At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
04-12-2009, 06:02 PM
#121
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
RSB, you said compare pa and ohio fairly but you didnt. A general license in Ohio to deer hunt is 43$. Not 60 some. Most hunters are DEER hunters. But if you want to compare everthing included in the license, And if you are gonna compare by ADDING what pa's base license includes to the price of ohios! Id say ONLY FAIR if the intent isnt complete deception, to add the prices of what is included with ohios general license to PA's as well. Ohio includes muzzleloader and bowhunting on the general license. That brings the tally for Pa at $47. Yet for some reason that ridiculous price comparison chart that was used to fool legislators at the meetingsseems to have neglected to do so, since I suppose 20 had alot more "shock value" than over twice as much?.[:'(] It also neglected to mention ANY of the cheaper states to hunt.[:'(]
Ok, so if an Ohio hunter only wants to hunt deer instead of turkeys too they only have to pay a little over twice as a Pennsylvania hunter. I would be perfectly fine with just doubling the price of a Pennsylvania hunting license then, even without adding the cost of a turkey license too.
As for you comments of neglecting to name states where license are cheaper then Pennsylvania, I can ’t find any. Can you?
Ohio also doesnt fabricate estimated harvest. The number used is the actual number of deer reported.
Pennsylvania’s deer harvests numbers aren’t anymore fabricated then Ohio’s numbers are.
Both states have a long time proven method that works just fine to meet the needs of each state’s deer management program. The fact that Ohio is going to start doing it more like Pennsylvania this year should be an indication that even Ohio thinks the Pennsylvania deer harvest estimates are pretty accurate.
Also you say: "In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year."
Yet it shouldnt make any difference because we have nearly double their hunter numbers to pay the bills.
Sure but their hunters are each paying about two to four times as much to hunt each year as what the Pennsylvania resident hunter has to pay. Plus all of their state residents kick in their fair share for the wildlife management programs as well.
If we had that in this state we could most likely have better wildlife management programs too, maybe we could even afford enough research to have smaller management units. But, since hunters don’t want to pay for better management so they have what they have and that is even becoming less with each passing year of no money.
If paid according to "what its worth" compared to ohio, we would be paying $4.30 for a license. Because we are getting about 1/10th what they are.
That is justyour opinion. But, if things are that bad here by all means go ahead and spend your money where you get the most satisfaction out of it.
RSB, you said compare pa and ohio fairly but you didnt. A general license in Ohio to deer hunt is 43$. Not 60 some. Most hunters are DEER hunters. But if you want to compare everthing included in the license, And if you are gonna compare by ADDING what pa's base license includes to the price of ohios! Id say ONLY FAIR if the intent isnt complete deception, to add the prices of what is included with ohios general license to PA's as well. Ohio includes muzzleloader and bowhunting on the general license. That brings the tally for Pa at $47. Yet for some reason that ridiculous price comparison chart that was used to fool legislators at the meetingsseems to have neglected to do so, since I suppose 20 had alot more "shock value" than over twice as much?.[:'(] It also neglected to mention ANY of the cheaper states to hunt.[:'(]
Ok, so if an Ohio hunter only wants to hunt deer instead of turkeys too they only have to pay a little over twice as a Pennsylvania hunter. I would be perfectly fine with just doubling the price of a Pennsylvania hunting license then, even without adding the cost of a turkey license too.
As for you comments of neglecting to name states where license are cheaper then Pennsylvania, I can ’t find any. Can you?
Ohio also doesnt fabricate estimated harvest. The number used is the actual number of deer reported.
Pennsylvania’s deer harvests numbers aren’t anymore fabricated then Ohio’s numbers are.
Both states have a long time proven method that works just fine to meet the needs of each state’s deer management program. The fact that Ohio is going to start doing it more like Pennsylvania this year should be an indication that even Ohio thinks the Pennsylvania deer harvest estimates are pretty accurate.
Also you say: "In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year."
