Levdansky No Friend To The Hunters Of PA
03-19-2009 | 08:21 AM
#11
Fork Horn
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
RE: Levdansky No Friend To The Hunters Of PA
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
If anyone has a solution to 'alternate funding': while still in the process IMPROVING and not even further diminishing the hunter voice in matters, as well as having pgc accountable for management decisionsIm all ears.
If anyone has a solution to 'alternate funding': while still in the process IMPROVING and not even further diminishing the hunter voice in matters, as well as having pgc accountable for management decisionsIm all ears.
This creates more checks and balances, departments receiving charges from the PGC, would take more of an interest at budget reviews and make the PGC more accountable for their actions. In the case of the bats, it would bemore work in man hours, but all expenses would be transferred to the proper state department.
This will not improve our hunting or voice in decisions, but allow more of our license fees to be AVAILABLE for game species. The biggest reason, I see, for the PGC not to want something like this is it could downsize them. Some of those departments charged, could possibly want to perform the duties with their own people, reducing the head count of the PGC.
03-19-2009 | 08:45 AM
#12
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Levdansky No Friend To The Hunters Of PA
Respectfully, coalcracker, I dont think I like that idea. It doesnt really address my concerns. And in fact, it makes them worse imho. Pgc has had plenty of cash to do many studies and pr to launch and continue this deer management sham, so money for game shouldnt be a problem with license sales alone, with a reasonable increase when it is deserved. But by separating nongame funding at the moment, and giving all license sales money to game fundingwe would be giving pgc more money to MISMANAGE our game animals. What good would it be to give them MORE money to create even more"how deer kill the forest" videos, start more "in school" educating of need for deer decimation,make their "habitat tours" much better advertised and efficient, and theirpamphlet and brochures go further....who knows, maybe start mailing them to all citizens of the state? Why not? Theyd have more money than they knew what to do with. And to do as they see fit. And god only knows what all that might entail.
I dont know about you, but Id rather see my money spent on the bats and the damn allegheny rat than spend it to cut my own throat. More money while mismanagement is occurring imho is a big problem. Thats also how legislators have seen it, and why pgc hasnt gotten that fee increase in the first place.
There are definately ways to get pgc funded, and your suggestion is definatly one worthy of consideration, but I dont see any of them as a good idea with no pgc accountability and improved hunter input etc. Thats what Id like to hear, if anyone had any ideas how that can be improved so that the added funding isnt causing more problems than its solving.
I dont know about you, but Id rather see my money spent on the bats and the damn allegheny rat than spend it to cut my own throat. More money while mismanagement is occurring imho is a big problem. Thats also how legislators have seen it, and why pgc hasnt gotten that fee increase in the first place.
There are definately ways to get pgc funded, and your suggestion is definatly one worthy of consideration, but I dont see any of them as a good idea with no pgc accountability and improved hunter input etc. Thats what Id like to hear, if anyone had any ideas how that can be improved so that the added funding isnt causing more problems than its solving.
03-19-2009 | 12:01 PM
#13
Fork Horn
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
RE: Levdansky No Friend To The Hunters Of PA
My approach was a non bias one, it was not for the current situation, but a long term solution without giving an agency a blank check.
There are more ways than one to slit your own throat and not looking to the future is another.
As an example I'll use my own township. When I moved here in 1970, it was mostly populated by farmers, which my father-in-law was one. To prevent development and having outsiders take over their township, they set up zoning to control this situation. One of the rules they developed was only allowing you to sell of 10% of your land, plus one acre.
Fast forward 30 years to 2000. After thirty years of selling offthe lots they were allowed, what they called outsiders, outnumbered the farmers. Now these 30 and 40 year old farmers were aging and ready to retire. With the rules they put into effect, instead of their farms being worth a million dollars or more, which was the case in surrounding townships, their farms were lucky to bring fifty cents on the dollar. These same farmers tried toreverse this rule, but the outsiders said, no way.
I had inherited along with my brother-in-law, around 65 acres with a home, barn and outbuilding, with over 50 acres high, dry, flat and under the plow. We each took an acre lot, he for his son and I sold mine for $97,000 in 2003, within 10 days. We auctioned off the farm house, building, etc., along with 10 of the best acres and road frontage, we only received $270,000 for it, as the land had no value, because it couldn't be sub divived. Had this been another township, it would have sold for $500,000 plus.
