Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I believe the vast majority of those who hunt in Pa would agree our Game Commission is falling short in their obligations to the hunters and wildlife. The "drastic" decline in license sales is evident of this. I wanted to know how everyone who cares enough to post a comment feels about our overall current situation. I am hoping to get viewpoints on all the aspects of the Pa Game management program, the good and the bad - What opinions hunters have that would improve the structure of our commission, the habitat, quality of deer herds, pheasant and other upland gamepopulations, license sales, youth opportunities, and anything else you find of relevance. I want to hear proposed solutions not just complaints. If you have a complaint state it and include your suggestion to rectify the problem.
Now...
I want to start with the commission's structure...

1. We the hunters who pay the majority of the commission's wages should have the ability to choose who is in position of authority. The Executive Director should have limitations set allowing that person to only be able to hold their post for a limited term.
Reason- As the the needs of hunters and wildlife change so too should the perspective of those people who ultimately make the decisions. In my experience when the security ofone's position isdependent onthe support of the people they tend to be more pro-active in dealing with problems.

2. Harvest Reports: The Game Commission estimates only 60% of hunters report their harvest. This mail-in report card system allows too much room for error.

My Suggestion-There should be a survey that must be filled out at the time of license purchase similar to the migratory survey. This then can be cross referenced with the previous year's harvest reports.Mandatory check-in stations should beimplemented. Game commission claims they don't have the man power. Sporting goods stores already do all the license sales for them, why can't a selected number of businesses willing to do the work act as check in stations. This would benefit the small business economy by those reporting their harvest purchasing other items that are otherwise bought at large chains like Cabelas, Bass Pro and Walmart. Even the sale of something as simple as food, snacks and drinks, if nothing else willincrease sales revenues for our small local businesses.

3. Habitat: I can only speak for what I see in my area and this is it.... The game commission is not doing enough scheduled clear cutting or controlled burning. In those areas that are harvested there is not enough being done to increase the quality of the food sources during the regrowth period. They refuse to timber unless maximum lumber profit can be attained. This is not timbering for wildlife, this istimbering solelyfor profit. Once those selected cuttings are done there is no attempt to plant trees more palatable to the wildlife. Even if they did, in most areas there are still too many tall timbers left limiting the amount of light neededfor more beneficial undergrowth to flourish.
(Once again, I speak for my area Dauphin/Schuylkill county)

I'm sure this next suggestion will not be agreed upon by some but that is why I posted this thread, to get the best possible solutions.

In areas where the soil is not nutrient sufficient enough to plant food plots. Those owning private or leased land should be able to supplement the inadequate habitat with harvested foods (Bait for lack of a better word) I know the argument is this... Itunnaturally influences the travel of wildlife and is more harmful than good because it increases maximum carrying capacity by unnatural means and it only makes for a "more efficient" harvest. As long as this supplementation is continued throughout the year on these "private and Leased lands" the increased carrying capacity can be sustained. In some areas of the state it is this alternative or not having any deer at all. It works in many other states but once again PA seems to be behind in the times.

3. Trust- How long does it take to finally make the transition from the back tag to the wallet license? They have been "attempting" to make this change for how many years now? The state claims they are having difficulties with the vendor. Find A New Supplier! It's hard to trust in an organization that appears to not trust us hunters enough to provide us with a concealed license.

Here are just a few topics, I have many more but let's start here.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I'dwrite a book tocover everything I felt needed corrected. :D

That said, I think the PGC is handicapped by the legislators in many cases, I think the DCNR is not a very hunter friendly department, and PA is a very complex state which makes deer management very difficult.
One thing I won't complain about is hunter numbers dropping. If people are unhappy & want to quit I am all for that.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Don't really know where to start on the original post, but I'm sure someone else may be glad to tackle it, point out the factual/philosophical errors and misconceptions, etc. After about 6 or 7 years now of pointing outthings that should be obvious to anyone that paid attention, I've pretty much lost interest.

