RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Windwalker, I call t as I see it and RSB stepped over a very important line with me tis week as did the BOC. Hell, I wasn't even against crossbows although I did have my concerns. The vote in the face of the heavy opposition without any science to back it up was a major F___ you to the organized bowhunters of this state.Were talking about the BOC spitting in the face of the organization that backed them up on an archery stamp price being raised beyond all the other increases. We're talking about the BOC taking a big steaming dump on the organization that backed the PGC when they put a week of gun hunting right in the middle of bow season.Of course, I'm talking about the UBP. The UBP has selflesssly backed the BOC till now because till now, the science was on their side IMHO. Again, this was primariy a social issue and the BOC turned their back on the friendly's.

RSB's "take a flying leap" was the icing on the cake thisweek. Out of respect, hoping that the post was partly done in anger, I gave him severalchances to back off that statementeven a little and he did not. It now appearsthat his attitude was not momentary anger but his deep rooted position.I still believe there are a lot of guys out there that are generally supportive ofmuch of the deer management but I have lost my respect for the current BOC and RSB has definitely eroded my respect for him as a representative of the PGC by a great deal. Quite frankly, a public servant who feels that the people who have funded him and his agency forhis entire career should simply "take a flying leap" needs to consider a new place of employment.

That having been said, if you look back you'll find that I have often disagreed with parts of the PGC's policies and disagreed with RSB before.

For example, I have repeatedly called for smaller WMU's. I would like to see the concurrent season we now have in 2D 2G etc expanded to the whole state. RSB and I debated on opposite sides on the extension of our hunting hours to half hour after sunset a while back. (we hunters won that one:D)

I do believe we have had far too many deer for far too long but alsobelieve we have reached or are very close to the point where we need to level things off depending on the area.

When it comes to Bluebirds outrageous distortions, RSB and I often come down on the same side. But so do several here that have issues with some PGC policies. Lying, overzealous extreme fanatics like Bluebird don't help those on his side of theissues.

Sure, the timber industry has serious influence! So do the farmers. We are never going to see a MSY policy again. We as hunters need to realize that without farmers, landowners, timber interestsetc. we havevery fewplaces to hunt. Like it or not, the fact that they feed and provide habitat for most of the herd means they probably will continue have more say than we do. With the exception of gamelands, even public ground belongs to all taxpayers and not just hunters.

Gamelands are another story. Bought and paid for by hunters, they should all be managed for wildlife first. Any timber, oil, gas ,wind generation etc should be secondary to wildlife on gamelands. A hunting license or similar use permit for non hunters should be required for any and all access to gamelands for any reason.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

As yet you have failed to document one outrageous distortion by me nor have you documented one lie. But , I have shown based on PGC data that breeding rates have declined by 5%, productivity has decreased and the buck harvest has decreased by 46%. On the other hand i can document the lies told by RSB when he claimed buck harvests would return to normal, and increased breeding rates would negate the effects of HR. RSB flat out lied ,but i did not because I based my position on facts ,rather than on wishful thinking.

I have defended the average PGC hunter from day one while you, Alt ,the PGC and RSB have done their best to blame PA hunters,even though the PGC has all the power to determine the composition of the harvest.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Again, A very good post, BTB. I agree in all but your opinion of BB. He is definitely a zealot, but he accurately predicted much of the fallout from this mgt program and has been fighting to expose it for a long time, and against strong opposition. I personally admire his unwavering devotion.

