Pa game commission & audubon at it again
01-19-2010 | 02:45 PM
#61
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
ha ha ha. So thats how you wanna play it eh?
You better reread. Cause many of those were suggestions which pgc asked for. FIRST TIME suggestions, and not complaints over pgc noncompliance.
Other highlighted items include PGC ACTIONS on previous suggestions.
Nice try. No dice.
Audubon is a very big player in the deer saga, and has a very inappropriately close relationship with pgc today at the expense of we hunters. And every single person that has followed our situation in depth and closely knows it, its not a secret, and theyve not gone out of their way to hide the fact. So no conspiracy theory there. They simply deny the "inappropriateness" part. lol. They think we should be perfectly ok with everything as is.
You better reread. Cause many of those were suggestions which pgc asked for. FIRST TIME suggestions, and not complaints over pgc noncompliance.
Other highlighted items include PGC ACTIONS on previous suggestions.
Nice try. No dice.
Audubon is a very big player in the deer saga, and has a very inappropriately close relationship with pgc today at the expense of we hunters. And every single person that has followed our situation in depth and closely knows it, its not a secret, and theyve not gone out of their way to hide the fact. So no conspiracy theory there. They simply deny the "inappropriateness" part. lol. They think we should be perfectly ok with everything as is.
01-19-2010 | 03:07 PM
#62
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
"Good morning. My name is Kim Van Fleet. I am an Important Bird Area Coordinator
with Audubon Pennsylvania, the state office of the National Audubon Society. As you probably
know, Audubon has enjoyed a productive relationship with Game Commission staff since we
established the IBA program as the first of its kind in the nation over ten years ago. To date, the
Ornithological Technical Committee has recognized 85 Important Bird Areas in Pennsylvania,
and Audubon staff are actively working to promote local efforts at many of the locations to
monitor and protect these areas. I regularly work with Commission staff to achieve our mutual
goals of bird and habitat conservation.
On behalf of our 30,000 statewide members, I am here today to ask for your support of
science-based management of white-tailed deer and the eradication of feral swine.
Audubon has welcomed the Game Commission’s efforts to help reduce the impacts of
historically overabundant white-tailed deer across the Commonwealth. We applaud the
Commission for moving in the direction of a more science-based deer management program
focused on indicators of both forest and deer health, and we are appreciative of your commitment
to putting the long-term interests of forested ecosystems and wildlife at the forefront of your
decision-making. You have stood up for Pennsylvania’s wildlife and habitat resources, and we
are grateful."with Audubon Pennsylvania, the state office of the National Audubon Society. As you probably
know, Audubon has enjoyed a productive relationship with Game Commission staff since we
established the IBA program as the first of its kind in the nation over ten years ago. To date, the
Ornithological Technical Committee has recognized 85 Important Bird Areas in Pennsylvania,
and Audubon staff are actively working to promote local efforts at many of the locations to
monitor and protect these areas. I regularly work with Commission staff to achieve our mutual
goals of bird and habitat conservation.
On behalf of our 30,000 statewide members, I am here today to ask for your support of
science-based management of white-tailed deer and the eradication of feral swine.
Audubon has welcomed the Game Commission’s efforts to help reduce the impacts of
historically overabundant white-tailed deer across the Commonwealth. We applaud the
Commission for moving in the direction of a more science-based deer management program
focused on indicators of both forest and deer health, and we are appreciative of your commitment
to putting the long-term interests of forested ecosystems and wildlife at the forefront of your
decision-making. You have stood up for Pennsylvania’s wildlife and habitat resources, and we
.............................
Nope. Sorry. But I dont see the disappointment of their dream being shattered there either.
On a happy note though, Pa "the first". Gee imagine that. What an honor. Whatever are the other states waiting for??
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-19-2010 at 03:12 PM.
01-19-2010 | 03:18 PM
#63
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
Apparently pgc never tires of audubon & other nonhunter suggestions in regards to OUR game lands. Remember this fiasco?
On January 25, 2001 the Pennsylvania Game Commission issued another news release announcing the first meeting of the Game Lands Use Recommendations Ad Hoc Committee.
Members of the ad hoc advisory committee are:
On January 25, 2001 the Pennsylvania Game Commission issued another news release announcing the first meeting of the Game Lands Use Recommendations Ad Hoc Committee.
Members of the ad hoc advisory committee are:
- Andy Mazzanti, a member of the Governor's Sportsmen's Advisory Council, as a representative of hunters and trappers; (To help identify members of the Governor's Sportsmen' s Advisory Council see GSAC on the ACSL's web site.)
- Ron Freed, of the Pennsylvania Audubon Society, as a representative of wildlife enthusiasts;
- John W. Stein, of the Keystone Trails Association, as a representative of the hikers;
- G. Lowell Morton, of the Pennsylvania State Snowmobile Association, as a representative of snowmobilers;
- Pete Johnson, of the Pennsylvania Equine Council Inc., as a representative of horse-back riders;
- Paul A. Lyskava, of the state Department of Agriculture's Hardwoods Development Council, as a representative of the forest products industry;
- Rick Dunlap, of the state Department of Community and Economic Development's Office of Tourism and Marketing, as a representative of the state's tourism industry;
- Richard Martin, of the Keystone Mountain Bike Association, as a representative of mountain bikers; and
- Matt Ehrhart, of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, as a representative of water quality interests.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-19-2010 at 03:22 PM.