As you see there are short term solutions and long term, but don't take the short term in all cases, it might come back to bit you in the aaa some day.
There are more ways than one to slit your own throat and not looking to the future is another.
As an example I'll use my own township. When I moved here in 1970, it was mostly populated by farmers, which my father-in-law was one. To prevent development and having outsiders take over their township, they set up zoning to control this situation. One of the rules they developed was only allowing you to sell of 10% of your land, plus one acre.
Fast forward 30 years to 2000. After thirty years of selling offthe lots they were allowed, what they called outsiders, outnumbered the farmers. Now these 30 and 40 year old farmers were aging and ready to retire. With the rules they put into effect, instead of their farms being worth a million dollars or more, which was the case in surrounding townships, their farms were lucky to bring fifty cents on the dollar. These same farmers tried toreverse this rule, but the outsiders said, no way.
I had inherited along with my brother-in-law, around 65 acres with a home, barn and outbuilding, with over 50 acres high, dry, flat and under the plow. We each took an acre lot, he for his son and I sold mine for $97,000 in 2003, within 10 days. We auctioned off the farm house, building, etc., along with 10 of the best acres and road frontage, we only received $270,000 for it, as the land had no value, because it couldn't be sub divived. Had this been another township, it would have sold for $500,000 plus.
As you see there are short term solutions and long term, but don't take the short term in all cases, it might come back to bit you in the aaa some day.
07-27-2009 | 04:33 PM
#15
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
Well the weasel is still at it.
http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...levdansky.html
And as you can see he is in "good"
company. You have the ecoflakes from "penn future" Other Pa "conservancy groups" and Ms. Antideer Kathy Davis by his side, all giving testimony supporting severance gas tax to pay pgc.
http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...anagement.html
Very funny the show ms. Davis has been putting on the last year or so to appear to be "pro-hunting". When she is nothing more than an ecoextremist "plant" with little interest, but willing to go the extra mile towards her and fellow extremists agendas towards environmentalist extremism.
It has been a very interesting metamorphisis on her part going from a borderline antihunter working for dep and conservation extremist her only cause, having pushed for VERY hunter nonfriendly legislation in the past, also voting for fewer deer on the cac, even though the herd was deemed suitable by pgc for "stabilization".
....now only recently being nominated by dep friends in two sportsmens magazines as a champion of the outdoors. lol. Not to mention becoming a QDMA officer. And posting continually in a VERY pro-hunting fashion on HPA lol.
Seems she "became" a hunter the minute she decided to seek that commissioner chair at pgc for the southwest region since it was a necessity. Thankfully concerned sportsmen found out about her plight and nipped it in the bud by petitioning strongly against her nomination.
So, Kat, you didnt get it, you dont have to pretend anymore. Unless perhaps you have another position in mind where the designation of "hunter" might be convenient?
http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...levdansky.html
And as you can see he is in "good"
company. You have the ecoflakes from "penn future" Other Pa "conservancy groups" and Ms. Antideer Kathy Davis by his side, all giving testimony supporting severance gas tax to pay pgc.http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...anagement.html
Very funny the show ms. Davis has been putting on the last year or so to appear to be "pro-hunting". When she is nothing more than an ecoextremist "plant" with little interest, but willing to go the extra mile towards her and fellow extremists agendas towards environmentalist extremism.
It has been a very interesting metamorphisis on her part going from a borderline antihunter working for dep and conservation extremist her only cause, having pushed for VERY hunter nonfriendly legislation in the past, also voting for fewer deer on the cac, even though the herd was deemed suitable by pgc for "stabilization".
....now only recently being nominated by dep friends in two sportsmens magazines as a champion of the outdoors. lol. Not to mention becoming a QDMA officer. And posting continually in a VERY pro-hunting fashion on HPA lol.
Seems she "became" a hunter the minute she decided to seek that commissioner chair at pgc for the southwest region since it was a necessity. Thankfully concerned sportsmen found out about her plight and nipped it in the bud by petitioning strongly against her nomination.
So, Kat, you didnt get it, you dont have to pretend anymore. Unless perhaps you have another position in mind where the designation of "hunter" might be convenient?
Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-27-2009 at 04:50 PM.
