How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Different state wildlife management agencies are funded in a number of different ways.

Some like Pennsylvania are funded without any general tax funds and only have license fees, Federal P/R funds, timber and mineral sales, etc. to work with even while only the State Legislature can increase the license fee structure. Some states are funded by a combination of license fees, P/F funds and general funds from the state’s taxes.Still other states have a designated tax amount, such as 1/8 of 1% of a sales tax, a portion of the license sales funds and the Federal P/R funds.

What are the benefits and down sides of the various methods within the various states and which seem to result in the best wildlife management programs?

Do hunters in states that are funded by some form of the State’s general tax dollars feel that they have an adequate voice within their wildlife department? Do non hunters have too much voice and does that interfere with the wildlife management programs?

Let’s hear some opinions from the different state hunters about what they think are the best wildlife management programs and how they are funded within those various states.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

i dont think it matters who funds the pgc the hunters are voiceless now so any other way of funding
the pgc couldnt hurt

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I hunt New York ands Ohio. In New York, I hunt strictly public lands and I'm 100% thrilled with the way they manage these lands for wildlife and I'm 100% thrilled with their POS system. I'm not sure about how their public funding system is working, but I know several folks that work for their DEC and they seem to be pretty happy with the way things operate.

Now, I haven't been following the NY governors attempt to close their pheasant farm very well, but from the little that I know, hunters raised enough hell about it to get the governor to reconsider. Sounds like there was some listening going on there eh?

As for Ohio, I haven't hunted and explored their program long enough to have an opinion. But I do know that I see plenty of wildlife on the private land that I've hunted.

As for Pa, I think it's high time that public funding is made available for the PGC budget in lieu of a license increase. Between my general license, muzzy tag, archery tag, doe tags, bobcat app and furtakers tag, I'm paying plenty already. At this point in time, I don't care one way or the other about the public having a stake in the PGC program, because it's quite obvious that hunters sure as hell have none.

For me, as a 51 year old deer hunter in the NC region of the commonwealth, getting the PGC solvent again and allowing them to get cracking on fine tuning this half assed deer program properly with more biologists on the ground is the single most important issue that I face. Let the public fund it. I'm tired of paying the way and getting next to nothing in return. And when Isay next to nothing, I'm not talkingthe old cliche' of having a deer behind every tree. I've never seen deer behind every tree, don't expect a deer behind every tree, and don't want a deer behind every tree. I'm talking about having enough WCOs, DWCOs, LMOs and biologists to manage our SFs and SGLs and large WMUs like 2Geffectively with hunters needs in mind.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

For those that would like some data to compare to what we have here in PA, here is a link to a QDMA report that provides data from various states.

http://qdma.com/media/WhitetailReport09.pdf

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

My opinion is the PGC intentionally run their deer hunting(bread and butter) into the ground intentionally so they could get public fundings and screw the tax payers out of more money. If they can't manage millions+a year,Istrongly advisethey get some new people in there that can. I do believe the PGC needs to have an audit about where the money is going and how it is spent.



The PGC is rapidly heading to meet its final destiny of merger. It is inevitable considering their current course. They can hold off for a few years by dumping wood on the market. Eventually, they will realize they can’t offset the license sales losses without hiring more foresters and dramatically increasing their timber receipts. The Governor will stop them or the price of wood will plummet.

http://www.pursuetheoutdoors.com/articles/2005/06/06/farewell-to-deer-deer-hunting-and-the-pgc/

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Do you hear us now? Probably not! Like ManySpurs,I too backed the PGC. But I'm losing my trust in them fast!

ManySpurs, I'm also hitting the tying bench hard for the next couple weeks. Just might have to trade in my bow & flintlock for a couple new fly rods and reels.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Its very hard to come up with anything positive to say about the P.G.C. ,who pays them seems to be a mute point at this time. Their agenda is set in stone and no one or thing will change that.
The P.G.C. has alienated the very people that formed it.
WeAs hunters only make up 8 % of the total population, soit appears to me that they are looking for support from the other 82 % that don't hunt. That support should be far reaching and easily obtained as many of them are against hunters & hunting also,
I'm not a big conspiracy guy like some here,but its plane to see that there is more to this deer program than meets the eye. with habitat being the driving force behind it how can anyone explain the 1 % timber harvest goals set up for state land. This being done in a time of financial need ?:eek:

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Since the DCNR likes to tell the PGC how to do it's job, how about giving them the task of taking care of all 400 species of non game, they get tax money, or at least have them pay the PGCto take care of the non game, that would let the PGC do the job that theHUNTERS pay them to do.:eek:I guess that wouldn't make sence would it?:eek:
Or maybe let these folks take care of the non game. :D;)
http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/about.asp

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Jack,the PGC is a very heavily audited agency.Every year,they publish their budget.By the way,the price of wood has already plummeted greatly.Both the PGC and DCNR are having a hard time evengetting bids on their lumber.

Jim,we have a very even aged stand of timber in Pa.That's one reasonwhy we're in thesituation we're in.How much more timber would you like them to cut.Seriously,give me a figure.

losthorn,Specifically,how has DCNR told the PGC how to do it's job?ThePGC is forced by the legislature to manage all game and non-game species.Fortunately,hunters don't pay the whole tab as alot of those programs are paid for by grants.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I don't think so. If that was the case,Why the big fuss over their records being shown while a lawsuit is going on? I think they have something to hide in their records.And while you are here. What do you think about RSB comments about hunters?

And, I don’t work for you. I work for the resources and all of the Citizens of this Commonwealth.

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.