It is getting easier to see the big picture now. The withdrawal of WMI from the audit process, inevitably delaying any immediate hope for a license increase, RSB and his employer are becoming desperate, thus the blow below the beltin regards togeneral funding. I'm still completetly puzzled, however by the crossbow vote. They just cut off the UBP who, as you said, was one of their biggest supporters. Exactly how much do they expect to generate from additional archery sales, and was there some lobbyist contributions from the Xbow industry? This whole mess just hit the fan a whole lot harder. With the loss of UBP support, they have really sunk the ship. I just don't get it.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

"The vote in the face of the heavy opposition without any science to back it up was a major F___ you to the organized bowhunters of this state.Were talking about the BOC spitting in the face of the organization that backed them up on an archery stamp price being raised beyond all the other increases. We're talking about the BOC taking a big steaming dump on the organization that backed the PGC when they put a week of gun hunting right in the middle of bow season.Of course, I'm talking about the UBP. The UBP has selflesssly backed the BOC till now because till now, the science was on their side IMHO. Again, this was primariy a social issue and the BOC turned their back on the friendly's. "

I must say, even if I werent against crossbows, Id have found that a real shocker. I honestly thought due to the numbers for and against + the ubp and its history with pgc, Id have bet my bow it wasnt gonna pass.

Then, they had the audacity to blame the legislators!! I happen to know for a fact that MANY legislators were NOT gonna go along with any bills and probably more than WERE going to. Also, pgc hadnt ever let the legislators sway them on many other issues, like the deer plan, where FAR MORE pressure has been applied with bills being a regular occurrence!! Nope. This b.s. was pgc's baby, and theirs alone!!!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

i have not talked to rep hanna but i can only assume that it will be difficult for PGC to get a raise in license fees after way this total disregard for hunters and resourses on crossbow issue and not reducing the DOE TAGS IN WMU2G.

i sent letters to all commissioners stating i had hundreds of hunters that did not want to see crossbows in archery season.

also we wanted the HR to stop in wmu2gfor 1 year until a good estimate could be made by US on deer numbers.

it fell on death ears.

i see hunters just like the frankenstein movie in thousands, going towards the PGC office at harrisburg with torchs lit to burn the monster.

dont be surprised its not the USP leading with torchs and UBP lighting them.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

BTB, you have brought up some valid issues and I will most certainly address them from my point of view.



There is no question that the two agencies could be combined but I also think there are other factors that should be fully considered before anyone thinks it is a good idea, would result in cost savings or provide a better service to the public.

First of all the combined Fish and Game agencies across the Country today, which includes most, started out as a combined agency when they were first formed. Pennsylvania didn’t start out combined because we were one of the first Game Agencies in the nation and no one was thinking fish conservation at that time. Perhaps that was a mistake made in by the early conservationists, but that is how it played out here in Pennsylvania that we ended up with two separate agencies. Contrary to what some think I tend to think that both agencies have done well at their respective missions though I am sure they would have fulfilled a united mission had they been together from the beginning.

The combination of the two agencies has been studied by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee several times over my thirty plus years and each time it has come back with the conclusion that there would be no significant financial gain or improvement of service from a combination. One of the most major problems and expense to merge the two would be cross training all of the WCOs to do both jobs. We are not presently cross trained and believe me when I tell you that would be a major event. Right now Fish Officers don’t need to receive days of annual training on the use of the wildlife immunization drugs Game WCOs are trained to use nor are they trained in the various wildlife management fields they would have be trained in if they were to start working wildlife. Game WCOs are not training in fish and water management principles, the operation of the various watercraft or ice and water rescue and recoveries but we would all of those training if we were to start filling the duties of the Waterways Officer. There would be major expense and time involved in that cross training. Much of that cross training would also require annual refresher training and certification which would mean even more time with no officers available to answer pubic calls.


That expense for cross training wasn’t a factor for state agencies that started out with both fish and game combined because it was all past of their initial training when they went through their training academy. Those were younger guys going through those academy as recruits too. How do you think it would work out training us guys in our fifties and sixties in some of those new procedures?

It could be done but all of the studies have come back saying it would cost millions of dollars to initially make the cross over. So far no one has come forth to provide the money that it would take to make that transition and neither the Game or Fish Commission have the financial capability to pay for such a transition.



I am not even going to debate the crossbow issue. If you have noticed I have never said anything one way or the other on crossbows. I have heard both sides and I stand completely neutral on the topic with no strong opinions one way or the other. I don’t think it will be a big management issue though I do expect some concerns to arise. As near as I can see it is strictly a social issue and the Board of Commissioners made what they believed to be the best direction for the future. It wouldn’t the first time they made an unpopular decision that was soon well accepted once people found out it wasn’t the problem they expected.