BTW, it's Schuylkill County.:)

Will take a wee stab at #3: ALS was selected as the Automated Licensing System vendor via the state's "low bid" process. Low bidder typically gets the gig, providing they meet the specifications. Apparently ALS bit off more than it could chew, since it was also working on several other similar applications and couldn't meet all of the deadlines? Fish and Boat elected to penalize them for not meeting the deadline and now hastheir system up and running. Remains to be seen if the game commission also penalizes the vendor for not complying with deadlines, or perhaps they already have done so?

Problem is, both agencies are supposed to be inter-connected via using the same system from the same vendor. If one agency drops the vendor, it leaves the other one hanging. PGC requires far more individual items (tags, licenses)than PF&BC does, which is probably why Fish and Boat got theirs up first?

Latest word is that ALS has been purchased by a much larger company. That new owner has promised to assign enough personnel to the system, to get it done and done now. Some parts will be getting a test run later this month, for PGC.

Point Of Salecomputerizedlicensing should make the process of buying and tracking hunting licenses and game reports, easier. It will still take a legislative/regulativechange to do away with back tags in PA; County treasurers being involved in doe tags; and other bits.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I agree with your opinion on that the DCNR could be more cooperative with hunters. I am not sure if you ever watched the PCN channel when county reps discuss issues of pertinence with PAGC Executive Director Roe. It is evident that these reps are of the same opinion as most the hunters in the state. It is best summed up by the Schuylkill county rep's statement... 6 years ago he had been appointed to this council and spent the night coming up with a short list of questions related to the PAGC's efforts in wildlife management. 6 years later all the same questions continue to be asked and still no remedy to any of the issues have been implemented.
I asked for others inputs onthese issuesbecause I truly do not know what can be done in order to make the Game Commission want to change for the better. I want change and am willing to do what I am capable of in order to make whatever change possible.As long as the commission is structured the way it is we are at it's mercy or we decide (as a united group) we no longer want to support what we do not believe is working. I am ready, I will spend $125 to hunt in Ohio next year and say screw continuing to fund this current commission. But really, How many others are willing to do the same? Will it even matter, the current lack of sales doesn't seem to concern them enough to take more pro-active measures. Their answer... raise the cost of licensesand punish the remaining hunters they have.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The back tag issue: Once again (if you are correct about the fish commission imposing a penalty) why does it take so long for the commission to recognize there is a problem and take action? It seems the only thing they will get done in a timely manner is raising the cost of our licenses.

My opinion, they are not being held to reasonable standard thus they are allowed totake their time without any negative action taken place. There needs to be annual audits of their spending and their efforts.Imagine how long it will take to get that kind of work and information out of them!

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

While I agree there should be more accountability and that the commissioners should not be political appointees , I think there is another issue that has to change before we will see better hunting. Until the PGC recognizes the value of fringe habitat and other non-forest habitat, they will always strive to manage the herd at much lower deer densities , than the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat. That is why 5 C had a goal of 6 DPSM and 5B goal was 5 DPSM ,while at the same time 2G had a goal of 15 DPSM. Just imagine what our buck harvest would have been last year if 2B, 5B and 5C had been reduced to their goals along with numerous other WMU's that were still at double their previous goals.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I was waiting to hear from you.

The idea of killing off deer to the populations the PAGC suggests shows there are outside influences at work within the commission,for instance- insurance companies.Input from agenciessuch as these should have no bearing on wildlife management if the organization is truly dedicated to wildlife. Even in situations where deer are in abundance and habitat is being destroyed the numbers they are trying to achieve are still unjustifiable.

You seem to be well versed in many stats even if we disagree on the issue of AR. I appreciate anysuggestionsyou have on how to influence the politicians and other powers that be which allow the PAGC to continue to operate on a substandard level on so many concerns.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The PGC has all the proof they need to show thatherd reductions were necessary to repair the habitat from decades of overbrowsing.

Why would check stations work when hunters are too lazy to send in a self-addressed stamped post card?