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.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Most private land is select harvested every 20 - 25 years, this maintains all stages of growth and allows sunlight to reach the ground.It also allows for Oak and cherry to develop in areas where maple would other wise over take a forest.
I understand that much of the land under control of the P.G.C. is poor quality maple in pole timber stage, this provides nothing for wildlife andit hasvery little market value ,but leaving stand for 60-70 more years is just insane.
Cutting 1 % per year at a time when 10-15 % would benefit all wildlife just seems ludicrous.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Yes,Very true there.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Jack,what do you think they're hiding?The pendingaudit has nothing to do with their finances.The pending audit is an audit on the deer management prgram.The PGC is a state agency and it's finances are alreadyvery heavily autited.

Asfar as R.S.B's comments go.I know R.S.B personally and I took his comments the way he meant them.His words were directed at those hunters that are constantly trying to handcuff the PGC(YOU KNOW,THEUSP TYPES)in an attempt for the PGC to provide more deer.You won't meet a person more dedicated to the sport of hunting and thehealth of the wildlife than R.S.B.

Jim,think about what you're saying.If they cut 10% of the timber each year.That would mean the state would would have all of it's timber cut down over the next 10 years.Things would be great until about 12 years later when the entire state was a pile pf pole timber,supporting alot less deer than it can now.It would also halt all timber revenue for the next several decades.Have you ever been involved with a large scale timbering project.The amout of science that both the PGC and DCNR put into it is amazing.It's not just a matter of letting the Hatfields and Mccoys loose with their chainsaws.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Doug the timbered land that the P.G.C. owns is a very small percentage of the states forested land. If you don't like the 10 % number drop it to 5 % a revolving 20 year plan of select harvested trees would benefit all wildlife and hunters to boot.
I'm not talking clear cutting except in areas over run with maple. For years the P.G.C. has been cutting oak trees on game lands yet we are ask to believe that their foresters are working for our benefit.:eek:I'm not thinking that any thing was benefiting except some ones pocket.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Jim,you should really go out and meet with a land manager and discuss the management plan they have for that particular gamelands.A 20 year plan would only benefit the wildlife for a little over 40 years.It costs money to go in and cut timber that isn't ready to be cut.Guess what though,they actually do that on our game lands.problem is,our game lands are a very small piece of our total land mass,as you pointed out.Cutting right now really isn't economically feasible.Timber prices are down so low,they aren't even getting bids.

Why shouldn't you cut an oak tree?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Your whole head is brown and smells, That is how far you got your head up someones. His statements was against the hunter and for the tree huggers as everyone else has seen. Your not biased at all are you Douge? How you see something different than the rest of us is really amazing. Even BTB understood exactly what RSB was implying. How much clearer could RSB say that he could care less about the hunters than from his recent posts. He was refering to all hunters. You can't spin it Douge. Nice try though.
Atleast we all can say that the USP type are actually looking out for us hunters and not every tree hugger. USP actually care about our game animals that we are allowed to hunt. Maybe they should take over the game animals and let the PGC cater to the tree huggers and DCNR and birdy watchers.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Here you go Doug, the DCNR deer management plan, and a lot of it is now being used by the PGC.