Yet it shouldnt make any difference because we have nearly double their hunter numbers to pay the bills.
Sure but their hunters are each paying about two to four times as much to hunt each year as what the Pennsylvania resident hunter has to pay. Plus all of their state residents kick in their fair share for the wildlife management programs as well.
If we had that in this state we could most likely have better wildlife management programs too, maybe we could even afford enough research to have smaller management units. But, since hunters don’t want to pay for better management so they have what they have and that is even becoming less with each passing year of no money.
If paid according to "what its worth" compared to ohio, we would be paying $4.30 for a license. Because we are getting about 1/10th what they are.
That is justyour opinion. But, if things are that bad here by all means go ahead and spend your money where you get the most satisfaction out of it.
04-12-2009, 06:22 PM
#122
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 517
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
I did not vote, but i would support it if I knew that 100% was allocated to my states conservation dept. I know it would never happen due to corruption, therefore i wouldnt support it.
04-12-2009, 06:25 PM
#123
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
I have no idea how you could possibly come to such a convoluted and irrational decision. But, just for laughs,let's see if you can come up with a reason why,according to you, the PGC managed the southern tier counties so well and let the herd in the northern tier counties were totally mismanaged according to you ? You can't blame the hunters and politicians because the PGC increased and decreased allocations at will during that period and they also implemented bonus tags in 1988.
No the professional deer managers did not increase or decrease the allocations and deer harvests of the northern tier at will. They haven’t been able to do that for pay more then three decades.
The politicians demanded they be lowered every single time the professionals got deer management headed the right direction of a deer herd in balance with their food supply. I know that for an absolute fact because I stood there and heard a very high powered one tell everyone at a meeting that if the Game Commission didn’t lower the antler less allocations they would strip the agency of their regulatory powers and they would decide how many license to issue. The Game Commission responded and lowered the allocations. That didn’t just happen once, but every single time the northern tier deer herds were attempted to be brought into the correct biological balance.
It didn’t result in having more deer, it resulted in fewer deer. But, it got them the votes they wanted. The deer habitat, deer numbers and hunters are now paying for that horrific mistake. The present Commission has done everything they could not see that same stupid mistake repeated again and over even more areas of this state. It just a shame more hunters can’t open their eyes to the facts of reality and the past before more areas of this state are destroyed.
That simply is not true. The southern tier counties have high recruitment because they have much higher OWDDs than the northern tier counties. A simple analysis of the reproductive rates proves that is the case.
Well of course they have higher over winter deer densities in the southern tier. They have them partly because of the better soil and environmental conditions, but that is only part of the complete reason they have and sustain more over winter deer.
But, the only reason they can sustain those higher deer densities is because they allow hunters to harvest as many deer as they can find and thus protect the deer food supply year after year.
That is also what allows those high fawn recruitment rates too.
The same thing would happen, though perhaps to a lesser degree, if they allowed hunters to harvest as many deer as they could in the other parts of the state too. Hunters just will not allow that to work in more areas of the state though because they don’t know enough about deer management to know it really works the way it does.
The deer numbers in much of the northern tier have been controlled by the various environmental conditions, instead of the low harvests, for a long time. That isn’t good management it is horrible management because it really isn’t management at all. That is what the hunters and politicians demanded and that is what they got.
No the professional deer managers did not increase or decrease the allocations and deer harvests of the northern tier at will. They haven’t been able to do that for pay more then three decades.
The politicians demanded they be lowered every single time the professionals got deer management headed the right direction of a deer herd in balance with their food supply. I know that for an absolute fact because I stood there and heard a very high powered one tell everyone at a meeting that if the Game Commission didn’t lower the antler less allocations they would strip the agency of their regulatory powers and they would decide how many license to issue. The Game Commission responded and lowered the allocations. That didn’t just happen once, but every single time the northern tier deer herds were attempted to be brought into the correct biological balance.