Not the insurance industry conspiracy again.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is only true if the only goal of the PGC was to insure the regeneration of the commercially valuable timber stands that exist today, for the benefit of one group of stakeholders,the timber industry and DCNR. If their mission also included the interests of the stakeholders that pay for the privilege of managing the herd,the hunters, then they should be managing the herd based on the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat.

Do you really believe that in 2003 the PGC had the proof to support their claim that 5B could only support 5 DPSM or that 5 C could only support 6 DPSM? Were they wrong when they said in 2003 that 2G could support 15 DPSM or that 2F could support 22 DPSM even though the forest health was rated as poor in both WMU's? Or, is the PGC always right , no matter how ridiculous their goals might be.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Ok maybe in Never never land is it necessary to knock off the deer herd to those extremely low levels.

Check stations work and it is proven, even the check in method (such as in Illinois)done over the phone is more exact than the system we have inPa.I have huntedeverywhere fromhere to WV, VA, NY, OH,FL,IL and Alaska and our system isfar from efficient. It isn't about just reporting a harvest it's about measuring the antler size, skull size, etc. (not just points per side and the sex of the animal) as one measure of the effectiveness of the managemnet policy they have in place. How many hunters throw away or lose their handbook. If this was more enforced as it is in other states the lazy hunter will be more inclined to report. Also if you would have read further it also has proven to benefit the small businesses doing these check ins or are you against that too?

Who has more to gain by eliminating deer populations than the insurance companies? Who has more $ to influence deerpopulations than insurance companies?

If you are satisfied with everything in Pa than Good for you. I couldn't be happier for you.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

4evrhntn you had me until you wrote No absolutely not. Hunters forget how to hunt, disease is easily spreadCWD etc.

Go to Ohio and look at ther POS system for license. This is mature technology, nothing miraculous or hard, PAPGC is probably using a low bidder situation who just can't do the job. Ohio has had it for years.

PAPGC officers are horrible in the field. They jump out and run to your car windows, or sneak up on you.I feel violated and guilty because of the way the attack you. They question in an accusatory manner and try to trap you w/ questions geared towards interrogation techniques that must have been taught by police. I have never heard one ask what a great day how was yours! Never! I have little respect for them and feel no pity for them. By the way I hunt Butler,Clarion and Armstrong Counties so figure out who they are .

2 weeks of buck, 2 or 3 day doe season during rifle

Archery should be open to all types of stringed weapons stick, Xbow, compound etc.

Muzzleloader should be open to all front load guns no matter what they are.]

1/2 these decisions are NO Brainers that require little brain power to complete. No wonder they are going broke, PA the state 100 years behind every other.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The Illinois system is one I have experience with and it is extremely efficient. I certainly hope we go to that once the new license vendor works out their problems and I agree it is high time to hold their feet to the fire.

As for the insurance company conspiracy theory, you are mistaken there. I worked for 30 years in the industry as both a company guy and then as an independent and never once heard a complaint about Pa deer from the many dozens of car insurance comanies I worked with. You gotta remember that insurance companies are a bit like the casinos annd racetracks. It's a carefully calculated business where the house always wins. Deer claims are something they can accurately predict and charge accordingly for sodeer accidents are actually a profit center. Anything that causes consistent claims is actually good for the insurance industry much like the fact that the casinos know some gamblers will win big but, over time, the average gambler loses.

Both industries make money when large quantities of money pass through their hands. Just like the casinos encourage play, the insurance companies do well when people pay premiums for a risk that the insurance companies know how to charge for.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Unfortunately , I don't have any good suggestions on how to influence the powers that be other than letters ,e-mails, petitions and personal contacts. One of the biggest problems is that hunters have very diverse opinions regarding deer management and the PGC, so it is hard to get a group to agree on the issues that need to be addressed. The USP is the only group that has tried to challenge the PGC , but their attempts have been condemned and belittled by many hunters who oppose the suit.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The USP is the only group that has tried to challenge the PGC , but their attempts have been condemned and belittled by many hunters who oppose the suit.

Perhaps it's because of the ludicrous nature of their lawsuits and some of the other things they propose?