Potential Deer Management Tools:
1. Early, Extended Rifle Hunting: The modern centerfire rifle is the most effective tool for harvesting deer in Pennsylvania. The current season for Adult hunters is limited to a two-week period in late November / early December. This season includes two weekend days and 10 weekdays. For many hunters, this is not enough "free" time to harvest multiple deer, especially on separate areas. Also, this season occurs at a time of the year when road conditions accessing much of the State Forest system deteriorates rapidly, with severe icing and snow accumulation in most years. An earlier, much longer season is needed to provide ample time for hunters to fit more hunting into their schedules. "Recent analyses from other states have documented that a high-intensity, short-duration hunt followed by a recovery period, then another high-intensity, short-duration hunt is most effective for harvesting deer" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication). Since days off are at a premium for most working people, a maximum number of weekend days open to rifle deer hunting are a necessity. The two-week season is a remnant of the days when hunters went to camp and stayed an entire week or two, just to hunt, and that time was used just to harvest one deer in most cases. Today's culture does not allow that much time in one block. Instead, most people can fit one or two days in here or there, so maximizing the opportunity to flexibly arrange their hunting excursions will make the harvest of multiple antlerless deer more possible for hunters.
The idea of an early rifle season was tested, first with the early one-week muzzleloader season, then with the early three-day rifle season for Junior and Senior hunters (not Adult hunters, our most effective group). These tests were designed to assess whether or not an early season posed a safety issue or a conflict with other hunting seasons. Neither problem was apparent.
The option of an early, extended rifle season is a tool that could be used on a limited basis, not across all State Forests, or perhaps even across all State Forest DMAP areas, but on those areas where we have evidence that this additional tool is required for adequate harvest. An evaluation of whether or not opening some DMAP areas later than others, versus opening early should be assessed. Either way, this tool should make each DMAP permit more effective at producing a harvested deer, and should allow the Bureau to harvest more deer with fewer permits and fewer hunters. This should help treat more areas simultaneously with the program.
An extended rifle season would be especially useful in those areas with high WMU-wide antlerless license allocations, where permits would present greater time flexibility, whereas the WMU-wide licenses provide greater spatial flexibility. The timing of these extended seasons prior to other hunting seasons would be an added incentive for many hunters to focus on these high-priority areas first.
The major downside of this option would be that rifle hunting would be occurring at the same time as other hunting seasons, hence a perceived conflict. This has not occurred with the early rifle or muzzleloader seasons.
2. Multiple Permits per Hunter per DMAP Area: Currently, hunters are restricted to two permits per DMAP Area. This was imposed to ensure equitable distribution of permits to all willing hunters. Since the inception of the DMAP, several areas have not exhausted allotted coupons. It is very likely that if individual hunters were able to obtain more than two permits in an individual Area, some would avail themselves of that option. Many hunters are limited by hunting time and the amount of time they can travel from one area to another, scout new areas, and coordinate with hunting companions. Allowing hunters to take more than two (or several) deer in one location would likely increase the harvest and the effectiveness of each individual permit. It would allow a hunter to concentrate scouting and hunting effort on one area, where that person would become more effective.
This could still allow equitability in distribution if multiple permits were available to the individual only after a certain date, allowing all hunters equal chance of obtaining a permit up until that time.
3. Eliminate the Tagging Requirement before Harvesting Multiple Deer: Currently successful hunters are required to tag the first deer they harvest before attempting to harvest a subsequent deer. This reduces effectiveness of hunters who have the willingness, opportunity, and required permits to harvest multiple deer. This restriction was imposed to respond to the perception that individual hunters would get all the opportunities, while others would miss out on the opportunity to harvest a deer. The areas identified for use of these tools, however, are areas in need of deer reduction. That has to be the underlying goal of deer management on these lands. Again, this would not need to apply to areas of the state or lands where it was determined that deer were a limited resource.
4. Information and Education Program on Venison Care and Preparation: Harvesting multiple deer for those who use meat processors is a very costly endeavor. Also, some hunters who don't come from a strong hunting heritage have not been trained on the proper care of venison in the field. An I & E program could be developed in conjunction with both governmental and nongovernmental partners to better inform hunters on how to properly treat venison, both in the field and beyond. This could include information or workshops on how to butcher a deer at home. Another helpful facet of the program would be cooking with venison. This healthy meat represents a gourmet product, if prepared properly. Venison can also represent a large economic savings for families who know how to butcher and prepare it as a part of the regular diet. Additionally, the educational program could increase the value of the white-tailed deer in our culture.
5. Information and Education (and possible regulatory change) on Packing Venison out of the Field: The current practice upon harvesting a deer in Pennsylvania is to field dress the deer, then drag the entire carcass out to an access point. In the more remote parts of our country this is not done. Instead, hunters either quarter or debone the carcass, then pack out the edible portions and leave behind the inedible parts for the scavengers. This is not widely done in Pennsylvania, partly because of the tradition focusing on buck hunting only, where a big emphasis was placed on bringing out the entire trophy. With doe hunting in remote areas, the willingness of hunters (and ability) to drag out an entire deer, or multiple deer is limiting. Instead, if hunters were taught (and allowed) to debone the deer and pack out just the meat, then it would be possible for hunters to hunt farther from the road and bring out more than one deer. It is unclear whether or not this practice is legal at this time in Pennsylvania, with the current tagging requirements. This could be changed through information and education, and in regulation, if necessary.
6. Concessions with Outfitters to take Hunters In & Deer Out: An option to allow greater access to remote areas, while controlling for pressure and preserving the character of these areas, would be to grant (or lease) concessions to outfitters to provide access to hunters. This would both provide economic stimulus in some of our rural areas, and help to solve the access issue in remote land deer management. Outfitters could be permitted to set up base camps and have exclusive but highly controlled access within gated areas. With such a system it would be easy to keep watch over erosion issues, and the Bureau of Forestry would know whom to contact if there were other problems. This is already available, but not widely known.
7. Party Hunting: Some other states allow party hunting - allowing a group of hunters to harvest deer for each other's permits until all permits are filled. This is a very nontraditional (but often illegally practiced) method for Pennsylvania. It would go far, however, to increase the effectiveness of reducing deer in overbrowsed areas. Social acceptance of this technique could be difficult. This is definitely a tool that should be studied more deeply with good human dimensions research before implementation would be suggested. Also, it would not be necessary if individual hunters could get multiple permits for an area.
8. Unlimited Permits: In areas where all else has failed to reduce deer overbrowsing, and hunters appear unwilling to enter in large enough numbers to facilitate the needed reduction, the area could be designated as "unlimited harvest" for a period of time. This would be a sort of "last resort" to allow those hunters who may be willing to hunt non-accessible, remote areas the ultimate flexibility and accommodation. This tool probably could not be used on a wide scale basis in the State Forest system, however, may be the only effective tool for certain areas. Also, "areas/states with a bag limit that is "high" often take more deer than areas with an unlimited bag limit. In reality, few people take multiple deer, but the perception is that the manager is trying to "kill all the deer," and hunters and nonhunters often don't support or assist much with unlimited harvest. A bag limit, albeit high, is often a better strategy" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication).
9. Incentive System to Have Individuals or Hunting Groups Responsible for Specific Areas: Provide special incentives like additional buck permits to specific groups to become responsible for meeting antlerless deer harvest "quotas" for areas where hunting pressure is negligible. This has been done in other states by what is known as "Earn Your Buck," and has been highly successful in some areas. Once again, the equitability issue would be raised, but if all hunters are given equal opportunity to harvest antlerless deer on these areas, then it is a moot point. The opportunity to take a second buck would provide a unique opportunity for hunters in Pennsylvania, who are limited to one antlered buck per year. This could be a very useful incentive to gain additional antlerless deer harvest. The benchmark for earning the extra buck permit could be based upon the prerequisite of harvesting one, two, or any specified number of antlerless deer from the area in question. Also, the extra buck permits could be limited to be used in the same season the antlerless deer were harvested, or they could carry over across subsequent hunting seasons with a "point-based" system. This could be very workable, but would require significant human dimensions research first to determine public acceptance.
10. Use of Bait to Entice Deer: This option is currently legal and practiced in many states, and has been suggested numerous times when the discussion of new tools comes up. The Bureau of Forestry, based on the possibility of disease transmission, is not willing to pursue this option at this time.
11. Night Hunting: This option, too, has been suggested in the discussion of additional deer management tools. Once again, the Bureau of Forestry will not pursue this option for safety reasons. This has been used successfully to control deer in highly managed situations with professional sharpshooters, but requires very specialized training to provide for safety. Night hunting is used for predators in Pennsylvania, but deer hunting is a much larger endeavor than the relatively specialized group who engage in predator hunting.
12. Other Tackle: Many states allow the use of semi-automatic sporting rifles or buckshot in shotguns for deer hunting. Often these states have lower hunter densities than many areas of Pennsylvania, and denser forests. This option could be evaluated, but would not increase effectiveness enough to make it a high priority tool to be sought immediately. Buckshot is currently used in the Special Regulations areas of southeastern Pennsylvania, and is a very effective tool in densely forested situations. As our forests recover, this tool may become more necessary.
13. Dogs: Several of the southern states allow the use of dogs in deer hunting. This is highly nontraditional for Pennsylvania. In the very dense cover of the southern river swamps, dogs are often the only way to get deer out of the cover enough to harvest them during daylight hours. Most of our forests are not that dense, and many of our areas are too large and roadless for effective use of dogs in hunting. Dog hunting requires that a large number of hunters post along the perimeter of an area with the dogs released inside, encouraging the deer to exit past the hunters. This just is not operable across most of the State Forest system in Pennsylvania.
14. Professional Control of Deer: This option, while highly effective methodologically, is certainly not cost effective, nor is it socially acceptable in Pennsylvania. This tool is useful on very limited areas, like urban communities, where a high level of control to ensure human safety requires the use of professionals to remove excess deer.
Other Tools:
1. Surveys of Deer: To monitor harvest effectiveness on representative areas like research sites, the Bureau of Forestry has and will continue to use a variety of tools to assess local deer populations and browsing effects. Forward Looking InfraRed (FLIR) has been used to corroborate other measures of deer density, and may be a cost effective means of providing site-specific deer population estimates on a several areas statewide. The effectiveness of broad scale FLIR implementation may be limited by time, cost, and dense evergreen cover. These more intensive monitoring sites could be used to test the effectiveness of hunting strategies being used across the State Forests. FLIR is being evaluated to determine the long-term use and applicability of the technology to State Forest situations. Other survey tools that can be used on a limited basis include infrared-triggered trail camera surveys, visual (daytime or spotlight) transects, browsing pressure transects, and deer pellet group transects. In most instances the density of deer or the local population parameters are secondary to the browsing effects on the habitat, so that will be the matrix of choice for determining management strategies.
2. Check Stations (Fixed or Mobile): "Check stations are extremely valuable and could be done on a statewide basis . . . They are not costly and states such as Wisconsin employ them (WI has high deer harvest like PA). PGC and/or DCNR could and should still do biochecks on deer, but biochecks would be easy to do if there was a statewide deer registration/check program" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication). Check stations provide excellent opportunities to educate hunters on the basics of deer management, and train them to age deer, etc. They also work well at monitoring deer condition (biochecks) as an indicator of habitat quality. Mobile deer checking done by a trained individual following a set route may be more cost effective for gathering deer condition data, but less effective as an educational tool. Check stations are an excellent opportunity to cooperate with local or statewide groups to educate hunters and collect data.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Timber prices are down now but they have been very high for the last7-10 years,just another opportunity wasted.
Why in the world would you cut down an oak tree when your supposed mission is to wildlife? The thousands of pounds of food produced far out weighs the benefits received from a one time pay check. There are plenty of other species of trees that do little for wildlife and should be cut to open the canopy and allow for some of the uneaten mast crop to germinate and produce more food and cover for game.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