It didn’t result in having more deer, it resulted in fewer deer. But, it got them the votes they wanted. The deer habitat, deer numbers and hunters are now paying for that horrific mistake. The present Commission has done everything they could not see that same stupid mistake repeated again and over even more areas of this state. It just a shame more hunters can’t open their eyes to the facts of reality and the past before more areas of this state are destroyed.
But, the reason those good habitat areas have such high fawn recruitment is because they have been harvesting enough deer to protect the habitat. And, conversely the reason the poor habitat areas have such low fawn recruitment is simply because there isn’t food to keep the does healthy enough to produce and feed the fawns they carried through the winter and spring.
That simply is not true. The southern tier counties have high recruitment because they have much higher OWDDs than the northern tier counties. A simple analysis of the reproductive rates proves that is the case.
Well of course they have higher over winter deer densities in the southern tier. They have them partly because of the better soil and environmental conditions, but that is only part of the complete reason they have and sustain more over winter deer.
But, the only reason they can sustain those higher deer densities is because they allow hunters to harvest as many deer as they can find and thus protect the deer food supply year after year.
That is also what allows those high fawn recruitment rates too.
The same thing would happen, though perhaps to a lesser degree, if they allowed hunters to harvest as many deer as they could in the other parts of the state too. Hunters just will not allow that to work in more areas of the state though because they don’t know enough about deer management to know it really works the way it does.
04-12-2009, 06:39 PM
#124
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: bowtruck
ok rsb just have one question on my land on most days and i am talking 1300 to 1500 you can see about 30 deer
out feeding in the daylight. Yet i have never run across a deer that has starved to death. I nor anyone hunting one hunting on me has killed a thin or almost starved deer. How can 1 property in 3c hold that many deer for atleast 30 years withoutthem self destructing. Yet other areas cant hold 15
ok rsb just have one question on my land on most days and i am talking 1300 to 1500 you can see about 30 deer
out feeding in the daylight. Yet i have never run across a deer that has starved to death. I nor anyone hunting one hunting on me has killed a thin or almost starved deer. How can 1 property in 3c hold that many deer for atleast 30 years withoutthem self destructing. Yet other areas cant hold 15
You obviously have good land that you both wisely and intensely manage if you have deer numbers that high.
I think if a person has fair to high quality land, with both good forest and other mixed habitat management, they can create and maintain the habitat that would easily support 30-60 per square mile.
Most areas of northern tier forest don’t have the soil types, the habitat abilities or long range habitat plans to manage intensely at those levels though. To manage at those high deer density levels would probably mean no mature or marketable forests ever again in our future though. For most people that simply isn’t a realistic option and I tend to agree with them that we should still plan for a sustainable forest as well as sustainable deer numbers.
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-12-2009, 06:49 PM
#125
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: J Pike
RSB your the one that always tries to spin the #'s!!
But in this case you just proved my point!
Ohio has just over half as many hunters per square mile yet they harvest
just 1.34 less deer per square mile despite PA.'s general Firearms season is 14 days in length and HIGH POWERED RIFLES are legal and OH.'s Genral gun season is only 9 days in length and only shotguns and ML.'s are permitted to use. PA. also has the early season state wide firearm seasons and OH. has none.
If you truely wanted to be fair you would have included this info!! Pike
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
So you want to compare Pennsylvania to Ohio? That is fine, but let's do it fairly instead of the biased way you like to compare them.
Number of hunters per square mile:
Ohio……………….10.99
Penna………………20.62
Deer harvests per square mile:
Ohio………………6.15
Penna……………..7.49
ORIGINAL: J Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
So you want to compare Pennsylvania to Ohio? That is fine, but let's do it fairly instead of the biased way you like to compare them.
Number of hunters per square mile:
Ohio……………….10.99
Penna………………20.62
Deer harvests per square mile:
Ohio………………6.15
Penna……………..7.49
But in this case you just proved my point!
