Doug, I was asked 2 different questions. I answered them both. All the answers didnt apply necessarily to BOTH questions. Some were intended to address one, others the other with some overlap on others. I think i explained it fairly well. I think you better reread as you didnt follow very closely which is understandable as its not a simple yes or no question or answer. Its pretty clear you are either confused or trying to muddy the waters, not sure which.

Just a few of many many informative audubon/gamelands links.
http://pa.audubon.org/IBA_Consplans/IBA10.pdf
http://pa.audubon.org/IBA_Consplans/IBA61.pdf
http://pa.audubon.org/IBA_Consplans/IBA11.pdf
http://www.jvas.org/cc_1000ima18.html
http://www.tiaudubon.org/Muck.htm

Hmm. Mighty funny, as a hunter, Ive never been asked about my thoughts on gamelands usage. Never asked what I thought should or shouldnt be managed for. Guess audubons just "special" that way. lol.

Neither,I haven't seen one bit of evidence where the audubon or anyone else is dictating how are game lands are used.

I think you know better, but are playing word games with the "dictate" part. You know exactly whats being said. We can debate all day long whether "dictate" is the appropriate word or not, but the fact remains they definately have alot more input than they should and its 100% inappropriate since it definately conflicts at times with game management & hunter concerns. We bought the land. Its supposedly "ours".

I can live with not being asked for input. But would appreciate it if ecoextreme nonhunters werent asked to be the "guiding hand" by pgc. I dont think thats too much to ask!

No they don't.A few bird houses is hardly them having a say in how the game lands are managed.

I agree. Everything else i mentioned and more.... is.

Here is an example of some of the contents of just ONE of the links i provided on audubon & input on gamelands, i highlighted red, points of interest:

"

•

• Fields are cultivated to create pasture for Canada Geese and other wildlife. The PGC is allotted a portion of the crops that are typically left in the fields as feed for wildlife. Yet, there is no management for non-game grassland birds.

• SGL 95 is actively managed for waterfowl, especially Canada Goose, Wood Duck and Mallard, and non-game avian species, such as American Kestrel, Eastern Bluebird and Tree Swallow, by placing artificial nesting devices throughout the site but again much more can be done for non-game avian species.

• The PGC follows a Wildlife Resource Assessment Procedure (WRAP) to guide management decisions in SGL 95, yet lack of access to that guide prevents this reviewer from learning what these procedures entail.

• Finally, the PGC considers partnerships with conservation organizations and agencies a valuable tool to promote conservation and environmental education; yet such partnerships are weak in SGL 95 and need greater focus and goal orientation.

• The PGC will continue cultivating fields for wildlife but consider non-Game avian species in its management plans.

5

• The PGC will continue monitoring game and non-game avian artificial nesting devices but target and expand the non-game species.

• The PGC will continue and strengthen partnerships with conservation organizations and state-federal agencies.

• The BAS, PSO and PA should issue a joint bird checklist and revise such a list every five years.

• The PGC should promote greater conservation practices through more outreach and environmental education programs for the public with BAS partnership.

• The PGC should explore the feasibility, with the help of the BAS, of re-establishing the ecological requirements for the return and breeding success of these four wetland species of special concern: American Bittern, Least Bittern, Upland Sandpiper and Sedge Wren. There are few if any other western Pennsylvania breeding sites where all four species occur together. Only the Upland Sandpiper has been absent from the IBA the past few years and may be encouraged to return with suitable habitat.

• The PGC should explore the feasibility, with the help of the BAS, of encouraging avian grassland species, such as the Savannah, Grasshopper, Henslow’s and Vesper Sparrows, Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark and Horned Lark, to breed inside the IBA by delaying and staggering field mowing times until after July 15 and using prescribed burning of particular fields to create the proper succession scenario for these species. Currently all species are found scattered in SGL 95.

Keep in mind that just ONE area of gamelands spoken of by audubon, of many and just one instance of it being addressed. Multiply that exponentially to account for all the other areas + other years and you begin to get the idea.

I dont know about you brother. But to me, that sounds like a heckuva lot more audubon input than "adding a few birdhouses". lmao.

Man i gotta tell ya though, I whimpered a bit when i read this:

"American Bittern, Least Bittern, Upland Sandpiper and Sedge Wren. There are few if any other western Pennsylvania breeding sites where all four species occur together. "

Lord knows it would be truly tragic if all four didnt congregate "together" in that one spot to breed on that particular gamelands, but did so separately or in groupings of only two or three of those species per area with others elsewhere! It just wouldnt be as MAGICAL....... lol. Whelp, guess thats one more rabbit field or deer plot that'll never be! lol.

Maybe if we ask audubon re-e-eal nice-like, we can try and squeeze one in between the "eastern woodrat" range on the gamelands & the rare variety of trillium patch on the ridge? Oh Im sorry, I forgot. An eastern Toad & a box turtle were spotted there 3 years ago. Oh well. Look at the bright side. At least audubon has no say in our game lands. lol.

It sounds to me that those people are a little pieved that the PGC isn't following through with the bulk of their recommendations.Once again,that proves my point that the audubon does not have more say in how our gamelands are managed.