RSB, that was not nice statements you made about hunters.

only the USP wants to see the PGC stay ,AS IS.
strange,isnt it.:eek:

most want to see the PGC merged with DCNR.

PGC wastes money too.

i see those big trucks with 1 person in them,you know how much could be saved on gas and repairs by buying a smaller vehicle,MILLIONS OF DOLLARS COULD BE SAVED.


same with DCNR, full size suburban vehicles that get 12 miles per gallon with 1 ranger riding around with air conditioner blowing on him,WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY.

could not that ranger use a blazer that gets 22 miles per gallon ,half cost of repairs and TURN AIR CONDITIONER OFF IN WOODS AND OPEN WINDOW.[:@]

i will be talking to rep hanna soon in feb or march meeting, i will ask him what is happening .

as for my opinion, I CANT GIVE YOU ONE, WITH ALL THIS DOE KILLING ,VERY FEW WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PGC.
most dont hate a local WCO, its the BIRDWATCHING,POLITICAL COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE HATED AND THEY ARE DRAGGING DOWN THE PGC WITH THEM..........

maybe thats what they want, to do away with PGC.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

To address rsbs question on funding, its really quite simple. There is no big mystery. The system would be fine and there wouldnt be a problem as is if pgc would manage responsibly and have hunters as A PRIORITY somewhere down the line!!! Is the system of funding via license fees perfect? No. But a helluva lot closer to it than the alternatives unless you are an eco-warrior idiot. PGc needs to be more hunter friendly from top to bottom wether they want to or not. If they don't, get people in there that will. There is absolutely no excuse for the rediculous level of hunter dissatisfaction and NO its NOT in the name of "science". Most if not all other states utilize "science" and nowhere in the nation is there as much disgust as Pa.