07-27-2009 | 07:48 PM
#16
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Well the weasel is still at it.
http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...levdansky.html
And as you can see he is in "good" company. You have the ecoflakes from "penn future" Other Pa "conservancy groups" and Ms. Antideer Kathy Davis by his side, all giving testimony supporting severance gas tax to pay pgc.
http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...anagement.html
Very funny the show ms. Davis has been putting on the last year or so to appear to be "pro-hunting". When she is nothing more than an ecoextremist "plant" with little interest, but willing to go the extra mile towards her and fellow extremists agendas towards environmentalist extremism.
It has been a very interesting metamorphisis on her part going from a borderline antihunter working for dep and conservation extremist her only cause, having pushed for VERY hunter nonfriendly legislation in the past, also voting for fewer deer on the cac, even though the herd was deemed suitable by pgc for "stabilization".
....now only recently being nominated by dep friends in two sportsmens magazines as a champion of the outdoors. lol. Not to mention becoming a QDMA officer. And posting continually in a VERY pro-hunting fashion on HPA lol.
Seems she "became" a hunter the minute she decided to seek that commissioner chair at pgc for the southwest region since it was a necessity. Thankfully concerned sportsmen found out about her plight and nipped it in the bud by petitioning strongly against her nomination.
So, Kat, you didnt get it, you dont have to pretend anymore. Unless perhaps you have another position in mind where the designation of "hunter" might be convenient?
http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...levdansky.html
And as you can see he is in "good"
company. You have the ecoflakes from "penn future" Other Pa "conservancy groups" and Ms. Antideer Kathy Davis by his side, all giving testimony supporting severance gas tax to pay pgc.http://paenvirovideolibrary.blogspot...anagement.html
Very funny the show ms. Davis has been putting on the last year or so to appear to be "pro-hunting". When she is nothing more than an ecoextremist "plant" with little interest, but willing to go the extra mile towards her and fellow extremists agendas towards environmentalist extremism.
It has been a very interesting metamorphisis on her part going from a borderline antihunter working for dep and conservation extremist her only cause, having pushed for VERY hunter nonfriendly legislation in the past, also voting for fewer deer on the cac, even though the herd was deemed suitable by pgc for "stabilization".
....now only recently being nominated by dep friends in two sportsmens magazines as a champion of the outdoors. lol. Not to mention becoming a QDMA officer. And posting continually in a VERY pro-hunting fashion on HPA lol.
Seems she "became" a hunter the minute she decided to seek that commissioner chair at pgc for the southwest region since it was a necessity. Thankfully concerned sportsmen found out about her plight and nipped it in the bud by petitioning strongly against her nomination.
So, Kat, you didnt get it, you dont have to pretend anymore. Unless perhaps you have another position in mind where the designation of "hunter" might be convenient?
Besides her outdoor knowledge, her Marine training, and years of dedicated service to our country and freedoms, has undoubtedly left her better qualified to represent the people of this state and country then you ever have or could.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-28-2009 | 01:54 AM
#17
Typical Buck
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
From:
For the majority of my career I have been apposed to any outside funding being used for wildlife management. But, it has become very obvious in recent times that it simply isn"™t going to be possible for hunter dollars alone to keep wildlife management financially solvent and I"™m not sure hunter dollars should.
Everyone in this state benefits from wildlife management, some just more directly or more obviously then others. But, just like the situation that occurring right now with this white-nose syndrome killing bats we are dealing with something that has a potential to be not only a serious environmental issue but perhaps even a human health issue. The hunters are presently funding the research on this issue and even much more money should be put into trying to find out what is happening, why it is happening and how to control it. Why should hunters be the only people in this state paying for the research and management of non-game species? How long can hunters continue to be the only ones paying for the research of the species for which everyone benefits?
The day simply has to gone when tax dollars will have to be used if we are going to have proper and effective wildlife management. Many wildlife management programs are already GREATLY suffering from a lack of research due to the lack of funds to conduct the research. How long do we want to have wildlife management that is less then it could be should be before we say it is time for everyone to pay their fair share.
I understand, all too well, the concerns about non-hunters having a voice. But, they already have a voice. They are already in the game and even winning the pot at times. If they are already in the game and winning part of the wildlife management pot, why in the heck are we so opposed to making them ante up?
Nearly all other states use at least some tax dollars for the various programs of their state Conservation Agencies and it seems to be working pretty well there. I think if hunters worked with both the Conservation Agencies and State Legislature toward some form of equitable split between tax dollars, of some form, and hunting license dollars it could work to everyone advantage. I can tell you right now the day has to come, if it isn"™t already here, when hunter dollars alone just isn"™t going to get the job done. The sooner hunters realize that and start to work toward a logical funding solution the better chance hunters have of maintaining a strong voice in the future.