One of their reasons for taking the game commission to court, was that the PGC refused to meet with them to explain the hows and whys of deer management. Oddly enough, in their response to PGC's objections to the suit, USP's attorney admitted they had never actually asked for anything.

Now, their president and former PGC commissioner, is wanting to aid Sen. Armstrong's efforts to diminish the powers of DWCOs, because his son pleaded guilty to several game code violations.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I have lived in 3 other states besides PA. WV, OH & SC all have a working POS license that I feel could work here.

Check stations are a hard sell because I have heard numerous issuing agents at PGC meetings and open houses say they will not pay for the extra staff to run a check station because the PGC will not help with their costs. Why not a Tela Check system similar to KY? I believe it cost about $300,000 to get started and they have good data to work with.

I would like to see the Board of Commissioners made an Advisory Board, not the current Regulatory Board. We are paying the salaries for trained biologists to do research and present management recommendations, yet the Board makes the final management decisions. The Biologist's recommendations are sometimes ignored or worse, carved up so bad that they will never work. Buffet-style wildlife management does not work.

As for the USP and the lawsuits...I think the money spent by the PGC to defend itself would be better spent on habitat management or the mentoring programs so that we have future hunters to fund the agency. I would hope that the USP would even agree with that.

Just my $.02

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Didn't the USP request that the courts order that doe season be closed?
I would agree that there could be better uses for the money, but there is no guarantee that the money would be used for projects that promote hunting , rather than bat studies or introducing fishers.

Has anyone heard anything about the status of the proposed audit? Have the RFP's been finalized and released?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Didn't the USP request that the courts order that doe season be closed?


Yes, but that requestwas the end result of their other contentions, such as the one about the PGC having never sat down with them to explain how they arrive atestimates. After their littany of complaints pertaining to how the game commission manages deer, they demanded the court call a halt to further doe seasons, until the other complaints were answered. But you already knew that to be the case.

I would agree that there could be better uses for the money, but there is no guarantee that the money would be used for projects that promote hunting , rather than bat studies or introducing fishers.

The game commission is not required to spend all of its money, or any specificportion of it, inpromoting hunting. It is required to spend money on managing bats, as well as any other species under its control. Much of the non-game species work has been funded by wildlife grants from other sources, funneled through the PGC in implementation of funded studies and programs.

They've successly-reintroduced (or aided the propagation of) otters, elk,eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys and apparently, fishers. Bear numbershave greatly increased in the past 30 years. Deer were essentially re-introduced, afternumbers had become scarce several generations ago.

Has anyone heard anything about the status of the proposed audit? Have the RFP's been finalized and released?

Last I'd read, only one entity had submitted a proposal to facilitate an audit. If it's another case of the low bidder getting the prize, might it turn out like the automated licensing system fiasco?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I wasn't referring to all of their money, I was only referring to the money saved if they didn't have any expenses due to the suit. While, they are required to manage all wildlife, they aren't mandated to do unnecessary studies or reintroduce species, like the Mt. Lion.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Game commission reform. Hmmmm..... wake up and smell the coffee. As long as the top spot in the PGC is a political appointee there will be no reform. The state government is run by the dummycrats from Phili and Pittsburgh with little to no say from the rest of the state. They do not care about the condition of hunting in the state because it is not a high priority in their home regions. Left up to them they would be just as happy to see hunting and gun ownership go by the wayside so that they can continue to push their antigun policies.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

While, they are required to manage all wildlife, they aren't mandated to do unnecessary studies or reintroduce species, like the Mt. Lion.

It isn't up to you or I to decide which studies are necessary or unnecessary. That's why they have biololgists on the staff, to help bureau directors, administrations and BOC membersmake such decisions.

No plans to reintroduce mountain lions, that I'm aware of.

BTW, it appears that WMI will be getting the chore of doing the legislature's mandated deer program audit.

Game commission reform. Hmmmm..... wake up and smell the coffee. As long as the top spot in the PGC is a political appointee there will be no reform.