Ohio has just over half as many hunters per square mile yet they harvest
just 1.34 less deer per square mile despite PA.'s general Firearms season is 14 days in length and HIGH POWERED RIFLES are legal and OH.'s Genral gun season is only 9 days in length and only shotguns and ML.'s are permitted to use. PA. also has the early season state wide firearm seasons and OH. has none.
If you truely wanted to be fair you would have included this info!! Pike
I certainly didn’t spin any numbers. All I did was point out the facts that some people either don’t understand or don’t what people to know.
If Pennsylvania had half as many hunters as what they do have , like Ohio has, the deer numbers would still be the same. That means it would just be easier for the fewer hunters to harvest the same number of deer as what were once harvested by twice as many hunters, since there would be more deer available per hunter. Therefore the hunter success rate, in Pennsylvania, would likely be just as high or even higher then it is in Ohio.
The point you were trying to make is not valid.
That is just basic math mixed with some good old common sense, you know.
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-12-2009, 07:00 PM
#126
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: J Pike
LMAO!!! You will try to spin anything wont you? As you and everyone else here knows deer are most vulnarable when they are on their feet and once they realize its gun season the deer go under ground and dont move during daylight unless PREASURE from hunters bump them and causes the deer to move!! And the more hunters you have per square mile hunting during gun season ( the season that the majority of PA.'s and OH.'s deer are harvested) the better the chance that any deer in the area are going to get pushed into moving during daylight and killed by hunters. I still cant believe you tried to say that. Pike
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
Therefore, I would suspect that if Pennsylvania only had half as many hunters the hunter success rate here would most likely exceed the success rate in Ohio.
ORIGINAL: J Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
Is that the reason the Pennsylvania hunters, through all of the deer seasons combined, can only harvest fewer then 20% of the tagged and marked antler less deer in the mortality studies? They can’t find them because the deer went under ground while the hunters were looking for them? What are they using when they make this underground exodus, ground hog holes?
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-12-2009, 07:19 PM
#127
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
"It hasn’t been all that long since I hunted in unit 2A and I plan to hunt there again either this fall or during the late flintlock season. I have been seeing signs of over browsing in parts of unit 2A since the mid 1990’s."
According to pgc, the habitat was fine in 2A. Theregeneration was never rated as poor since the first studies which began in 2001, which would have been directly effected by the 69-74 dpsm ow that the counties of the wmu held if ANY of your claims of habitat decline were true...Which they are not. If you have reasonable numbers of deer, there WILL be signs of browsing. Deer browse. Ifregeneration is still occurring, I cant imagine why you'd begrudge a deer of eating t stay alive!!!
"What do you or anyone else have to counter that scientifically collected data?"
Ha ha ha. Nice try. I dont think you need to hearMORE repetition. You know the facts as we 've presented them and they do not support your illogical conclusion.
"As for the EHD mortalities aver a year ago I am sure they were high. Many of those mortality were confirmed and documented by the Game Commission. But, those occurred before the 2007 hunting season so the biggest affect was simply on the 2007 hunter harvests and success rates."
Hardly. This past year, the buck harvest didnt increase. So it was either the ehd, too many tags, or both that reduced the herd.
"I know some of you don’t like to or want to face those facts, but that doesn’t mean the facts aren’t still the facts. "
And your opinions are still opinions. And not based on much. Ive heard your "opinion" over and over and over, yet nothing to back it with. You've had all the pgc data which supports my conclusions pointed out to you, as you say...The facts are facts and you dont have to like them, but that doesnt mean they arent still facts!
We are being bamboozled by the ecoflake agenda which pgc has chosen to run full speed ahead with. Not acceptable imho.
According to pgc, the habitat was fine in 2A. Theregeneration was never rated as poor since the first studies which began in 2001, which would have been directly effected by the 69-74 dpsm ow that the counties of the wmu held if ANY of your claims of habitat decline were true...Which they are not. If you have reasonable numbers of deer, there WILL be signs of browsing. Deer browse. Ifregeneration is still occurring, I cant imagine why you'd begrudge a deer of eating t stay alive!!!
