Sure. But then hunter usage of any of the land was never brought into question by me or anyone else.

You can make light of the issue all you like, but Audubon (and others of their ilk) is a player in our gamelands usage. They are also a HUGE player in the pgc deer mismanagement saga. Those things are undeniable. All anyone need to is take a second punch in audubon + deer management on yahoo or google. Or punch in Pa game commission + audubon society. Many days of reading can be found for someone so incline. Does their involvement go far past what is appropriate where deer management &/or gamelands usage is concerned? I guess we will agree to disagree. Because after studying these issues for quite some time, i have absolutely no doubts.


Ive given you examples and they arent limited to my area of the state. Do searches for Audubon special bird areas, and management strategies. Then look further into where they are located. Just one example of how they dictate at least some of the game lands management strategy.

The other issues you mention such as horseback rider and others very well COULD become an issue, since pgc asks "nonhunters" about what should be strictly hunter oriented input where our game lands are concerned. In fact with alternate funding, I think other user impact is almost a definate.

..>To get back on the original topic for a moment, that being the "others" pushing for alternate funding...

Found it interesting to say the least, that here is what animal rights crew has to say on the issue:

"Hunters and trappers have way too much power over wildlife in Pennsylvania and other states where they comprise less than *9% of the state population. The reasons for their power over wildlife reside in an archaic funding structure.

State wildlife agencies like the Pa Game Commission receive their funding from the sale of hunting/trapping permits and funds from the Pittman-Robertson taxes on firearms and ammunition. If the funding structure was changed to include public funds, then strategies for the treatment of wildlife would reflect the views and concerns of all residents rather than just the cruel lethal management techniques of hunters and trappers. State wildlife agencies would become truly public agencies rather then “special interest groups for blood sports” if their funding structure was reformed."


And our game commission, well known to be nonhunter friendly these days including but not limited to ignoring hunter input, alligning themselves with audubon & other extreme types, lobbying with hsus, and supporting the further progression of deer contraception... is also pushing VERY hard currently for this funding structure to change. Id say one thing needs to change. The personell at pgc.

I agree 08.But other states use a general fund which didn't seem to kill hunting.
Don't get me wrong,in a perfect world I'd love to see us continue to fund the PGC but somewhere down the road I doubt we can do it.

>Other states dont have an environmentalist agenda in place, do a search for any other state you choose and see if you can find 1/10th the amount of pages dedicated to conservation groups and involvement with game management. Then do the same with Pa deer management + audubon or The nature conservancy other groups etc.

>Other states arent being managed by pgc.

>Other states recieving those funds dont have an "independent" agency with no system of checks and balances. They are answerable 100% to the people and the chain of command is quite clear. The paid heads of the agencies gets extremely low approval as our agency has and he's toast. PERIOD. Who you gonna blame with an "independent" agency? The volunteer boc?

I also wouldnt rule out the possibility of alt. funding helping the anti cause. Very nonhunter friendly legislation has been passed in other states in the past. And there is nothing to say it cant ever happen in the future. I see no reason to help the antis with their agenda when we certainly dont have to take that road in the first place.

In a perfect world Id like to see that alternate funding, at least for nongame species. But that would be a world where our agency was hunter friendly and could be trusted and if they werent "independant". It would take ALOT of trust in any agency for me to support the option. And i have none in pgc. Id support it only if there were no other option at all. Thats not currently the case. There are other option both now and in the future. I dont think anything should be ruled out completely. My perfect option would be dcnr take over management of nongame. But that would be in the future. There should be no need for it yet. If desparation of the situation were greater in the future, you might just be pleasantly surprised at the options that arise.

You'll have to show me specifically how the Audubon is dictating how we're to use the game lands.

Doug

the parking lot that corny is talking about was always there. It's a parking lot that was built long ago for small game hunters to park in and shot stocked ditch chickens. The the "eye sore" pavillion over looks a wetland restoration project that DU paid for. The 15X20 Pavillion probably came out those $$$ as well.

Game lands are managed for all species of wildlife in PA not just the ones loud mouth hunters want to see. Those are the rules. Anyone is free to opt out of the situation by not buying a PA hunting license and going elsewhere to hunt, ie another state or country or preserve.




WV Gino

You're twisting the issue. I think i explained it quite thoroughly though. I see little reason to go into even more useless repetition. Go back. Reread and point out what in particular you dont understand.

Sorry Cornelius but I dont see an answer to Dougs question.

You have often ducked tough questions by claiming to have answered before. If you've ansered the above question, kindly repeat the answer or provide a link.

Doug's question leads to another as well..... please explain how Audubon specifically is dictating PGC policy. It should be easy if your claims are valid.

you're not telling the full truth. It was enlarged. The pavillion was also part of what im speaking of for the mostpart. Everything else was just added details....But hey, lets knit-pick about the parking lot! lol.

It is no longer for that purpose now is it? lol. It was also a smaller "pull off" and now you have a Longer walk to shoot the "ditch chickens" from that lot. (others more convenient up the road to the "killing fields" The area past the pavillion is now a "wetland area" they built fairly recently, and its usually nothing but a very shallow swamp. It dries up often these days as is the case in the pic.

Hmmm. lotsa things assumed in there buddy. Oh ok. We'll just stick with that wild guess where that money came from. Your "probably kinda gave it away. lmao.

Ducks unlimited has no use for a "birdwatching pavillion" and such nonsense. But it doesnt matter who paid for it it shouldnt be on the gamelands no matter who paid for it, because its clearly not "hunter oriented", and pgc had to make the final decision to put it there. BTW, you're stretching this "concern" way out of proportion. The pavillion in itself is harmless. Its just one more reminder our of the many clearly depicting pgcs new "direction".

I agree. They are. So dont "yelp" at me! Douge said they werent. He said GAME LANDS were managed for GAME period. Thanks for backing me on this one.

I also see, As always on other boards, high regard for hunters by wv gino. You and rsb should get together and come up with some more hunter bashing slogans and sayings. Really funny stuff. But rest assured, Id bet money those hunters hold your opinions in equally high regard.

...Or we can insist on proper mangement like that which occurs in other states you speak of. Just a thought. Btw, sounds like someones flustered. Sorry i dont support the enviro agenda. Never will. As for the "rules" all i have to say as look at who is making them... Nuff said. Time for change.

Btb, I answered the question sorry you didnt like the answer or i didnt write a book for you. If you'd research these things for ONCE yourself, I wouldnt have to.