Alternate funding simply will not fly. Too many fingers DEEPER into the pot, not to mention the fact it would effectively circumvent ANY system of checks and balances designed to prevent a pgc "tyranny" from doing anything it like any time it likes for whomever it likes. That is 100% unacceptable. You cant give ANY agency that amount of undiluted power over anything!!!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

To address rsbs question on funding, its really quite simple. There is no big mystery. The system would be fine and there wouldnt be a problem as is if pgc would manage responsibly and have hunters as A PRIORITY somewhere down the line!!! Is the system of funding via license fees perfect? No. But a helluva lot closer to it than the alternatives unless you are an eco-warrior idiot. PGc needs to be more hunter friendly from top to bottom wether they want to or not. If they don't, get people in there that will. There is absolutely no excuse for the rediculous level of hunter dissatisfaction and NO its NOT in the name of "science". Most if not all other states utilize "science" and nowhere in the nation is there as much disgust as Pa. Many states do things much differently with far differnent goals etc and much better hunter pgc relations working closely.Many have MANY wmus etc... And many of those states dont have only higher satisfaction rating than Pa, but EXTREMELY high!! As many as 75+% rating VERY SATISFIED. That hasnt been the case in Pa in a long time and theres no reason why it shouldnt be the case, other than pgc flatly refusing to allow it to happen.

Alternate funding simply will not fly. Too many fingers DEEPER into the pot and their already up past their elbows now, not to mention the fact it would effectively circumvent ANY system of checks and balances designed to prevent a pgc "tyranny" from doing anything it like any time it likes for whomever it likes. That is 100% unacceptable. You cant give ANY agency that amount of undiluted power over anything!!!

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I like Bodenhorn and have all the respect in the world for the job that he and all other WCOs do. But that was a real slap in the face.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

losthorn,Thanks for posting that.It proves my point in that the PGC hasn't catered to one of those demands.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Iagree. I have been a shop Forman and spokesperson for 19 years. As idiotic are some of the gripes my fellow workers come up with, you listen. You still treat them with respect. You do your best at explaining why things have to be this way. And when you do really listen, sometimes even the most off the wall individual, comes up with something constructive. So the comment the hell with hunters money. Whatperceptionof the PGC did you install in the hunters R.S.B.?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

No, they didn't cater to those specific demands , but instead they reduced the herd statewide to provide cover for DCNR HR demands.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The DCNR are the ones that pushed the PGC to where we are now, what I posted is what they are trying to get now and most likely will get most if not all.

