Pa game commission & audubon at it again
01-20-2010, 12:29 PM
#81
Typical Buck
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
WOW!!! Corny, what an absolutely awesome thread, well done! I haven't had time to read all the replies, but from what I saw there has been some great feedback, and VERY valid concerns. When I get more time in the next day or two I am going to respond with my opinion of the current situation, the viable alternatives, and the application of said alternatives.
I feel this topic deserves extensive consideration. The key is going to be COOPERATION. That infers cooperation within stakeholder groups (hunters), cooperation between stakeholders (hunters, bird watchers, wildlife enthusiast, etc.), and joint cooperation between all stakeholders/interest groups and the state agencies responsible for implementing changes. I urge you all to read this post when I get a chance to write it.
This issue has the potential to polarize not only interest groups, pitting them against each other (hunters vs bird watchers), but it could also divide hunters. IMO, doing so would result in a universal loss for all groups involved (basically we all suffer). I'm an optimist, however, and I see an opportunity to forge new ground in responsible management of our entire ecosystem. IMO, this issue has the potential to unite groups that have long been divided, and set a national precedence for responsible, sustainable, ethical, and moral management of all wildlife. A precedent that calls for groups with different interests working side by side to reach a common goal.
Maybe what I have in mind only works in a perfect world, but IMO aiming for anything less would be a complete failure.
I feel this topic deserves extensive consideration. The key is going to be COOPERATION. That infers cooperation within stakeholder groups (hunters), cooperation between stakeholders (hunters, bird watchers, wildlife enthusiast, etc.), and joint cooperation between all stakeholders/interest groups and the state agencies responsible for implementing changes. I urge you all to read this post when I get a chance to write it.
This issue has the potential to polarize not only interest groups, pitting them against each other (hunters vs bird watchers), but it could also divide hunters. IMO, doing so would result in a universal loss for all groups involved (basically we all suffer). I'm an optimist, however, and I see an opportunity to forge new ground in responsible management of our entire ecosystem. IMO, this issue has the potential to unite groups that have long been divided, and set a national precedence for responsible, sustainable, ethical, and moral management of all wildlife. A precedent that calls for groups with different interests working side by side to reach a common goal.
Maybe what I have in mind only works in a perfect world, but IMO aiming for anything less would be a complete failure.
01-20-2010, 03:56 PM
#83
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
My opinion isn't a popular one. But, based on the enjoyment that I have in other states that have game management programs that are funded by taxpayers, I'm all for public funding. From my point of view from the bigwoods, things can't get much worse then they are now. I've been helping stock the Pine Creek with trout for the last 14 years. We currently get about 30% of the trout that we used to get. Remember when the PFBC surveyed fishermen and wanted to know whether they prefer bigger but fewer trout? And we took the bait by saying we prefered fewer but bigger trout. I bet if we had known that we'd be seeing 70% fewer trout the survey would have been different. And while we do fish the Pine, we now have to dodge 'yaks and 'noes operated by drunks every two minutes thanks to the Pa Wilds publicity campaign. As for the deer hunting....I don't have to tell anybody what I think of the current mismanagement plan and the small voice that we hunters have about that.
When it comes to hunter input, I have to think back about 2 years ago when the governor of NY suggested closing a pheasant rearing facility. The outcry was heard from hunters, and he ditched the idea. Another item worth taking a peek at is the current situation in Wisconsin.
I say screw it. Let everybody pay a fair share. I'm tired of footing the bill and getting crapped on in the end.
When it comes to hunter input, I have to think back about 2 years ago when the governor of NY suggested closing a pheasant rearing facility. The outcry was heard from hunters, and he ditched the idea. Another item worth taking a peek at is the current situation in Wisconsin.
I say screw it. Let everybody pay a fair share. I'm tired of footing the bill and getting crapped on in the end.
01-20-2010, 04:20 PM
#84
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
This wouldnt be my first choice at all, but Im not closed to the idea Spurs, but would need to be alot of bugs worked out beforehand. Imho you'd almost have to have either a regime change at pgc or go straight to some other "nonindependent" system (like they have in most other states) and do away with pgc altogether to have any chance at all to work.