"What do you or anyone else have to counter that scientifically collected data?"
Ha ha ha. Nice try. I dont think you need to hearMORE repetition. You know the facts as we 've presented them and they do not support your illogical conclusion.
"As for the EHD mortalities aver a year ago I am sure they were high. Many of those mortality were confirmed and documented by the Game Commission. But, those occurred before the 2007 hunting season so the biggest affect was simply on the 2007 hunter harvests and success rates."
Hardly. This past year, the buck harvest didnt increase. So it was either the ehd, too many tags, or both that reduced the herd.
"I know some of you don’t like to or want to face those facts, but that doesn’t mean the facts aren’t still the facts. "
And your opinions are still opinions. And not based on much. Ive heard your "opinion" over and over and over, yet nothing to back it with. You've had all the pgc data which supports my conclusions pointed out to you, as you say...The facts are facts and you dont have to like them, but that doesnt mean they arent still facts!
We are being bamboozled by the ecoflake agenda which pgc has chosen to run full speed ahead with. Not acceptable imho.
04-12-2009, 07:33 PM
#128
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
"I think if a person has fair to high quality land, with both good forest and other mixed habitat management, they can create and maintain the habitat that would easily support 30-60 per square mile."
As should be the case in 2Aand others among the best in the state... But no, the best have to go tolows no other statesare intentionally trying for for their better areas! Thats bullsquat.
"As for you comments of neglecting to name states where license are cheaper then Pennsylvania, I can ’t find any. Can you? "
Absolutely. There are some that are cheaper when comparing nothing more than base license to base license, and there are some that are far cheaper for what you get for each license factored into each equally. I think it important to know which, because if we go one way, say I mention a cheaper state, you'll say " yeah but they dont give you..." So if you go the other way and do what each gives you and add on equally for each, I gave you one HELLUVA example in the WV combo license. 33 bucks...Includes trapping, bowhunting, muzzleload, gives you 3 deer permits, AND fishing priveledges!! Thats according to WV Gino anyway. Want one I know of to be cheaper just at face value? Georgia comes to mind, hafta look into...and id have to look into others...
"Pennsylvania’s deer harvests numbers aren’t anymore fabricated then Ohio’s numbers are."
Point was, you were comparingestimated harvest to actual reported harvest.
"Sure but their hunters are each paying about two to four times as much to hunt each year as what the Pennsylvania resident hunter has to pay. Plus all of their state residents kick in their fair share for the wildlife management programs as well."
I would be more than happy to pay 2 to 4 times the price if our hunting was anywhere near the quality of that found in ohio. Its far from it and getting further by the day. I understand some of thedifferences, but SOME of our differences are self inflicted.
"That is justyour opinion. But, if things are that bad here by all means go ahead and spend your money where you get the most satisfaction out of it. "
Absolutely thats "my opinion" which is shared by many. I'll spend my money in Ohio some years when I have the time and ability to take enough days to make it worthwhile as Ive always done. I hunt there once in a blue moon. Fact is, that shouldnt stop anyone from fighting for "decent" hunting right here. And it wont.
As should be the case in 2Aand others among the best in the state... But no, the best have to go tolows no other statesare intentionally trying for for their better areas! Thats bullsquat.
"As for you comments of neglecting to name states where license are cheaper then Pennsylvania, I can ’t find any. Can you? "
Absolutely. There are some that are cheaper when comparing nothing more than base license to base license, and there are some that are far cheaper for what you get for each license factored into each equally. I think it important to know which, because if we go one way, say I mention a cheaper state, you'll say " yeah but they dont give you..." So if you go the other way and do what each gives you and add on equally for each, I gave you one HELLUVA example in the WV combo license. 33 bucks...Includes trapping, bowhunting, muzzleload, gives you 3 deer permits, AND fishing priveledges!! Thats according to WV Gino anyway. Want one I know of to be cheaper just at face value? Georgia comes to mind, hafta look into...and id have to look into others...
