:party0005: Do I get a cookie?

I can agree with you steel , But ok we just cut off our foot. Now who is at the helm and in charge of all the wildlife. With the democrats in charge of almost every thing.
I dont want Mr Governor running the show. Or some and or most of our other elected officials.
Corne you want my better alternative. VOTE THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN offices.
Ufortionalty right know i dont see any better options than the pgc. But if you have one,Iam all ears

"I can agree with you steel , But ok we just cut off our foot. Now who is at the helm and in charge of all the wildlife. With the democrats in charge of almost every thing.
I dont want Mr Governor running the show. Or some and or most of our other elected officials."

Thats already the case with Governors role in appointing commissioners, as well as his ability to remove commissioners not bowing on command.

"Corne you want my better alternative. VOTE THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN offices."

Unfortunately there is no way to know every politicians position on deer management before they are elected. I guess it doesnt rank as high as other issues with the nonhunting majority whom vote. Im sure some would not care to volunteer to go into detail pre-election either, especially if its known to be unpopular position. While the idea of voting for those who you believe are the best for the job holds merit, its not the cure short or long term we are looking for.

"Ufortionalty right know i dont see any better options than the pgc. But if you have one,Iam all ears "

Ive already given it to you, and I stand by the statement 100%. Countering political pressure needs to be applied and pgc needs to feel the squeeze. legislators need our support to do whatever it takes to right the ship. Continuing to prevent the fee increase would most certainly do the job, and the definate most effective route, which pgc fears for very good reason. But it will only pan out if the legislators are willing to follow through to the end forcing pgc to bend or break. Otherwise it will have been effort completely wasted.

Pgc has barely begun to sweat so far. They are still operating business as usual. They arent in danger of going out of business yet and they know it so are happy to hold out as long as possible hoping the legislators dont call their bluff.

Who would then take over wildlife management? Preferable a rebuilt pgc with appropriate and quality PROHUNTING personnel. Short of that, Id settle for Ronald Mcdonald, Mickey Mouse, Elmer Fudd or the 7 dwarves.

What on earth could they do? Create a situation where we have all time low hunter dissatisfaction...the worst in the nation?...Get themselves sued for malpractice?lmao. Run themselves financially into the ground? lmao. Cause hunters to quit at over double the national average? lmao. Ruin the deer herd? Force a sham tax payer paid for audit?lmao.

Gee, we really need to watch it. Dont want any of those audubon or timber nuts taking things over now do we? lol...Jeez man.lol.

And you are worried about the GOVERNOR having MORE power? lol.... If the gov. had any more power over the situation we'd all have to get single file, kneel and kiss his pinky ring when we begged to apply for a hunting license. lol.

Katy bar the door. A boot in the arse for the elmerton avenue deer death squad. It couldnt and wouldnt realistically ever be any worse than it is currently, and given the odds, there is a helluva lot of room for improvment.

then again...maybe the new human dimensions group that they are implementing and we will be paying for to screw ourselves will help the situation. lol. The group will be staffed and charged with looking into other excuses for hunter decline and taking more input and opinions from audubon and other antideer goofballs towards our failed deer plan.

You dont think the legislators are in the govs back pocket, or worse yet the Obama wagon. Soon enough the government will get 60% of my money and let me have 40%
talk about a sham.
there has to be middle ground with hr. But i doubt there will be enough legislators,to do the trick.
Corne when it comes to voting there is places to find appropriate info about the person running. I dont think there was any question where McCain and Obama stood on gun control,and hunting

"You dont think the legislators are in the govs back pocket, or worse yet the Obama wagon. Soon enough the government will get 60% of my money and let me have 40%
talk about a sham."

Regardless, I see no "downside" to supporting curative actions.

"Corne when it comes to voting there is places to find appropriate info about the person running. I dont think there was any question where McCain and Obama stood on gun control,and hunting "

You get a much more thourough look into presidential candidates than you will get from state legislator candidates. Its also easy to say they support something they dont in reality.

As I said, I agree with hitting the polls. But when its clearly not enough, it wouldnt seem wise to be satisfied and stop there when other curative actions can be taken and very well may be more effective. We are always gonna have the nonhunter friendly buffoons to some extent in office. Guys like Mcilhinney, Levdansky etc. Id venture a guess that most hunters by far dont vote at all, and even fewer even know who those guys are.

I am not saying stop there.Just saying i think there are more anti in office than non at the present time. I think many of them would rather completely cut us hunters off.
were the pgc wouldn't want to completely cut us off since,they then wouldn't have a job. But what the heck i may be far off .

your suggestion of embracing pgc out of fear is simply not rational. Kinda like embracing a cobra because your afraid of the rattlesnake.

Pgc provides absolutely no safeguards at all. It would be just as easy for some employees or boc members at pgc to be "antihunter". How would you or I know the difference? We are supposed to take them at their word but not the word of legislators? As if pgc isnt being shown to be crooks? and as if they havent maintained close relationships with audubon, and are known to join voice with HSUS!!!!.

Also,Those things you speak of, political involvement hurting hunting...would in no way be any more likely if pgc was rebuilt or even ceased to exist. The governor calls the shots with some input from senate etc anyway as I said...

He appoints pgc boc and he can, with the snap of a finger, cut off any board member or pgc employee right off at the knees if he so chooses and give them the boot. It has been done in the past and if they value their positions, they know to take heed. They know this and do not think they do not give considerable weight to any and all "suggestions" emanating from the governors office and therefore dcnr.

Senate also has say in issues as well as the house.

Its all politics. They may as well work for us, just as much as some are currently working against us.

I dont like the system either, but it is what it is. And its currently being used against us. We would be damn fools not to use it to counter as best we can with any and every tool available.

PGc isnt worried about losing their jobs. lol. If by some miracle they were forced to make changes in the end, they'll simply adapt before going under financially IF and when they absolutely had to. They havent come to that point yet. They believe in looking ahead for "rainy days". especially when doing things they know arent popular with hunters and the legislators that must approve their fee increases.

If you are concerned with antihunters agendas ever being fulfilled in Pa you need to concern yourself with the Pa hunter rate of decline being double the national average thanks to our deer program. Our voice and ranks dwindling is far more damaging in that area than losing our precious so-pro-hunter- oriented-these-days game commission. lol.

I have to agree corne

But i wont embrace a grass snake either

Good, because in Pa they are a protected species, and doing so just might get you into trouble, specially if ya squeeze too hard. lol.