PGC Policy and deer contraceptives
02-25-2010, 06:32 AM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
PGC Policy and deer contraceptives
There's been quite a bit of speculation and misinformation here and elsewhere about the PGC's position on deer contraceptives recently approved by the FDA known as GonaCon or GnRH
An article in the Feb 26 Pa Outdoor news page 3 clears up quite a bit........
Some direct quotes from that article...........
"GonaCon will never be used by the Game Commission so long as I am director" Carl Roe
"The agency very much prefers hunting to be used as a deer control mechanismon private and public land. GonaCon is not yet registered in our state, but if it is, it might be part of a deer-control plan submitted to the game commission by a private housing development in an urban area. They are going to have to pay for it but we need to have a plan to deal with it" Cal DuBrock
"Those guidelines would require that the municipality first exhaust all other options to reduce deer-humans conflicts including lethat and non lethal means before the agency would consider approving the use of GnRH" Carl Roe
Here's some of the the wording officially entered into the PGC policy manual......
"Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments"
"Fertility-control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife-management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populationsto healthy or socially acceptable levels"
It's perfectly clear that the PGC is merely getting out in front of the inevitable and adopting a clear pre-emptive policy to always put hunting first.
An article in the Feb 26 Pa Outdoor news page 3 clears up quite a bit........
Some direct quotes from that article...........
"GonaCon will never be used by the Game Commission so long as I am director" Carl Roe
"The agency very much prefers hunting to be used as a deer control mechanismon private and public land. GonaCon is not yet registered in our state, but if it is, it might be part of a deer-control plan submitted to the game commission by a private housing development in an urban area. They are going to have to pay for it but we need to have a plan to deal with it" Cal DuBrock
"Those guidelines would require that the municipality first exhaust all other options to reduce deer-humans conflicts including lethat and non lethal means before the agency would consider approving the use of GnRH" Carl Roe
Here's some of the the wording officially entered into the PGC policy manual......
"Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments"
"Fertility-control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife-management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populationsto healthy or socially acceptable levels"
It's perfectly clear that the PGC is merely getting out in front of the inevitable and adopting a clear pre-emptive policy to always put hunting first.
02-25-2010, 09:55 AM
#2
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Very misleading post. This has been addressed and pgc's prouse policy basically says it all. Roe can lie all he likes, but fact is, he supported the policy being "pro-use" as opposed to "no use" which they very clearly couldve and shouldve done.
But no, they said it would be another "tool" in the "toolbox". And they are already structuring plans for its use in urban/suburban deer managment plans.
Carls damage control is no different with this than it was when he downplayed and lied constantly about the HUGE marcellus windfall thats now been proven by the legislative budget & finance committee, and also no different than all the lies that have been told and proven in regards to the miserably failed deer program.
This is nothing more than beating a dead horse. The deal is done. One more bit of anti-hunter sentiment showing through at pgc.
But no, they said it would be another "tool" in the "toolbox". And they are already structuring plans for its use in urban/suburban deer managment plans.
Carls damage control is no different with this than it was when he downplayed and lied constantly about the HUGE marcellus windfall thats now been proven by the legislative budget & finance committee, and also no different than all the lies that have been told and proven in regards to the miserably failed deer program.
This is nothing more than beating a dead horse. The deal is done. One more bit of anti-hunter sentiment showing through at pgc.
02-25-2010, 09:57 AM
#3
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"GonaCon will never be used by the Game Commission so long as I am director" Carl Roe"
Not BY the game commission! They simply have adopted a policy that they can and will APPROVE its use by others! That was the plan all along! lmao. Unreal.
I understand audubon and antihunter groups are absolutely salivating over this.
Not BY the game commission! They simply have adopted a policy that they can and will APPROVE its use by others! That was the plan all along! lmao. Unreal.
I understand audubon and antihunter groups are absolutely salivating over this.
02-25-2010, 10:37 AM
#4
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
The post was neither misleading nor beating a dead horse.
The facts are simple
The PGC will not be using Gonacon.
Hunting will always be the first wildlife control method utilized.
The direct quotes in the original post should make that crystal clear.
I'm curious, Corn, do you have a link or a quote to support your "tool in the toolbox" claim? Who, exactly, said that and where did you get information that the PGC is formulating plans for it's use?
The facts are simple
The PGC will not be using Gonacon.
Hunting will always be the first wildlife control method utilized.
The direct quotes in the original post should make that crystal clear.
I'm curious, Corn, do you have a link or a quote to support your "tool in the toolbox" claim? Who, exactly, said that and where did you get information that the PGC is formulating plans for it's use?
02-25-2010, 11:09 AM
#5
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Nice twists on words that completely circumvent the issue and the things that matter most.
Pgc DOES have a PROUSE policy regardless of who it is they permit to USE it. They could have implemented a strict hunter friendly NOUSE POLICY but refused to do so.
We also already KNOW how GREAT they are in considering HUNTING , and hunters well being in their management scheme, and we all know we can really TRUST
those guys with such a tool when they CANNOT be trusted with those they ALREADY have in doe allocations and dmap.