Id say perhaps a more agreeable solution to all involved, and one where we'd have absolutely TONS of money for game management and solve alot of our problems if pgc were to give up the management of nongame wildlife over to dcnr. Or at the very least have 2 branches of pgc one game, one nongame. Operating independant of each other One getting our cash. The other public funded. Both would be well funded well into the foreseeable future. Wed need a stipulation that we hunters would have a say in whos in management of the game branch, and we're high on the hog.. VERY simple. VERY effective.
But for cryin' out loud lets not just give more cash and forget there are any problems!! And thats exactly what will happen if legislators are permitted to wash their hands of all this for another decade, by giving that fee increase without proposed fixes.
Id say perhaps a more agreeable solution to all involved, and one where we'd have absolutely TONS of money for game management and solve alot of our problems if pgc were to give up the management of nongame wildlife over to dcnr. Or at the very least have 2 branches of pgc one game, one nongame. Operating independant of each other One getting our cash. The other public funded. Both would be well funded well into the foreseeable future. Wed need a stipulation that we hunters would have a say in whos in management of the game branch, and we're high on the hog.. VERY simple. VERY effective.
But for cryin' out loud lets not just give more cash and forget there are any problems!! And thats exactly what will happen if legislators are permitted to wash their hands of all this for another decade, by giving that fee increase without proposed fixes.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-20-2010 at 04:29 PM.
01-20-2010, 04:38 PM
#85
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
This wouldnt be my first choice at all, but Im not closed to the idea Spurs, but would need to be alot of bugs worked out beforehand. Imho you'd almost have to have either a regime change at pgc or go straight to some other "nonindependent" system (like they have in most other states) and do away with pgc altogether to have any chance at all to work.
Id say perhaps a more agreeable solution to all involved, and one where we'd have absolutely TONS of money for game management and solve alot of our problems if pgc were to give up the management of nongame wildlife over to dcnr. Or at the very least have 2 branches of pgc one game, one nongame. Operating independant of each other One getting our cash. The other public funded. Both would be well funded well into the foreseeable future. Wed need a stipulation that we hunters would have a say in whos in management of the game branch, and we're high on the hog.. VERY simple. VERY effective.
But for cryin' out loud lets not just give more cash and forget there are any problems!! And thats exactly what will happen if legislators are permitted to wash their hands of all this for another decade, by giving that fee increase without proposed fixes.
Id say perhaps a more agreeable solution to all involved, and one where we'd have absolutely TONS of money for game management and solve alot of our problems if pgc were to give up the management of nongame wildlife over to dcnr. Or at the very least have 2 branches of pgc one game, one nongame. Operating independant of each other One getting our cash. The other public funded. Both would be well funded well into the foreseeable future. Wed need a stipulation that we hunters would have a say in whos in management of the game branch, and we're high on the hog.. VERY simple. VERY effective.
But for cryin' out loud lets not just give more cash and forget there are any problems!! And thats exactly what will happen if legislators are permitted to wash their hands of all this for another decade, by giving that fee increase without proposed fixes.
At this point in time, there isn't a card that anyone from the PGC could lay on the table that would be believable. That's the way that I feel, and that's the way 99% of the people that I know feel. Like I've said before, I've even heard non-hunting church members cuss the PGC.
01-20-2010, 04:59 PM
#86
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"I don't think the PFBC is as inept as the PGC, so I wouldn't think a complete rebuild of the PFBC is in order."
Id agree. I see pgc and pfbc as two completely separate issues and thats exactly how they should be treated funding-wise.
Legislators (like it or not) need to step in and make changes happen. Penn Fed + audubon wrote the infamous letter about the audit & requested the legislator not take action by curative legislation or to restructure pgc. It piqued my interest very much as to what they might've heard that caused them to mention that and become so scared as to write a very passionate letter opposing it.
It took legislator action to put pgc in place. They're also the only ones that can accomplish restructuring. Once this fraud audit comes out and doesnt "cure" what ails us, and after this deer season where so many have complained....and pgc says they'll stay the course. And hunter disgust is as high as ever.. And they'll be looking for their money.... And if reps do their job and represent us in the matter continuing to deny the fee increase.....Would be the perfect time to pressure legislators to restructure pgc to a more hunter friendly more efficient format.
Id agree. I see pgc and pfbc as two completely separate issues and thats exactly how they should be treated funding-wise.
Legislators (like it or not) need to step in and make changes happen. Penn Fed + audubon wrote the infamous letter about the audit & requested the legislator not take action by curative legislation or to restructure pgc. It piqued my interest very much as to what they might've heard that caused them to mention that and become so scared as to write a very passionate letter opposing it.