Potential Deer Management Tools:
1. Early, Extended Rifle Hunting: The modern centerfire rifle is the most effective tool for harvesting deer in Pennsylvania. The current season for Adult hunters is limited to a two-week period in late November / early December. This season includes two weekend days and 10 weekdays. For many hunters, this is not enough "free" time to harvest multiple deer, especially on separate areas. Also, this season occurs at a time of the year when road conditions accessing much of the State Forest system deteriorates rapidly, with severe icing and snow accumulation in most years. An earlier, much longer season is needed to provide ample time for hunters to fit more hunting into their schedules. "Recent analyses from other states have documented that a high-intensity, short-duration hunt followed by a recovery period, then another high-intensity, short-duration hunt is most effective for harvesting deer" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication). Since days off are at a premium for most working people, a maximum number of weekend days open to rifle deer hunting are a necessity. The two-week season is a remnant of the days when hunters went to camp and stayed an entire week or two, just to hunt, and that time was used just to harvest one deer in most cases. Today's culture does not allow that much time in one block. Instead, most people can fit one or two days in here or there, so maximizing the opportunity to flexibly arrange their hunting excursions will make the harvest of multiple antlerless deer more possible for hunters.
The idea of an early rifle season was tested, first with the early one-week muzzleloader season, then with the early three-day rifle season for Junior and Senior hunters (not Adult hunters, our most effective group). These tests were designed to assess whether or not an early season posed a safety issue or a conflict with other hunting seasons. Neither problem was apparent.
The option of an early, extended rifle season is a tool that could be used on a limited basis, not across all State Forests, or perhaps even across all State Forest DMAP areas, but on those areas where we have evidence that this additional tool is required for adequate harvest. An evaluation of whether or not opening some DMAP areas later than others, versus opening early should be assessed. Either way, this tool should make each DMAP permit more effective at producing a harvested deer, and should allow the Bureau to harvest more deer with fewer permits and fewer hunters. This should help treat more areas simultaneously with the program.
An extended rifle season would be especially useful in those areas with high WMU-wide antlerless license allocations, where permits would present greater time flexibility, whereas the WMU-wide licenses provide greater spatial flexibility. The timing of these extended seasons prior to other hunting seasons would be an added incentive for many hunters to focus on these high-priority areas first.
The major downside of this option would be that rifle hunting would be occurring at the same time as other hunting seasons, hence a perceived conflict. This has not occurred with the early rifle or muzzleloader seasons.
2. Multiple Permits per Hunter per DMAP Area: Currently, hunters are restricted to two permits per DMAP Area. This was imposed to ensure equitable distribution of permits to all willing hunters. Since the inception of the DMAP, several areas have not exhausted allotted coupons. It is very likely that if individual hunters were able to obtain more than two permits in an individual Area, some would avail themselves of that option. Many hunters are limited by hunting time and the amount of time they can travel from one area to another, scout new areas, and coordinate with hunting companions. Allowing hunters to take more than two (or several) deer in one location would likely increase the harvest and the effectiveness of each individual permit. It would allow a hunter to concentrate scouting and hunting effort on one area, where that person would become more effective.
This could still allow equitability in distribution if multiple permits were available to the individual only after a certain date, allowing all hunters equal chance of obtaining a permit up until that time.
3. Eliminate the Tagging Requirement before Harvesting Multiple Deer: Currently successful hunters are required to tag the first deer they harvest before attempting to harvest a subsequent deer. This reduces effectiveness of hunters who have the willingness, opportunity, and required permits to harvest multiple deer. This restriction was imposed to respond to the perception that individual hunters would get all the opportunities, while others would miss out on the opportunity to harvest a deer. The areas identified for use of these tools, however, are areas in need of deer reduction. That has to be the underlying goal of deer management on these lands. Again, this would not need to apply to areas of the state or lands where it was determined that deer were a limited resource.
4. Information and Education Program on Venison Care and Preparation: Harvesting multiple deer for those who use meat processors is a very costly endeavor. Also, some hunters who don't come from a strong hunting heritage have not been trained on the proper care of venison in the field. An I & E program could be developed in conjunction with both governmental and nongovernmental partners to better inform hunters on how to properly treat venison, both in the field and beyond. This could include information or workshops on how to butcher a deer at home. Another helpful facet of the program would be cooking with venison. This healthy meat represents a gourmet product, if prepared properly. Venison can also represent a large economic savings for families who know how to butcher and prepare it as a part of the regular diet. Additionally, the educational program could increase the value of the white-tailed deer in our culture.
5. Information and Education (and possible regulatory change) on Packing Venison out of the Field: The current practice upon harvesting a deer in Pennsylvania is to field dress the deer, then drag the entire carcass out to an access point. In the more remote parts of our country this is not done. Instead, hunters either quarter or debone the carcass, then pack out the edible portions and leave behind the inedible parts for the scavengers. This is not widely done in Pennsylvania, partly because of the tradition focusing on buck hunting only, where a big emphasis was placed on bringing out the entire trophy. With doe hunting in remote areas, the willingness of hunters (and ability) to drag out an entire deer, or multiple deer is limiting. Instead, if hunters were taught (and allowed) to debone the deer and pack out just the meat, then it would be possible for hunters to hunt farther from the road and bring out more than one deer. It is unclear whether or not this practice is legal at this time in Pennsylvania, with the current tagging requirements. This could be changed through information and education, and in regulation, if necessary.
6. Concessions with Outfitters to take Hunters In & Deer Out: An option to allow greater access to remote areas, while controlling for pressure and preserving the character of these areas, would be to grant (or lease) concessions to outfitters to provide access to hunters. This would both provide economic stimulus in some of our rural areas, and help to solve the access issue in remote land deer management. Outfitters could be permitted to set up base camps and have exclusive but highly controlled access within gated areas. With such a system it would be easy to keep watch over erosion issues, and the Bureau of Forestry would know whom to contact if there were other problems. This is already available, but not widely known.
7. Party Hunting: Some other states allow party hunting - allowing a group of hunters to harvest deer for each other's permits until all permits are filled. This is a very nontraditional (but often illegally practiced) method for Pennsylvania. It would go far, however, to increase the effectiveness of reducing deer in overbrowsed areas. Social acceptance of this technique could be difficult. This is definitely a tool that should be studied more deeply with good human dimensions research before implementation would be suggested. Also, it would not be necessary if individual hunters could get multiple permits for an area.
8. Unlimited Permits: In areas where all else has failed to reduce deer overbrowsing, and hunters appear unwilling to enter in large enough numbers to facilitate the needed reduction, the area could be designated as "unlimited harvest" for a period of time. This would be a sort of "last resort" to allow those hunters who may be willing to hunt non-accessible, remote areas the ultimate flexibility and accommodation. This tool probably could not be used on a wide scale basis in the State Forest system, however, may be the only effective tool for certain areas. Also, "areas/states with a bag limit that is "high" often take more deer than areas with an unlimited bag limit. In reality, few people take multiple deer, but the perception is that the manager is trying to "kill all the deer," and hunters and nonhunters often don't support or assist much with unlimited harvest. A bag limit, albeit high, is often a better strategy" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication).
9. Incentive System to Have Individuals or Hunting Groups Responsible for Specific Areas: Provide special incentives like additional buck permits to specific groups to become responsible for meeting antlerless deer harvest "quotas" for areas where hunting pressure is negligible. This has been done in other states by what is known as "Earn Your Buck," and has been highly successful in some areas. Once again, the equitability issue would be raised, but if all hunters are given equal opportunity to harvest antlerless deer on these areas, then it is a moot point. The opportunity to take a second buck would provide a unique opportunity for hunters in Pennsylvania, who are limited to one antlered buck per year. This could be a very useful incentive to gain additional antlerless deer harvest. The benchmark for earning the extra buck permit could be based upon the prerequisite of harvesting one, two, or any specified number of antlerless deer from the area in question. Also, the extra buck permits could be limited to be used in the same season the antlerless deer were harvested, or they could carry over across subsequent hunting seasons with a "point-based" system. This could be very workable, but would require significant human dimensions research first to determine public acceptance.
10. Use of Bait to Entice Deer: This option is currently legal and practiced in many states, and has been suggested numerous times when the discussion of new tools comes up. The Bureau of Forestry, based on the possibility of disease transmission, is not willing to pursue this option at this time.
11. Night Hunting: This option, too, has been suggested in the discussion of additional deer management tools. Once again, the Bureau of Forestry will not pursue this option for safety reasons. This has been used successfully to control deer in highly managed situations with professional sharpshooters, but requires very specialized training to provide for safety. Night hunting is used for predators in Pennsylvania, but deer hunting is a much larger endeavor than the relatively specialized group who engage in predator hunting.
12. Other Tackle: Many states allow the use of semi-automatic sporting rifles or buckshot in shotguns for deer hunting. Often these states have lower hunter densities than many areas of Pennsylvania, and denser forests. This option could be evaluated, but would not increase effectiveness enough to make it a high priority tool to be sought immediately. Buckshot is currently used in the Special Regulations areas of southeastern Pennsylvania, and is a very effective tool in densely forested situations. As our forests recover, this tool may become more necessary.
13. Dogs: Several of the southern states allow the use of dogs in deer hunting. This is highly nontraditional for Pennsylvania. In the very dense cover of the southern river swamps, dogs are often the only way to get deer out of the cover enough to harvest them during daylight hours. Most of our forests are not that dense, and many of our areas are too large and roadless for effective use of dogs in hunting. Dog hunting requires that a large number of hunters post along the perimeter of an area with the dogs released inside, encouraging the deer to exit past the hunters. This just is not operable across most of the State Forest system in Pennsylvania.
14. Professional Control of Deer: This option, while highly effective methodologically, is certainly not cost effective, nor is it socially acceptable in Pennsylvania. This tool is useful on very limited areas, like urban communities, where a high level of control to ensure human safety requires the use of professionals to remove excess deer.
Other Tools:
1. Surveys of Deer: To monitor harvest effectiveness on representative areas like research sites, the Bureau of Forestry has and will continue to use a variety of tools to assess local deer populations and browsing effects. Forward Looking InfraRed (FLIR) has been used to corroborate other measures of deer density, and may be a cost effective means of providing site-specific deer population estimates on a several areas statewide. The effectiveness of broad scale FLIR implementation may be limited by time, cost, and dense evergreen cover. These more intensive monitoring sites could be used to test the effectiveness of hunting strategies being used across the State Forests. FLIR is being evaluated to determine the long-term use and applicability of the technology to State Forest situations. Other survey tools that can be used on a limited basis include infrared-triggered trail camera surveys, visual (daytime or spotlight) transects, browsing pressure transects, and deer pellet group transects. In most instances the density of deer or the local population parameters are secondary to the browsing effects on the habitat, so that will be the matrix of choice for determining management strategies.
2. Check Stations (Fixed or Mobile): "Check stations are extremely valuable and could be done on a statewide basis . . . They are not costly and states such as Wisconsin employ them (WI has high deer harvest like PA). PGC and/or DCNR could and should still do biochecks on deer, but biochecks would be easy to do if there was a statewide deer registration/check program" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication). Check stations provide excellent opportunities to educate hunters on the basics of deer management, and train them to age deer, etc. They also work well at monitoring deer condition (biochecks) as an indicator of habitat quality. Mobile deer checking done by a trained individual following a set route may be more cost effective for gathering deer condition data, but less effective as an educational tool. Check stations are an excellent opportunity to cooperate with local or statewide groups to educate hunters and collect data.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