"Pennsylvania’s deer harvests numbers aren’t anymore fabricated then Ohio’s numbers are."
Point was, you were comparingestimated harvest to actual reported harvest.
"Sure but their hunters are each paying about two to four times as much to hunt each year as what the Pennsylvania resident hunter has to pay. Plus all of their state residents kick in their fair share for the wildlife management programs as well."
I would be more than happy to pay 2 to 4 times the price if our hunting was anywhere near the quality of that found in ohio. Its far from it and getting further by the day. I understand some of thedifferences, but SOME of our differences are self inflicted.
"That is justyour opinion. But, if things are that bad here by all means go ahead and spend your money where you get the most satisfaction out of it. "
Absolutely thats "my opinion" which is shared by many. I'll spend my money in Ohio some years when I have the time and ability to take enough days to make it worthwhile as Ive always done. I hunt there once in a blue moon. Fact is, that shouldnt stop anyone from fighting for "decent" hunting right here. And it wont.
04-12-2009, 07:48 PM
#129
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
ORIGINAL: J Pike
RSB. First off you are lieing about OH. hunters having to pay over 3 times as much to hunt deer and turkey.
Not according to the Ohio site that explains and sells them.
Resident License Fees
6 months residency required)
Resident hunting licenses are $19 for adults, $10 for youth (under 18) and seniors (65-70). Licenses for those over 70 are issued at no charge. In addition to the general license, hunters will need a special permit for the type of hunting (deer, waterfowl, wild turkey, etc.). See Additional permits
Additional permits are required for each type of hunting. 2008 fall turkey permits are $24 for adults and $12 for youth and seniors.
2008 Deer permits are also $24 for adults and $12 for youth and seniors.
Here is the link:
http://cleveland.about.com/od/sports...inglicense.htm
Second, ofcourse OH. hunters are going to have to pay more to hunt because they have less than half as many hunters.
But you are right that the ODNR receives money from the genral fund, How is that a bad thing?
I didn’t say it was bad. I think itwould bea good thing for the future of the resources and hunting.
It is the hunters of this state, and especially this web site that say it would be bad.
The PGC. claims that they are an """ Independant Agency""" but other than funds their is nothing independant about them!! PLEASE EXPLAIN what is so "" independant"" about the PGC. other than how it is funded? And the hunters in OH. have a say on how things are done by the ODNR. and here in PA. our hunters have zero say!!
Here in PA. the Farm Bureau, DCNR, Audobon Soc. and timber industry control the PGC. ( thats why we do not and never will have sunday hunting and are trying to manage our herd at under 10 dpsm)
In contrast in OH. the hunters wanted sunday hunting and boom they got it!! They wanted their gun season to be extended and boom they got it!!
they wanted a youth either sex gun season smack dab in the middle of the rut and boom they got it!!
Hunters have a voice in this state too, even if they don’t get everything they demand.
In this state we do our best to manage with first consideration to the resource instead of just giving hunters everything they want to make it easier to exploit the resources.
Oh thats right the PGC. just made crossbows legal even though 9 out of 10 PA. hunters didnt want them!! Pike
I don’t know that 9 out of 10 hunters didn’t want them and either do you.
In fact I know that flat out isn’t even close to be a true statement since about 20 % or more of all licensed archers in this state already had a permit to use a crossbow and many others in the special regulations areas were already using them because they didn’t need a permit.
Plus archery hunters are only a small part of the total hunters and more hunter simply didn’t care one way or the other about crossbows.
Besides they are legal in Ohio and since you always tell us how much better it is in Ohio why not make them legal here, just like in Ohio.
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
But, since we should be talking about license fees how about we go ahead and do that.
In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year. Every resident in their state pays for wildlife management and conservation, unlike here in Pennsylvania where all of the wildlife management is paid for by hunter dollars. Ohio also still gets thier share of P-R funds from the Federal Government, based on license sales, the same as Pennsylvania and every other state, too.
