|
RE: 2008 Big Game records
ORIGINAL: R.S.B. ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter ORIGINAL: R.S.B. ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter No hunters shouldn’t be the only ones the Game Commission listens to. In fact the Pennsylvania Constitutions specifically requires the management of our resources FOR ALL of the Commonwealth citizens. And, I don’t work for you. I work for the resources and all of the Citizens of this Commonwealth. Hunters have in the past chosen to be the ones paying for wildlife management. I can assure you that don’t care if hunters fund the agency or not, in fact I am becoming more and more convinced that wildlife management would be better off if we worked from the general fund and told hunter to take a flying leap with their money. If hunters don’t want to pay for wildlife management there are many others that do care about wildlife that will be very willing to demand that wildlife management be funded through general tax dollars. Personally I think that would work a whole lot better then this hunter and political blackmail. RSB I respect you and your posts are informative and I often (not always) agree with you but that one was out of line. I agree that the PGC is charged with managing all wildlife but that last statement paints all hunters with one brush and the vast majority of hunters out there do support good management for all species. As the ones who have always voluntarily paid the bills, and your salary by the way,we deserve to be heard. Not to the exclusion of all others but we deserve to be heard.Others deserve to be heard too, of course butyou were just plain out of line to make that blanket statement toward all hunters. The fact that we have a minority of dissenters making noise right now is no excuse for the statement you just made and you owe Pennsylvania's hunters an apology. Hunters are heard, they always have been. But, when it gets to the point, as it is now, that the agency can no longer affectively manage the wildlife resources due the lack of funding it simply isn’t working. Since hunters are the only ones that fund the agency who is too blame, but the hunters? Obviously the hunters that do support adequately funding, and I do believe that is the majority, aren’t being affective or we wouldn’t be trying to run wildlife management on a shoestring budget. Most hunters aren’t taking the time to contact their Legislators and Senators to demand that their wildlife management agency be adequately funded so how you could believe they really even care about having a voice? Think about it and then tell me who is too blame, if the majority of the hunters really are supportive of sound wildlife management practices and principles, and then adequately funding that management. What we have now is NOT WORKING! The Game Commission can’t force the funding initiatives, only the citizens of this Commonwealth have that power. If that power doesn’t come from the hunters I can promise you it will eventually come from someone other then hunters. If you believe, or even remotely think, that hunters have no say now what do you think is going to happen after hunters are no longer the force taking the initiative to push adequate funding forward through the State Legislature? R.S. Bodenhorn Statements like that directed randomly are quite likely to do you and the PGC way more harm than good. I have been largely supportive of the PGC and its current management. I daresay I'm among its strongest supporters here and you have managed to royally piss me off with this one. You might want to think about what you say when you find that you've managed to piss off the friendly's. Your right, I am pretty angry. Why shouldn’t I be? I also recognize that you are one of the good guys that does support sound management. But, maybe your anger also allowed you to missed the part about the hunters taking that flying leap WITH THEIR MONEY, with the money being the real point I was trying to make. The point of that comment is that the day has obviously come when the hunting license dollars should just go to the State General Fund with the Legislature doing as they darn well please with it and then simply using tax dollars from ALL of the public to fund the State’s wildlife management programs. Obviously the State Legislature would like to have the hunter license dollars to build roads or give them selves raises with so let them do it. I actually can’t wait to see who people will blame for the price of a hunting license then let alone what it will cost them to buy a hunting license. When was the last time anyone asked the citizens what they were willing to pay for their driver’s license or their vehicle registration? It is equally obvious that many hunters don’t want to fund wildlife management unless even the least educated among them get to dictate not only how that money is used but also dictate how the wildlife management professional do their job even when scientific management indicates they are doing the right thing. Therefore, I say we would be much better off using tax dollars provided by all of the Commonwealth citizens. Let the State Legislature take those hunter dollars and do as they darn well please with it. If the wildlife management professionals can’t use the money to do what is right for the future of the resources without listening to the least educated hunters in the state then that money is noting but a hindrance toward the future of our resources. It is time for change because what we have now no longer works toward a solid future. I am sorry if that offends you but the facts are still the facts andpretty much the way I see it at this time. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