It took legislator action to put pgc in place. They're also the only ones that can accomplish restructuring. Once this fraud audit comes out and doesnt "cure" what ails us, and after this deer season where so many have complained....and pgc says they'll stay the course. And hunter disgust is as high as ever.. And they'll be looking for their money.... And if reps do their job and represent us in the matter continuing to deny the fee increase.....Would be the perfect time to pressure legislators to restructure pgc to a more hunter friendly more efficient format.
01-20-2010, 05:36 PM
#87
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
And if reps do their job and represent us in the matter continuing to deny the fee increase.....Would be the perfect time to pressure legislators to restructure pgc to a more hunter friendly more efficient format.
Slinsky needs to cool his jets. This week in the Potter Leader he had a letter written to the editor in which he claims there will be busloads of disgruntled hunters showing up at the PGC meeting. This is not the first time that I've heard this rumor over the last few years. Thing of it is, I know several people that planned on going, but decided not to go because they figured that "busloads" of people would be showing up, and figured that attending would be futile since so many "busloads" of disgruntled hunters would be a good enough representation of the anger and resentment that's so justly deserved.
It's a shame, because these folks were great representations of how upset people really are.
01-21-2010, 06:37 PM
#88
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Good news spurs.. Got word through the hpa political grapevine our legislators are standing tall and not selling us out. Bluetick whos pretty politically active made a very encouraging statement, though of course he was complaining.
"Spoke face to face with Senator Alloway last Friday. He said, in no uncertain terms, no license increase as there is absolutely no interest in it by the legislature or sportsmen.
Primary reason - deer program"
I sure hope Alloway knows what hes talking about. The legislators need to understand there are other options than continuing this ridiculousness for the next 20 years of deer boom, deer bust, money boom, money bust with pgc. Its time to put an end to it once and for all.
"Spoke face to face with Senator Alloway last Friday. He said, in no uncertain terms, no license increase as there is absolutely no interest in it by the legislature or sportsmen.
Primary reason - deer program"
I sure hope Alloway knows what hes talking about. The legislators need to understand there are other options than continuing this ridiculousness for the next 20 years of deer boom, deer bust, money boom, money bust with pgc. Its time to put an end to it once and for all.
01-22-2010, 12:15 AM
#89
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
I sure hope Alloway knows what hes talking about. The legislators need to understand there are other options than continuing this ridiculousness for the next 20 years of deer boom, deer bust, money boom, money bust with pgc. Its time to put an end to it once and for all.
I'm also EXTREMELY pleased with my exchanges with the BOC'ers over the last few days. In my heart, I really do feel that there is hope on the horizon and that change will come albeit slowly. I can't really elaborate on it, but I think you may see some extremely surprising recommendations being put on the table between now and April that will benefit wildlife, the habitat, and all other stakeholders involved. Including us hunters! But most of all, these changes could be of benefit to other folks in areas of Pa who will be suffering the ills of poor forest management and to many deer 100 years from now.
I'm going to back off on pressuring the BOCs, back off on the petitions from the northern tier and back off the legislative pressure until the outcome of the April meeting is seen because I think we have been heard loud and clear and have presented enough documented statistics to show that there's a fly in the ointment.
By God, I think things may be looking up and we may have turned the corner slightly.
It's a shame that we have to spend hour after hour fighting for what's right because the wheels turn so slowly, but in the end I think it may be worth the effort. One thing that should be mentioned is that the Wisconsin debacle has been watched closely and I think it may be an plus for us hunters here in Pa.You have a PM Corney
Last edited by ManySpurs; 01-22-2010 at 01:34 AM.
01-22-2010, 08:38 AM
#90
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
[quote=Cornelius08;3560348]
"Spoke face to face with Senator Alloway last Friday. He said, in no uncertain terms, no license increase as there is absolutely no interest in it by the legislature or sportsmen.
Primary reason - deer program"
quote]
Hmmm.... Must be that dog gone mouthy minority again.
"Spoke face to face with Senator Alloway last Friday. He said, in no uncertain terms, no license increase as there is absolutely no interest in it by the legislature or sportsmen.
Primary reason - deer program"
quote]
Hmmm.... Must be that dog gone mouthy minority again.