Yet, an Ohio resident pays over three times as much to hunt deer and turkey as what a Pennsylvania resident pays.
So, I agree lets get our hunting license prices on par with Ohio and still have all of the state’s tax payers supporting wildlife management and conservation with their general taxes. I suspect if we do that we will only have half as many hunters as what we have now, and compare with Ohio’s hunter numbers. I suspect those hunters will still be able to harvest more deer then they do in Ohio though so our hunter success rate would then also be much higher then it is in Ohio.
How about that I agree with Pike we need to be more like Ohio.
So, you should march right down to you Legislator’s office tomorrow morning and demand that the Pennsylvania hunting license prices triple. Also demand that even after they do that the Game Commission still should to be funded from the state’s general taxes so everyone, instead of just hunters, pays thier share for wildlife management, just like things are done in Ohio.
Do you still want to compare and tell us how good they have it in Ohio?
R.S. Bodenhorn
ORIGINAL: J Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
RSB. on very negative note 924,000 PA. deer hunters only harvested 335,850 deer during the 2008-09 season.
Meanwhile over in OH. 450,000 deer hunters harvested 252,017 deer during the 2008-09 season.
But I have a really good idea for the PGC., since the PGC. supporters on this site claim that the large majority of the hunters in PA. support the PGC. and the lic. fee increase why doesnt the PGC. just ask the hunters who do not bow hunt to purchase a bow stamp this year? The hunters who do not bear hunt to purchase a bear permit? And the hunters who do not turkey hunt to purchase a turkey tag and so on? No need for the legislature to get involved and no need for a Lic. fee increase. Pike
In Ohio their Conservation Department is not self funded, like here in Pennsylvania. They got their money, to operate, directly from their state general fund tax dollars every year. Every resident in their state pays for wildlife management and conservation, unlike here in Pennsylvania where all of the wildlife management is paid for by hunter dollars. Ohio also still gets thier share of P-R funds from the Federal Government, based on license sales, the same as Pennsylvania and every other state, too.
Yet, an Ohio resident pays over three times as much to hunt deer and turkey as what a Pennsylvania resident pays.
So, I agree lets get our hunting license prices on par with Ohio and still have all of the state’s tax payers supporting wildlife management and conservation with their general taxes. I suspect if we do that we will only have half as many hunters as what we have now, and compare with Ohio’s hunter numbers. I suspect those hunters will still be able to harvest more deer then they do in Ohio though so our hunter success rate would then also be much higher then it is in Ohio.
How about that I agree with Pike we need to be more like Ohio.
So, you should march right down to you Legislator’s office tomorrow morning and demand that the Pennsylvania hunting license prices triple. Also demand that even after they do that the Game Commission still should to be funded from the state’s general taxes so everyone, instead of just hunters, pays thier share for wildlife management, just like things are done in Ohio.
Do you still want to compare and tell us how good they have it in Ohio?
R.S. Bodenhorn
Not according to the Ohio site that explains and sells them.
Resident License Fees
6 months residency required)Resident hunting licenses are $19 for adults, $10 for youth (under 18) and seniors (65-70). Licenses for those over 70 are issued at no charge. In addition to the general license, hunters will need a special permit for the type of hunting (deer, waterfowl, wild turkey, etc.). See Additional permits
Additional permits are required for each type of hunting. 2008 fall turkey permits are $24 for adults and $12 for youth and seniors.
2008 Deer permits are also $24 for adults and $12 for youth and seniors.
Here is the link:
http://cleveland.about.com/od/sports...inglicense.htm
Second, ofcourse OH. hunters are going to have to pay more to hunt because they have less than half as many hunters.
But you are right that the ODNR receives money from the genral fund, How is that a bad thing?
I didn’t say it was bad. I think itwould bea good thing for the future of the resources and hunting.
It is the hunters of this state, and especially this web site that say it would be bad.