Though I don"™t like this tax of oil from public or private lands I think Representative Levdansky is on the right track for the future by trying to find alternative funding solutions that would put more money in the coffers of wildlife management then just hunting license dollars.
R.S. Bodenhorn
Everyone in this state benefits from wildlife management, some just more directly or more obviously then others. But, just like the situation that occurring right now with this white-nose syndrome killing bats we are dealing with something that has a potential to be not only a serious environmental issue but perhaps even a human health issue. The hunters are presently funding the research on this issue and even much more money should be put into trying to find out what is happening, why it is happening and how to control it. Why should hunters be the only people in this state paying for the research and management of non-game species? How long can hunters continue to be the only ones paying for the research of the species for which everyone benefits?
The day simply has to gone when tax dollars will have to be used if we are going to have proper and effective wildlife management. Many wildlife management programs are already GREATLY suffering from a lack of research due to the lack of funds to conduct the research. How long do we want to have wildlife management that is less then it could be should be before we say it is time for everyone to pay their fair share.
I understand, all too well, the concerns about non-hunters having a voice. But, they already have a voice. They are already in the game and even winning the pot at times. If they are already in the game and winning part of the wildlife management pot, why in the heck are we so opposed to making them ante up?
Nearly all other states use at least some tax dollars for the various programs of their state Conservation Agencies and it seems to be working pretty well there. I think if hunters worked with both the Conservation Agencies and State Legislature toward some form of equitable split between tax dollars, of some form, and hunting license dollars it could work to everyone advantage. I can tell you right now the day has to come, if it isn"™t already here, when hunter dollars alone just isn"™t going to get the job done. The sooner hunters realize that and start to work toward a logical funding solution the better chance hunters have of maintaining a strong voice in the future.
Though I don"™t like this tax of oil from public or private lands I think Representative Levdansky is on the right track for the future by trying to find alternative funding solutions that would put more money in the coffers of wildlife management then just hunting license dollars.
R.S. Bodenhorn
Is that the same as taking a flying leap...LMAO!!!!!!!!
07-28-2009 | 04:07 AM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
From: Ohio,mid
I do not see where the majority of hunters will accept a fee increase in the license fees, i do see that if improvements in the overal game management programs as described by several forum participants over the year, it would be acceptable to increase the license fee, but not a fee for 'NO' seeming improvements. This shale tax is a new found source of money and many states have seen funding increases by instituting it. PGC just wants a share of any money and legislators want some say of how it is divied up so they can tell their constituents "hey, I voted for more hunting opportunities, etc". This is not about game plans, management, doe license, rat studies or even caring about the hunters. This is money for your constiuentcies(sp?) and how you can stay in office by saying you increased funding by umpteen million dollars for your area!! Right now money talks nothing else matters in the overall scheme of things. Don't go falling in love w/ alternative sources of funding Levandusky quite yet, it is ALL about money.
07-28-2009 | 05:26 AM
#19
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
"It sounds like you are very bitter about a woman having not only more outdoor knowledge and wisdom then you, but probably being a better hunter too"
Pathetic attempt at a jab or a very good attempt at humor....not sure which. I have no problem with a woman with more knowledge than me in regards to the outdoors. But not a blathering idiot..male or female.
The only thing anyone should be "bitter" about is the screwing the hunters of Pa are and have been getting thanks to a few ecoflakes.
Her outdoor knowledge as you put it, is extremely limited to econut agenda items which makes it basically "half baked"... and hunter? lmao. Good one RSB. Not many "real" hunters will mistake that'n as a "fellow hunter". Especially if they knew her for the last few years. LMAO I truely wonder if she even knows a deer track from a oppossum track. Im almost certain she knows what various bird species look like however.
"Besides her outdoor knowledge, her Marine training, and years of dedicated service to our country and freedoms, has undoubtedly left her better qualified to represent the people of this state and country then you ever have or could."
Hardly. While her stint in the service is commendable, there are more than enough idiots that are still idiots despite wether or not they were in the marines, wether they were a doctor mechanic coal miner or a catholic priest. This person is bad news. I only expected someone who is borderline antihunter such as yourself, who said hunters should take a flying leap with their money would stick up for a fellow eco-extremist. I myself am far more concerned with what people such as this are doing currently to screw over 900,000 of our hunters than something that has nothing to do with the subject....like what their occupation was 30 years ago, back when they were 18.