Members of the PGC/Board of Commissioners are "political appointees", as are all of the other commissions that govern state agencies. They apply, are vetted by the Gov's advisory council, then passed on to theGov for possible approval by theSenate.

If by "top spot" you mean the Exec. Director of the PGC, he was selected by the BOC.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I agree that CWD is a risk that we do not want to exacerbate. I was just throwing out some suggestions which in certain circumstances can improve the quality of deer pops in some areas which are extremely deficient in numbers. The cwd is a threat in food supplies only if that food supply was grown and harvestedfrom contaminated soil. In almost all cases those who supplement feed are doing so with foods grown locally to that location. If the risk of CWD is there it already has affected the local population and will spread whether food is supplemented or not.
I am notsuggesting this forthe guy dumping a 100 lbs of corn a week before season and expecting mature buck to be drawn to that new alien source. Mature deer will check out these dump piles but are on alert when doing so. Yes, it will create a more efficient kill in some cases, but no more than planting apple trees and hunt plots where the soil allows. The risk of cross contamination of cwd among deer feeding in the same area is just as serious among common watering sources.

There is also this to consider....This supplemented feeding will help those who manage or own private lands or lease lands. The club I belong to spends $500 a month supplying deer with feed added with nutrients they wouldn't otherwise be able toconsumefrom just crops alone. So, those who spend this kind of money and put this kind of work into the deer herd are able to increase the odds of keeping the "preferred" AR legalbuck around to survive another year to become those in the 130" class and above. Some who do not have the desire to put this amount of effort and money into increasing the quality of the bucks dislike clubs having the ability to do this. I understand that mindset. But I also believe you deserve to get out of something what you put into it. I know these types of hunters who spend this kind of $ are a minority, however we should have the ability to manage the deer on our properties the way we determine to be most beneficial. (speaking food, not shooting whatever whenever we want)

I do not like the idea of allowing any stringed weapon to be considered archery. The majority of archers list one of the reasons for archery hunting as having less slob hunters in the woods. Less hunters in the woods keeps the deer at relative ease until the influx of rifle hunters invade the woods turning most of the deer nocturnal. Allow crossbows and you'll see as many deer in archery as you do in rifle.

Legislation is currently being considered to allow crossbows to be considered archery weapons. If it has a scope, trigger and a rifle style stock-it is not a truearchery weapon.Let those with disabilities have the advantage, they need it not the rest of us. I also like the idea of having to get a deer close in order to shoot it. Some crossbows have the ability of hitting targets at 60 yds. It takes the stealth and need of overcoming the deer's survival instincts out of the scenario. In my mind a crossbow is too similar to being a rifle in the way it shoots and more hunters will lose theirpride in and sense oftradition in archery hunting opting to choose another easier method. Then we the true archers will be the minority.

I do agree with going back to the old doe season after rifle. It worked and didn't need to be changed. Since it has things have gotten worse.
I agree weapons like the TC Encore should be included as a muzzleloader instead of just the flintlock. When it comes to a rifle I believe in increasing the accuracy of the shot. I wouldn't mind if the state went to muzzleloader only for deer. One shot one kill, not 5 shots in one deer to drop it. If it takes you more than 2 shots you belong on the range not in the woods.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I will be the first to admit I do not know everything and I may be incorrect in my assumption of the influence of insurance companies. Till I can prove otherwise I will concede (for now). There is however some unseen forces at work within the PAGC other than timber profits and the such. If not this obvious mismanaging of deer pops in certain areas would not be happening.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That is true ,but you and I don't decide which studies are necessary, but we are all entitled to have an opinion on the need for these studies. The buck dispersal study, the fawn survival study and the adult doe survival study were interesting , but did nothing to improve deer management, or the health of the herd and were equivalent of public relation campaign to mislead hunters into believing the herd was being managed based on science rather than political influence.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The buck dispersal study, the fawn survival study and the adult doe survival study were interesting , but did nothing to improve deer management, or the health of the herd and were equivalent of public relation campaign to mislead hunters into believing the herd was being managed based on science rather than political influence.