I will say this. It is the job of the Game Commission to manage all of the resources with primary consideration going toward the resource. Then they have the obligation to provide as many hunting and trapping opportunities for as many people as possible without adversely affecting that balance with the resource. That isn’t always an easy thing to do or one that is going to made everyone happy.

I will say that I too was a bit surprised by the vote but I can’t say it was the wrong thing to do either when you base it on the two criteria I just posted.



I have respect for you and all other hunters that aren’t set on dismantling the proper and scientific management of the resources or intend on using financial black mail to drive the professional back to doing the wrong thing for the future because they think they know more then the professionals. I can’t have respect for people with that mindset because I have seen the decades of damage that mindset has already caused to so much of habitat in this northern tier of the state.

When I come onto the message boards I am on my own time using my own computer and I am not representing the Game Commission, I am speaking my mind the same as everyone else on here and my personal opinions are not necessarily the agency views.


My comments concerning hunter money obviously did not include the best choice of words or politically correctness. That happens when someone gets under my skin enough, and I guess I do regret not handling that as I typically do by not posting until the next day on comments that get under my skin andhave had time to cool down. But I most certainly do believe it is time to move to general funding and I will address the reasons why with my response to your next comments.



For about the first two decades of working in this field I too argued that we never wanted to become a general agency and for the very same reasons you just expressed. But, over the past decade I have come to a different conclusion and now believe we do need to move to general funding to support wildlife management. Allow me to explain why I feel that way.

First of all it is no secret that we are losing hunters all across the nation. That trend is going to continue as more and more of use baby boomers fall from the folds of the hunter ranks. We can’t change that and thinking we can is only a pipe dream even though I agree that we need to continue in our attempts to recruit hunters at ever chance we get. Hunters are also going to be important toward sound wildlife management baring some very serious changes in many environmental quarters across our state and nation.



With ever rising costs and ever declining hunter numbers we all knew the day would come when hunters alone could no longer fund the needs of sound wildlife management. The only question has always been just when that day would arrive. I have watched so many needed wildlife research and management initiatives getting abandoned over the past few years due to the lack of funding that I am of the opinion it has reached the point were wildlife management is starting to go backwards instead of forward. For someone that has dedicated a lifetime toward our wildlife resources, there protection and their management that simply IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

So how did it get to this point? Well in my opinion it has reached this point because of political blackmail that has come from a small but vocal minority of our hunters. But, too many of the good hunters have stood back and allowed that vocal minority to carry the day, so they aren’t without blame either.

But blame or even the political blackmail isn’t even the real issue of what caused me to change my mind on general funds or some other funding method. I would actually prefer a percentage of the a dedicated annual tax base to be used for wildlife management funding in conjunction with the hunting license fees with a build in COLA.

Every citizen of this Commonwealth, hunter or not, has a voice in how wildlife or the habitat is managed and that isn’t going to change. It is only going to become more pronounced. Many of those voices have contributed nothing toward the game fund because they don’t buy a hunting license. Heck people on this very board openly state that they don’t hunt in this state anymore but still call their Legislator to express their demands. If people that are non-hunters or even anti hunters are getting a say now and getting what they want, they are already in the wildlife management game. They are not only in the game but walking away with the winnings, so why shouldn’t they have to anti-up to be in he game when they are getting what they want over the wishes of hunters?


Here are just a few more examples of why I think everyone should support wildlife management funding. I spend hundreds of hours every year responding to and trapping bears that are coming into housing developments, bee yards or corn fields. Besides the hours expended there are thousands of dollars worth of gasoline, immobilization drugs and equipment used to move those bears. Most of those complaints aren’t coming from hunters yet they reap the benefits of the hunter dollars. Yes, hunter still receive some benefit from that work though since many of those bears would be killed if we didn’t move them and we even used that trapping and marking data in the bear population estimates but why should hunters be the only ones paying for that service. How about the hundred so highway killed deer we have to remove every year with the hunter’s money. Why shouldn’t the taxpayers be paying that? How about all of the non-game species that everyone likes to see and people that have never bought a hunting license come to here to enjoy? We manage those and sometimes at considerable cost in hunter dollars. Why shouldn’t everyone pay for that management?