She also represents VERY few in this state, as VERY few are seeking to implement the total ecoextreme agenda she is pushing. Society does not hold such obtuse views. You few speak for yourselves and noone else.
Pathetic attempt at a jab or a very good attempt at humor....not sure which. I have no problem with a woman with more knowledge than me in regards to the outdoors. But not a blathering idiot..male or female.
The only thing anyone should be "bitter" about is the screwing the hunters of Pa are and have been getting thanks to a few ecoflakes.
Her outdoor knowledge as you put it, is extremely limited to econut agenda items which makes it basically "half baked"... and hunter? lmao. Good one RSB. Not many "real" hunters will mistake that'n as a "fellow hunter". Especially if they knew her for the last few years. LMAO I truely wonder if she even knows a deer track from a oppossum track. Im almost certain she knows what various bird species look like however.
"Besides her outdoor knowledge, her Marine training, and years of dedicated service to our country and freedoms, has undoubtedly left her better qualified to represent the people of this state and country then you ever have or could."
Hardly. While her stint in the service is commendable, there are more than enough idiots that are still idiots despite wether or not they were in the marines, wether they were a doctor mechanic coal miner or a catholic priest. This person is bad news. I only expected someone who is borderline antihunter such as yourself, who said hunters should take a flying leap with their money would stick up for a fellow eco-extremist. I myself am far more concerned with what people such as this are doing currently to screw over 900,000 of our hunters than something that has nothing to do with the subject....like what their occupation was 30 years ago, back when they were 18.
She also represents VERY few in this state, as VERY few are seeking to implement the total ecoextreme agenda she is pushing. Society does not hold such obtuse views. You few speak for yourselves and noone else.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-28-2009 at 05:53 AM.
07-28-2009 | 05:38 AM
#20
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
Buckhunter, I agree about the politicians. You have those who actu'ally are "hunter oriented" pandering to the outdoorsmen of the state for votes. Then on the other hand you have the total econut cut-throats to hunters who also do the same... And ALL as you stated correctly i belive...looking to recieve and return favor of votes on other issues.
Those who support the deer slaughter for the econuts say they are simply supporting more hunter opportunity. Then when pushing for alternate funding to further cut off the hunter voice, they are "helping" us by granting funding so pgc can provide more services for US! lol.
Seems pgc has forgotten that they are supposed to be an "independant" agency? Guess they are willing to part with that independence in favor of cash. Mighty funny Kdavis and other pgc flunkies who preach over and over and over to anyone who will listen on hpa website not to go to legislators and to KEEP LEGISLATORS OUT AT ALL COSTS.... are the ones on their knees begging legislators to give them money. Money that an "independent" agency should have no part of. Money straight from the state coffers.
Whats funny due to us having so many hunters they already have as much or more funding currently than any other state in the nation including those with alternate funding, AND we have the gas on the gamelands....another funding source they didnt have previously... yet a license fee increase is on the horizon and alternate funding. Would be really a mess to see them get BOTH. lol. Maybe they could then afford sharpshooters to come in and shoot the deer with gold plated bullets?
All that money, and we will STILL be the state with deer wars, econuts running the show and the lowest hunter satisfaction in the entire nation.
Those who support the deer slaughter for the econuts say they are simply supporting more hunter opportunity. Then when pushing for alternate funding to further cut off the hunter voice, they are "helping" us by granting funding so pgc can provide more services for US! lol.
Seems pgc has forgotten that they are supposed to be an "independant" agency? Guess they are willing to part with that independence in favor of cash. Mighty funny Kdavis and other pgc flunkies who preach over and over and over to anyone who will listen on hpa website not to go to legislators and to KEEP LEGISLATORS OUT AT ALL COSTS.... are the ones on their knees begging legislators to give them money. Money that an "independent" agency should have no part of. Money straight from the state coffers.
Whats funny due to us having so many hunters they already have as much or more funding currently than any other state in the nation including those with alternate funding, AND we have the gas on the gamelands....another funding source they didnt have previously... yet a license fee increase is on the horizon and alternate funding. Would be really a mess to see them get BOTH. lol. Maybe they could then afford sharpshooters to come in and shoot the deer with gold plated bullets?
All that money, and we will STILL be the state with deer wars, econuts running the show and the lowest hunter satisfaction in the entire nation.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-28-2009 at 06:13 AM.