I think that pretty much filled in all the big holes you left in your summary.
Pgc DOES have a PROUSE policy regardless of who it is they permit to USE it. They could have implemented a strict hunter friendly NOUSE POLICY but refused to do so.
We also already KNOW how GREAT they are in considering HUNTING , and hunters well being in their management scheme, and we all know we can really TRUST
those guys with such a tool when they CANNOT be trusted with those they ALREADY have in doe allocations and dmap.I think that pretty much filled in all the big holes you left in your summary.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-25-2010 at 11:12 AM.
02-25-2010, 11:24 AM
#6
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Nice twists on words that completely circumvent the issue and the things that matter most.
Pgc DOES have a PROUSE policy regardless of who it is they permit to USE it. They could have implemented a strict hunter friendly NOUSE POLICY but refused to do so.
We also already KNOW how GREAT they are in considering HUNTING , and hunters well being in their management scheme, and we all know we can really TRUST those guys with such a tool when they CANNOT be trusted with those they ALREADY have in doe allocations and dmap.
I think that pretty much filled in all the big holes you left in your summary.
Pgc DOES have a PROUSE policy regardless of who it is they permit to USE it. They could have implemented a strict hunter friendly NOUSE POLICY but refused to do so.
We also already KNOW how GREAT they are in considering HUNTING , and hunters well being in their management scheme, and we all know we can really TRUST
those guys with such a tool when they CANNOT be trusted with those they ALREADY have in doe allocations and dmap.I think that pretty much filled in all the big holes you left in your summary.
To me words like WILL NOT and ALWAYS leave no holes nor wiggle room but maybe if you told us who you are talking about when you told us "They said" "another tool in the toolbox" we'd understand the confusion.
Where did you see it? Do you have a link or was it printed? If so, Where?
02-25-2010, 11:50 AM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
The comment "just another tool in the toolbox" was made at the January meeting. Ive also read it in print but aint spending all evening looking for it. If youd like to look it up and for some reason think that your evaluation will somehow make pgcs pro-use policy more acceptable....I contend its not possible, but do as you please.
Pgc has a pro-use policy. I do not support that. AT ALL. While they may refer to it as just another tool in the toobox, i call it more bullsquare from a VERY nonhunter friendly agency.
This is not a hunter friendly issue no matter how you try to spin it. And its a nonhunter friendly action being taken by a commission that has been known for that more and more each year that goes by. Just when you think things cant possibly get any more ridiculous at pgc where deer management is concerned, they go above and beyond.
Pgc has a pro-use policy. I do not support that. AT ALL. While they may refer to it as just another tool in the toobox, i call it more bullsquare from a VERY nonhunter friendly agency.
This is not a hunter friendly issue no matter how you try to spin it. And its a nonhunter friendly action being taken by a commission that has been known for that more and more each year that goes by. Just when you think things cant possibly get any more ridiculous at pgc where deer management is concerned, they go above and beyond.
02-25-2010, 11:54 AM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Pgcs job wont be administering gonacon. It will be allowing its use by others in our state.
No better than a woman who conspires and gest someone to shoot her lovers wife. The woman didnt pull the trigger. Shes completely innocent right? lmao.
Just like with pgc needing to grant permission....it wouldnt have happened without her involvement.
No better than a woman who conspires and gest someone to shoot her lovers wife. The woman didnt pull the trigger. Shes completely innocent right? lmao.
Just like with pgc needing to grant permission....it wouldnt have happened without her involvement.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-25-2010 at 11:58 AM.
02-25-2010, 01:19 PM
#9
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
>It will be allowing its use by others in our state.
SO?
And this is different than a farmer spot lighting a deer in his fields inthe summer and tossing them over a hillside? or borough cops riding around with silenced rifles popping deer after the late seasons are done?
Both are present day realities.
WV Gino
SO?
And this is different than a farmer spot lighting a deer in his fields inthe summer and tossing them over a hillside? or borough cops riding around with silenced rifles popping deer after the late seasons are done?
Both are present day realities.
WV Gino
02-25-2010, 01:34 PM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"SO?"
And this is different than a farmer spot lighting a deer in his fields inthe summer and tossing them over a hillside? or borough cops riding around with silenced rifles popping deer after the late seasons are done?
I see shooting as far better option than pumping them full of some nasty concoction and have them roaming about with big orange spots painted on their sides. lmao. Just because pgc wants to cater to ANTI hunters demands. There is no need for contraception period. And it brings with it VERY ugly potential.
And thats just one issue. Another could be accurately pointed that pgc is VERY hunter nonfriendly as are their cohorts at dcnr. Their acceptance of this crap only shows this yet again. They cant be trusted with this option. And there is NOTHING that will stop its expansion of use thanks to the foot now being in the door. The delivery methods are being refined and the cost is being lessened. Absolutely nothing good will come of this from here on out yet there is GREAT potential maleffect to us and our sport and thats a fact. I also dont see this as good pr for pgc. More like INSANE. .
Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-25-2010 at 01:42 PM.