required to report, kill or not. Until the PGC receives your report, and enters it into the system, you have a hold placed on your licensing, preventing you from purchasing the next year's license. Participation would be mandatory, or no license for you next year. There would be a few kinks to work out, but that's the general idea.
Alright...lynch me! I for one would love to see an accurate harvest report, and verified through independent audit. No crazy logarithms (sp?).....no guesswork other than the honesty of the hunters who reported, which of course would be hard to ever enforce without mandatory check stations...(which seems to be about as desirable as the plague, among hunters, and the PGC.) I think the harsh reality of the low harvest..esp. the buck harvest would hit the hunting community like a ton of bricks.
Right you are Steel! Assuming there havent been any problems with reporting through PALS, and I've seen no such reports, mandatory reporting at seasons end is sensible and might even save money over those postage paid cards. Reply mail postage is expensive.
12-21-2009, 08:55 AM
#468
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
But...all those guys that never report because of a deep rooted fear of govt knowing too much about them, etc....would be fightin mad, because if they fail to report, their license cannot be renewed until the report is made. I've heard some pretty wild excuses as to why guys don't report, but never found any that hold water. The most common "unreporters" I know, are the outlaws that are hiding something. I for one, would welcome the opportunity of showing the PGC just how low I fear the actual buck harvest is, but the only way to prove it would be 100% compliance, taking their equations and guesstimates out of it. I want the cold, hard numbers. Anyone who fails to report and thinks that they are somehow screwing the PGC is wrong. They are screwing the rest of us that would like to know what the actual harvest is....but sadly, probably never will.
12-21-2009, 09:23 AM
#469
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
I'm guessing that we probably lost some of those guys already when we had to start giving our SS#.
As for any holdouts who may be left, I say tough! They can report or be denied a license next year. Hunting is a privelege not a right. It's already mandatory with DMAP. I see no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be put into place very soon.
As for any holdouts who may be left, I say tough! They can report or be denied a license next year. Hunting is a privelege not a right. It's already mandatory with DMAP. I see no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be put into place very soon.
12-21-2009, 09:27 AM
#470
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
I agree for the most part with mandatory reporting. Only hitch i see is willingness to enforce penalty for noncompliance. I could foresee alot of guys not complying for various reasons. Many not even knowing of the change at first. Especially among those not complying now. I can see alot of headaches for hunter and pgc alike with "my report got lost in the mail, or your computer must be screwed up...or... whatever. There have been glitches in pgcs system this year, and its possible not all claims would be bogus. Could you imagine your composure if after filling out a report, you were told at the check out counter next year that you were not on record as having filed a report! I also question whether pgc would be willing to take the risk of losing the cash enforcing such a rule MIGHT cause. Aside from those issues, I support your idea. Would take some careful planning etc. though to anticipate any potential bugs in the system.
Definately should strive for maximum accuracy. Although it alone will not change hunter satisfaction or increase herd levels. Pgc said numbers doent matter. IF the trillium & hobblebush arent growing in sufficient numbers as judged by the biodiversity analysis teams then the herd will not be permitted to grow, and that stuff just is not gonna grow in maximum abundance they are seeking with reasonable deer numbers in the forest! Therefore it doesnt matter if our actual harvest is exactly as they say it is, or if its 100,000 less, the allocation would not be decreaed, but very possibly increased.
Definately should strive for maximum accuracy. Although it alone will not change hunter satisfaction or increase herd levels. Pgc said numbers doent matter. IF the trillium & hobblebush arent growing in sufficient numbers as judged by the biodiversity analysis teams then the herd will not be permitted to grow, and that stuff just is not gonna grow in maximum abundance they are seeking with reasonable deer numbers in the forest! Therefore it doesnt matter if our actual harvest is exactly as they say it is, or if its 100,000 less, the allocation would not be decreaed, but very possibly increased.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-21-2009 at 10:00 AM.