The PGC. claims that they are an """ Independant Agency""" but other than funds their is nothing independant about them!! PLEASE EXPLAIN what is so "" independant"" about the PGC. other than how it is funded? And the hunters in OH. have a say on how things are done by the ODNR. and here in PA. our hunters have zero say!!
Here in PA. the Farm Bureau, DCNR, Audobon Soc. and timber industry control the PGC. ( thats why we do not and never will have sunday hunting and are trying to manage our herd at under 10 dpsm)
In contrast in OH. the hunters wanted sunday hunting and boom they got it!! They wanted their gun season to be extended and boom they got it!!
they wanted a youth either sex gun season smack dab in the middle of the rut and boom they got it!!
Hunters have a voice in this state too, even if they don’t get everything they demand.
In this state we do our best to manage with first consideration to the resource instead of just giving hunters everything they want to make it easier to exploit the resources.
Oh thats right the PGC. just made crossbows legal even though 9 out of 10 PA. hunters didnt want them!! Pike
I don’t know that 9 out of 10 hunters didn’t want them and either do you.
In fact I know that flat out isn’t even close to be a true statement since about 20 % or more of all licensed archers in this state already had a permit to use a crossbow and many others in the special regulations areas were already using them because they didn’t need a permit.
Plus archery hunters are only a small part of the total hunters and more hunter simply didn’t care one way or the other about crossbows.
Besides they are legal in Ohio and since you always tell us how much better it is in Ohio why not make them legal here, just like in Ohio.
04-12-2009, 08:01 PM
#130
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: At this period of time, do you favor a hunting license increase?
"I didn’t say it was bad. I think itwould bea good thing for the future of the resources and hunting.
It is the hunters of this state, and especially this web site that say it would be bad. "
It would be. In THIS state, and in the situation we are in with eco-wienies running the show.
Hunters have a voice in this state too, even if they don’t get everything they demand. "
Apparently wedont agree with you. I see NO voice these days...Nada zip, el zero! Its not that wedont get everything....We get NOTHING we ask for.
"In this state we do our best to manage with first consideration to the resource instead of just giving hunters everything they want to make it easier to exploit the resources."
That is a VERY VERY polite and self serving description as seen from anyone other than an extremists view.
BTW, South Carolinas hunting license is 18.00 That price Includes turkey deer and all the feral hogs you can shoot.
Also have a combo hunting and fishing license at a paltry $25.
Georgia cost $19(10 +9biggame)you can hunt alot more than pa with it. Also have a very cheap hunting+fishing combo license. $17 + $9 biggame.
Pa isnt even close to being a "deal" compared to other states, and its gonna be far less of one if we get a fee increase. The fee will ten be among the higher states, and us withhalf the hunting quality and a ridiculous managementstrategy which they should be paying USrestitution for, not collecting more money!
It is the hunters of this state, and especially this web site that say it would be bad. "
It would be. In THIS state, and in the situation we are in with eco-wienies running the show.
Hunters have a voice in this state too, even if they don’t get everything they demand. "
Apparently wedont agree with you. I see NO voice these days...Nada zip, el zero! Its not that wedont get everything....We get NOTHING we ask for.
"In this state we do our best to manage with first consideration to the resource instead of just giving hunters everything they want to make it easier to exploit the resources."
That is a VERY VERY polite and self serving description as seen from anyone other than an extremists view.
BTW, South Carolinas hunting license is 18.00 That price Includes turkey deer and all the feral hogs you can shoot.
Also have a combo hunting and fishing license at a paltry $25.
Georgia cost $19(10 +9biggame)you can hunt alot more than pa with it. Also have a very cheap hunting+fishing combo license. $17 + $9 biggame.
Pa isnt even close to being a "deal" compared to other states, and its gonna be far less of one if we get a fee increase. The fee will ten be among the higher states, and us withhalf the hunting quality and a ridiculous managementstrategy which they should be paying USrestitution for, not collecting more money!