Although my previous response is most likely correct, I still like my earlier diagnosis that portrays you as one having a personal vendetta against deer, most likely stemming from a tragic boyhood encounter involving a leaky bottle of buck lure in your pocket, and what was supposed to be an uneventful autumn morning spent birdwatching with childhood friends Kathy Davis and Roxanne Palone in your Jr. Audubon club.:D:D:D
 |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
Duh! The Miss study simply said that culling spikes was not viable. That simply means that they knew it couldnt be done effectively not that they didn't accept the premise of "once a spike always a spike" For us to accept your conclusions vs Dr Krolls conclusionsconcerning the Miss study makes about as much sense as me asking my plumber how to cure lyme disease and taking his advice over my doctors. In poor soil areas in Miss. ARs save 95% of the 1.5 buck ,which means 95% had a spike on one side and a spike or a Y on the other. But in the same areas 47 % of the 2.5 buck had 4-7+ pts. and 88 % of the 3.5 buck had 4-7+ points. So when Kroll claimed the experts in Miss. believed, "once a spike always a spike" he either demonstrated extreme bias or unbelievable ignorance of the reports from Miss. |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
so what r u saying bigbird |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
ORIGINAL: the outsider Since hunters are the only ones that fund the agency who is too blame, but the hunters? This one really takes the cake. Like we are driving the bus here. Yea, who is driving the bus that has always demanded more deer then the habitat could support until the habitat couldn’t support but a very low number of deer? Who has demanded that the funding needed to have the best wildlife management programs be halted until they got their demands met? I would say those are the ones driving the bus. Well they have driven the bus to the edge of the cliff. I think it is time for someone to stop the bus and throw that driver out of the seat? Unfortunately it has been the least educated yet loudest screaming hunters in control of the bus for way to long. It is long past time for the more educated hunters and other resource educated people to take control of the bus before it does go over the cliff. All we need is for them to step up to the plate before it is too late. I’m just not sure if or even when they are going to get the resolve to do that. It seems they all just sit back waiting for someone else to step up first, so no one takes that first step. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
ORIGINAL: livbucks Sorry, but having the General fund control the GC will lead to nepotism and corruption. There will be no budgetary constraints..no value return. The sportsmen paid all the bills and damned right! If it weren't for interested sportsmen, there wouldn't be any wildlife. Do NOT count on non-hunters to foot any bills, even though they claim to love wildlife. If the GC falls under Legislative control, I guarantee that WCO numbers will be slashed, licenses will soar in cost, but administrative expenditures will go through the roof from all the desk jobs created for politician's family members and cronies. Pennsylvania is one of a very few states that isn’t funded through the tax dollars and the State’s general funds. Does it appear that they don’t have adequately and even well funded wildlife management? If it does then perhaps we need to do a bit of research on how those General fund states stack up in wildlife management to the states that are self funded with hunting license sales. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
increase license specially non resident pa is about cheapest nonres license going why is that
hunters need to contact reps yes but PGC needs to do their end to right of few things so they can get fee incresees to The PGC is the pro's thats what the supporters say when it comes to management why not with the money end |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
They posted a 6 million dollar surplus in 2007 I believe.
Not too bad, and there is much more to be made in the timber holdings plus a license increase. I do not think the agency is all that bad off financially, provided some things change. We need to have smaller WMUs so that we can better manage hunter satisfaction. We don't need excess deer, but we should manage some areas better than what it is now. If we go to the general fund, do you think a dime will go to conservation? The state is facing a record, and monumental, budget crisis right now. Our license money will straight to the welfare programs. Rendell can't lay off from sending checks to Philly, believe me. |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
Yea, who is driving the bus that has always demanded more deer then the habitat could support until the habitat couldn’t support but a very low number of deer? The fact that breeding rates decreased as the herd was reduced proves we didn't have more deer than the habitat could support even when we had 1.6M PS deer. If the habitat was limiting breeding rates and recruitment then there should have been a significant increase in both breeding rates and recruitment as a result of reducing the herd by 600K deer. |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
What I am saying is neither BTB or Dr. Kroll have any idea what they are talking about.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:56 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.