Yes states that work from their state’s general fund do have times when they have budget cuts. But, none of them are going ten or more years without an increase in their funding budget either as we have historically have had to do here in Pennsylvania and then have still have to backslide in sound wildlife to get even a modest increase that we can’t spend any way because we know we have to save anything we can just to survive the next round of refusals to grant a desperately needed increase.

Those state that are general fund only have to plan one year of cuts or program deductions at a time because they going to get a new budget to work with next year. Here never implement many of the good programs many other states have had in wildlife management for years because we know we have to conserve money for the next lean period of lean year. We typically have to start major program cuts five or more years before we get a license increase. That does NOT result in the best possible wildlife management. Yet a segment of our hunter still scream they will not support more money to the agency until the get better management or a louder voice.

That screaming and financial blackmail has been the very thing that has caused the majority of the division between hunter and the wildlife management professionals and I only see one way of even starting to fix that. That first step would come from having a funding method that stopped the back and blackmail and back and forth arguments about money. Letting everyone pay their fair share for the benefits of the state’s wildlife resources and their management is not the demon some people proclaim it to be or it wouldn’t be working so well in other states.



I think the Game Commission is very open even though we all have to recognize that not all hunters are going to get thing just the way they wish it was. It could be a lot better if there wasn’t such an inherent lack of trust in the Agency. It could also be a lot better if the over whelming financial problems would allow for better management and if all of the hunters worked toward a solution instead of so many just wanting to be an advisory and block or undermine better funding initiatives. That day has to come when hunters realize they can no longer fund sound of even good wildlife management programs and practices without outside funding of some kind. There are different ways of getting there but fighting and stomping our feet isn’t going to be the way to finding the best ways.

R.S Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

RSB

Thanks for the detailed response. I read the entire thing and you make some valid points I hadnt considered. On some I agree, on some I have different ideas but its geting late and I want to read it again and post a well thought out response and frankly its past my bedtime;). catch you tomorrow!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Just another pile of steaming manure from you, at this point RSB. You told hunters to take a flying leap. Now you do the same.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

When I come onto the message boards I am on my own time using my own computer and I am not representing the Game Commission, I am speaking my mind the same as everyone else on here and my personal opinions are not necessarily the agency views.


BS RSB. You are on here as representation of the PGC. Every where you go you represent the PGC. Your language and thoughts represents the PGC. Because you are a PGC. Looks like your trying to cover up your dislike for hunters. I guess you don't have respect for over half of the hunters then inyour state because they don't agree with what the PGC is doing. Your just making excuses to cover your ass now. Now you come on here and say that you don't respect over half the hunters because they are stupid because they don't know anything about habitat. Just keep burying yourself there deeper and deeper. As said above. Just take a flying leap allready. Again your views and thoughts do represent the PGC. It is not like your a carpenter or mechanic. You work for the people of that state 24/7. You allways represent them. So try again.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Since you openly anounce yourself as a WCO, you are most certainly trying to represent the PGC on the message boards. You have admitted that you are attempting to utilize the internet as a tool to educate the public and dispel myths. That would be all fine and dandy if you didn't flaunt your badge and use it to try to lend credibility to your claims. Why wouldn't you choose to remain anonymous? As if being a law enforcement officer makes you any more qualified than anyone else on these boards. But then again, you already stated that 2G needs further reduction, even though the biologists reccomended stabilization and increase, so maybe you do feel you are more qualified. My guess is that thw WCO's surf the web looking for the oddball idiot foolish enough to flaunt poaching and other violations, with the intent of conducting an investigation. And if that were the case anonymity would surely be more effective. No, you FLAUNT your badge, which leads one to surely wonder what kind of power trip we could expect during a routine field check.