01-19-2010 | 04:04 PM
#64
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
Apparently pgc never tires of audubon & other nonhunter suggestions in regards to OUR game lands. Remember this fiasco?
On January 25, 2001 the Pennsylvania Game Commission issued another news release announcing the first meeting of the Game Lands Use Recommendations Ad Hoc Committee.
Members of the ad hoc advisory committee are:
On January 25, 2001 the Pennsylvania Game Commission issued another news release announcing the first meeting of the Game Lands Use Recommendations Ad Hoc Committee.
Members of the ad hoc advisory committee are:
- Andy Mazzanti, a member of the Governor's Sportsmen's Advisory Council, as a representative of hunters and trappers; (To help identify members of the Governor's Sportsmen' s Advisory Council see GSAC on the ACSL's web site.)
- Ron Freed, of the Pennsylvania Audubon Society, as a representative of wildlife enthusiasts;
- John W. Stein, of the Keystone Trails Association, as a representative of the hikers;
- G. Lowell Morton, of the Pennsylvania State Snowmobile Association, as a representative of snowmobilers;
- Pete Johnson, of the Pennsylvania Equine Council Inc., as a representative of horse-back riders;
- Paul A. Lyskava, of the state Department of Agriculture's Hardwoods Development Council, as a representative of the forest products industry;
- Rick Dunlap, of the state Department of Community and Economic Development's Office of Tourism and Marketing, as a representative of the state's tourism industry;
- Richard Martin, of the Keystone Mountain Bike Association, as a representative of mountain bikers; and
- Matt Ehrhart, of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, as a representative of water quality interests.
All you've produced is what we already know. That Audubon and others have made suggestions.Big difference.
BTW, who are the "other" ecoextremists that you often refer to?
01-19-2010 | 04:31 PM
#65
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
"All you've produced is what we already know."
Btw, you might wanna look into the last question. There are plenty of groups that gave input to pgc on the deer plan, not all named audubon. There are several environmentalist/conservancy groups. Id get you a list together, but im watchin' hockey!
01-19-2010 | 04:41 PM
#66
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
I doubt you knew all of what i posted, but if you had, it didnt stop you from denying it. Not only do they give suggestions, but as ive shown they are asked for input by pgc in regards to our gamelands, and they are also taken up on many of those suggestions. And not only that, they also had huge influence on our deer program direction. Considering how very unhunter friendly they are i think that totally out of line on both counts on the part of pgc. Though Its far from surprising considering....
Btw, you might wanna look into the last question. There are plenty of groups that gave input to pgc on the deer plan, not all named audubon. There are several environmentalist/conservancy groups. Id get you a list together, but im watchin' hockey!
Btw, you might wanna look into the last question. There are plenty of groups that gave input to pgc on the deer plan, not all named audubon. There are several environmentalist/conservancy groups. Id get you a list together, but im watchin' hockey!
Are you referring to the western PA Conservancy as one of those by chance?
01-19-2010 | 07:11 PM
#68
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
Btb, that depends on your definition of extremist is i guess. Like i said there are alot of conservation groups who've taken position in support of the dmp. I also must admit, i know some things about the organization, but havent studied up on them in depth as i have with audubon etc.
They support the deer plan, which i wouldnt necessarily automatically give that label for that alone. On the other hand, from what i think i know of them, they're nowhere near as rabid or influential as audubon has been. If we are speaking of extreme in regards to views on deer mangement, then yes, id say most of those nonhunting related conservation groups would qualify. Some probably are so extreme minded as theyve simply bought what pgc and their new green agenda are selling. Others just followed audubon or other fellow conservation groups lead.
Btw, if not for the interference in game management, i have absolutely no problem with alot of what these groups do. Im sure you were just salivating at the chance to tell me how much land the wpa conservancy has provided. No need though, because I know all about it and it hasnt got one thing to do with my beliefs in these type groups role in our deer management.
Same can be said of the more damaging group audubon. They do good things for birds and even some of the nongame wildlife. But again, its hard to praise them for it, considering how extreme many of their views are, and the effects of those views on our sport. And as a hunter I will not look past it.
They support the deer plan, which i wouldnt necessarily automatically give that label for that alone. On the other hand, from what i think i know of them, they're nowhere near as rabid or influential as audubon has been. If we are speaking of extreme in regards to views on deer mangement, then yes, id say most of those nonhunting related conservation groups would qualify. Some probably are so extreme minded as theyve simply bought what pgc and their new green agenda are selling. Others just followed audubon or other fellow conservation groups lead.
Btw, if not for the interference in game management, i have absolutely no problem with alot of what these groups do. Im sure you were just salivating at the chance to tell me how much land the wpa conservancy has provided. No need though, because I know all about it and it hasnt got one thing to do with my beliefs in these type groups role in our deer management.
Same can be said of the more damaging group audubon. They do good things for birds and even some of the nongame wildlife. But again, its hard to praise them for it, considering how extreme many of their views are, and the effects of those views on our sport. And as a hunter I will not look past it.
01-20-2010 | 05:06 AM
#70
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Everybody and their brother wants a say in how the game lands are used.Anyone is free to make a suggestion.So far,I don't see one instance where the PGC put the use of the gamelands ahead of anyone else over hunters.
It's no secret that the Audubon wants less deer.Just because they thank the PGC for it does not mean they have a huge role in Pa's deer management plan.
It's no secret that the Audubon wants less deer.Just because they thank the PGC for it does not mean they have a huge role in Pa's deer management plan.