They were DCNR's demands several years ago and the PGC got none of them.Tell me again how DCNR is running the PGC.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

It has been explained to you on numerous occasions but you are living in denial ,so it would do no good to repeat it.

But here is a challenge for you. Explain why 2F is being managed at 22 DPSM and 2G is managed at 12 PS DPSM when the forest health is poorer in 2F than in 2G based on regeneration? What PGC criteria justifies that descrepency?

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I'd sure like to hear your viewpoint on #2, with all the DMAP tags you recieve and fill.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

I can see the wool is over your eyes, so I won't even bother..

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

i feel sorry for the sheep they all must be cold

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

The sheep will always have that warm and fuzzy feeling , because that is what sheep do.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

First off, out of those states that you are inquiring about, don't you find it interesting that 47 or 48 of them have a combined Game & Fish Agency, and roughly 1/2 of those, are independent combined Game & Fish agenciesNOT under a DNCR equivalent? But,yetwe always seem to hear how that would never,ever work in PA.

My 2 cents on General Funding: There is a right and wrong way of doing that.

The right way would be that a "combined & independent" PA Game & Fish agency would push for a 0.x% or x.x%funding cut from the current PA state tax on the sales of hunting & fishing gear, equipment, etc. Then as the "combined & independent" PA Game & Fish agency improved Hunting & Fishing in the state, that would automatically result in more funding due to increased sales of said gear,equipment,etc. Of course, if Hunting & Fishing opertunities decreased they would also be negatively rewarded, and in my eyes rightfully so.

The wrong way to implement "general funding" is just to accept a 0.000000x% willy-nilly cut on all of the State Sales Tax, which allows the non-sporting sector to claim even further influence.


.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Well said Yano.

I can see no reason not to combine the fish and game commission.
There is no real reason to support two seperate headquarters and there is no real reason for the duplication when it comes to administration. There should be substantial savings on expense in those two areas. I don't have the PFBC figures in front of me but almost 30% of the expenditure for the PGC are taken up by administration, Information and education, executive office and technology expenses. Those are the areas where I'd think one agency could savemoney by reducing duplication. Obviously they wouldnt save 30% but if each agency coulds save 10 or 15% that would be huge.