Feel free to further expound on how such studies did nothing to improve deer management.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I agree with things remaining the same due to the current political structure. I attended a bow hunter education class recently. After the warden finished teaching his don't harm the trees lecture (which comprised 1/2 the 45 min lesson) he claimed the commission recieves little feedback from the hunters in regard to concerns. He claimed a "hot topic" was 7 letters. The part I find troubling is most hunters feel the commission doesn't give a s!#+ and won't do anything anyway. I feel the same way. It's difficult for someone to get a live person to answer the phone, forget about them returning your call.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

They can do all the studies they want. Unless they are willing to take truly Pro-Active measures nothing will change.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

The word "nothing " is pretty simple and straight forward and I don't think anyone needs to have it defined or clarified.

Maybe you would like to expound on how those studies improved deer management!

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

[quote][ agree with things remaining the same due to the current political structure. I attended a bow hunter education class recently. After the warden finished teaching his don't harm the trees lecture (which comprised 1/2 the 45 min lesson) he claimed the commission recieves little feedback from the hunters in regard to concerns. He claimed a "hot topic" was 7 letters. The part I find troubling is most hunters feel the commission doesn't give a s!#+ and won't do anything anyway. I feel the same way. It's difficult for someone to get a live person to answer the phone, forget about them returning your call. /quote]

You covered a lot of ground w/ that statement! Trees, cut them down and let the undergrowth come up. We selective harvest trees and I garuantee the deer come runniong to that sound. In addition to turkey, grouse (suprisingly) and deer that move into the thickets for protectionn etc. Cut them trees!
I can't call anyone a liar of I don't work in the office w/ them but 7 letters? Hell, just get on any web site forum that has an association w/ PA and you will get reams of mis and information. Jeeze. there we go w/the PAPGC thinking we do not have a clue and them knowing they are responsible only to themselves. I want o be constructive in crottcizing the PAPGC but they have just peed on our deer stand for too long, I truly beleive very few give a darn about our thoughts and beleifs.
I hunt mostly in 2D and we do NOT have a deer problem. The only problem we have w/ deer is a lot of them and the PAPGC not enforcing the laws against the Amish hunters.
I was very suprised to see that the hunt in the foirst week of gunwas buck only and doe in the second week, that also left a lot of doe tags in 2D which really suproised me. They don't get that people cannot or do not take a week of anymore for hunting camp. Phenom of the past sorry to say. So the regular guy will not be out the forst day after a buck but wait for that one day off for the doe/meat hunt. That should be a real shootout !

When you mention scopes and Xbows be aware that Compounds have some of the most sophisticated missle sites I have seen in the the world and military. I would not think that is a good argument for excluding a Xbow hunter form your clubs.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Maybe you would like to expound on how those studies improved deer management!

I'm not the one constantly whining about what it is that they're doing wrong, so since you've made the negative comments, you are the one that needs to explain yourself, not I.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

That may be your opinion, but I have obligation to explain that statement to you or anyone else. If you disagree with my position you are free to voice your opinion and I will respond accordingly.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Source considered, no further response required.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

4evrhtn,In surance companies have zero to do with deer management.The driving force behind herd reductions were habitat issues.Yes,those habitat issues are about timber.

You mention all they have to do is cut trees.What percentage of the trees should they cut each year?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

In other words, you have no facts to show that the studies contributed anything of value to improve the management of our herd.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Wait till next year they are trying to raise license cost to 50.general and antlerless tags will cost 14.00 .IMO that a load of k wrap ,for that kind of money antlerless should be included i probably won't be able to afford to hunt anymore thats just too expensive for 11 days of hunting (archery) including the late season hunt .they are getting wayout of hand!

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Personally ,I'd like to see them raise the antlerless tags to $50.00. Then we would know how many hunters really want to harvest multiple doe for their personal use and how many just want to kill as many deer as possible..