Even though I agree with much of the current deer management policies, the PGC has taken the wrong approach with the group that provides the lions share of its funds. The recent crossbow vote is a glaring example. The biological ramifications were not researched and the hunter input was overwhelmingly against it. So we have an issue decided virtually without any science and directly against the social climate of the people who pay the bills. I disagree with most of theUSP mentality and the lawsuit but the PGC just handed the USP another clipfull of bullets and also alienated much of an organization that always steadfastly supported them, the UBP.

As far as the crossbow issue, I was fairly neutral on it but I am absolutely and positively disgusted with the vote in the face of the overwhelming hunter input against it. Again, there was no science to support inclusionso the social climatewas the only consideration. The fact that a commssioner owns a sporting goods store and stands to profit should have been a strong reason for him to abstain.

RSB,I have a healthy respect for you,and the dedication you appear to have for your job. Your job is law enforcement but you spend personal time on here attempting to answer questions and provide informationrelated to your job and the policies of the agency. For that I thank you. Your recent posts however are disturbing. You accepted the job you hold knowing how the agency is funded. You have accepted paychecks, which you've certainly earned, knowing they came from hunters for all those years. When one acepts money from the public,any public, there is a certain amount of responsibility to that public.Taking criticism and having to listen to theconcernsof the public who funds you comes with the territory.Your comments were out of line and I find it deeply disturbing that that mentalityseems to be appearingmore and more from thePGC.

As for how fish and game management sholud be funded, IMHO, we should fight as hard as we can for a combined independent agency funded by those that utilize the resource. The minute we take money from all taxpayers we lose moreinfluence and we already have too little say in wildlifematters.The recent crossbow vote proves that.

That doesnt mean hunters should have the only say. Without landowners, we have no hunting anywaybecause they're the ones who provide food and habitat for our wildlife. Weneed to accept that we are not the only ones who "pay" for wildlife. The farmer "pays" with lost crops. The timber interests, which includes anyone who may sell their timber some day"pay" through lost tree regeneration. Every driver "pays" for our deer herd in the form of insurance premiums for comprehensive which covers deer collisions.

I hunt the state of Illinois and their DNR is funded by public money as well as hunting and fishing fees. This past year, the now impeached governor "swept" 9.2 million from DNR accounts to bail out the general fund. If the PGC takes money fromgeneral funds, that becomes a possibility here too.

IMHO. we need an independent combined fish and game agency that opens it's doors a bit more and we also need the extremists that brought this lawsuit to shut up and sit down. Sadly, neither is likely to happen.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

That was perfect BTB. I was thinking of starting this topic all over again tomorrow. Because I think we jumped on this with a little left over frustration from the crossbow vote. [/align]

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

1.IMHO. we need an independent combined fish and game agency that opens it's doors a bit more and we also need the extremists that brought this lawsuit to shut up and sit down. Sadly, neither is likely to happen.
2.As far as the crossbow issue, I was fairly neutral on it but I am absolutely and positively disgusted with the vote in the face of the overwhelming hunter input against it. Again, there was no science to support inclusionso the social climatewas the only consideration. The fact that a commssioner owns a sporting goods store and stands to profit should have been a strong reason for him to abstain.


BTB are you feeling O.K. Your statements say otherwise. Its quite clear your giving the USP a blast there but their the only org that are fighting the GC. on their policies. Everybody agreed to the audit wheres it at. Give me 1 reason why WMI cant do the audit just 1 while the lawsuit is going on. Thats like saying douge I beleive he sells insurance and say he works for Erie insurance and their pulled into court over something does that mean douge should,nt sell anymore insurance till the lawsuit is settled.If WMI does,nt want too do the audit let another company do it.Your second statement is nothing but politics at it,s finest. Prime example yesterday on KDKA radio they were talking about Surra getting his $95.000 job according to some people on different boards he was hated by hunters and he was a thorn in the GC. side. Well Gov. Rendell was live on there yesyerday saying he got hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails and corrospondents from the folks up in the Wilds area saying they wanted Surra in the DCNR making $95.000 a year so thats politics at it,s finest

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

Well....I have to say it. That post was spot on, BTB. The recent crossbow vote, despite the strong hunter opposition, Ms Davis and Palone's vote for further HR despite strong opposition even from non hunters, and now the PGC declaring they no longer want licenses to support the funding. Te PGC is done listening to hunters. Period. Time for a change.

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

good post BTB well said

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

BTB,

I'm actually stunned to hear you say something negative about the PGC or to RSB.

I have to agree with you though!


Many feel that the Hunter's voice was not heard when it came to the crossbow issue. The PGC shows its true colors. THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT

The comments made by RSB also true his true colors.

Several people on here side with the PGC on many issues. Its good to see them start to shake their head and wonder what is going on. Even if they don't admit it on here, they have to be scratching their head.

BTB, you must be an upstanding kinda guy to come out and say how you feel even if it means going against someone you have defended many times. I respect that.


Perhaps you can understand how some of us feel when it comes the the PGC and AR or HR.

I see guys like DougE always supporting the PGC no matter what the issue. I realize he and RSB are friends but surely he understands how the PGC does what they want, how they want, despite what hunters think.

Crossbows? Really? Why?

Just think, us hunters foot the bill while decisions are made despite how we feel.

The real reason the PGC wants crossbows legal is to sell more archery tags. What is it, $16 a pop. How much will they make on a move like this?

Every Tom Dick and Harry will be out in the woods with their crossbow trying to get that big buck they saw while spotting. No need for practice. Just grab it and go.

Its all about money. How to make more money.



There's nothing like biting the hand that feeds you

RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
 

DougE,

Weeeeeee're waiting!!!