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

This a pretty general question that cannot be answered with one answer.I'd be nothing but foolish to spout some number without expecting a whirlwind of disagreements in regard to an answer you want me to give.
Without infosuch as terrain, water sources, proximity to urbanized areas, high traffic areas, the last time the land was timbered, what % of browse is available,etc. You can't say clearcut 4% of all 70 yr. old tall timbered forest.However in an area such as mine the private clubs have decided to cut nearly 40% of alltheir property.Theadvantage of this will not be seen for probably 3 -5 yrs as far increasing cover and viable habitat for wildlife. I believe this was excessiveonly because the State lands surrounding these properties do not offer the undergrowth and browse the deer once residing in the clearcut areas now need. There wouldn't be an issue if the State Lands have been managed to support wildlife. But the deer won't stay in the woods where there isinadequate food sources, inadequate cover and less then favorable arrangement. It isn't like these woods didn't support twice as many deer 30 years ago. But these deer were anything but impressive in any way shape or form other than in mere numbers. The state lands can support more deer, history is evidence to that. But the habitatcouldhave been andeven more today can be much better.Even if they were to hinge cut these areas of old standing pine the habitat would be more conducive in terms of providing cover and travel corridors which offer wildlife a real and perceived sense ofsecurity.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I'll be honest, I buy doe tags for myself, my girl and her boy just to save 6 doe or more likely button buck. They go in the trash right after we receive them.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

In the northcentral part of the state,we have a very even aged stand of timber.Most is around 80-120 years old.Not that it matters but there are no urban areas or high traffic areas.This area of historically high deer densities still has alot of pole and saw timber with very little browse.What percentage should they cut a year?Surely you have somewhat of a figure.Would 5% a year be too little?How about 10%?

What wildlife should our state forests be managed to support?Shopuld they focus primarily on deer,bear,turkeys etc?What way would you go about doing this?

Specifically,howare our game lnads not being managed properly.I spend alot of time on several different game lands and the work that the PGC does is nothing sort of spectacular considering what little manpowere and money they have.Let's here some of your ideas andideas about funding these projects.Be specific now.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

In other words, you have no facts to show that the studies contributed anything of value to improve the management of our herd.

No, those are your words, not "other words".

It was youthat made the charge thatthese studies were of no value,therefore it is not incumbent uponme to provewhetheryour words are true or untrue.

Given your long history of making such comments, then demanding that anyone who disagrees with you, prove you wrong...try owning up to your own comments for a change. It's a nifty and well-employedstrategy you have there, but not everyone will fall for it.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

I’m going to briefly summarize based on my kind of diverse, but admittedly ignorant views. I also didn’t read the entire thread, some of what I say may have been touched on.

I wish the PGC & PAFBC & the DCNR were one unit.
As a single entity, I believe resources (people & bureaucratic) could be more wisely used.

From the gamelands I’ve been to, I think the habitat on them is great. Very diverse and a job well done.
The state forests and ANF areas that I’ve been to however are nothing but huge stands of very mature forests, with little to no browse or other food supplies. I’m not a forester but it appears that more logging could be done. Maybe go from 1% to 3%? I see all the selective cuts done around my hunting areas and I see how nice the habitat is. If the forestry guys say this is as good as it gets, I have to accept that & just live with few deer in vast areas of the state that have poor habitat.

I think getting rid of our archaic licensing system should be top priority. Cut out the treasurers and all this protocol and institute a POS system where your license is like a register receipt like many other states. REQUIRE a mailed in or phone call harvest report, or you cannot purchase your license the following year. Fail to report once & get a warning, twice and you get hammered with a huge fine, & loss of license.

I’m all for a license increase IF other criteria is met. I want to see the Dept running as efficiently as possible first. No license increase to pay for a mismanaged organization. By merging groups, stream lining license sales etc, money could be better utilized. Then make a large effort to properly staff the wardens(which should now be easier since you have fish & dcnr people out patrolling) Poaching is a rampant & socially acceptable problem here in PA and needs to be curtailed.

The only regulation issue I will get into is the fines for poaching should be dramatically increased and trespass laws strictly enforced, but breaking up the “good ol boy” system will be very tough. Loss of license does nothing to someone who is already illegally taking game. Jail time & huge fines will get their attention.