Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
The PA GAME COMMISSION >

The PA GAME COMMISSION

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

The PA GAME COMMISSION

Old 06-22-2015, 11:16 AM
  #21  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Southampton Pa BUCKS CO
Posts: 2,492
Default

Originally Posted by Oldtimr
I know there will never be an early two week buck season barring a huge drop in hunting numbers. But then, who thought we would ever have a two week doe season and longer in the special regs areas. That was to make a point. No matter who goes first, those who don't will not like it. Granted, anyone can get an archery license and hunt in both seasons but we both know not everyone wants to hunt in archery season or put n the time to be good with a bow. One thing most people forget, is the states with few exceptions have a lot less hunters than PA does, even with the loss of hunter numbers over the years, so they can afford to have longer seasons. Some states with long seasons and large bag limits on deer still don't take as. You are correct, the PGC needs to stay the course on their management program, tweaking here and there when they must or can. However, the larger antler size is a side effect of getting a better balance of buck to doe and allowing our buck to grow a few more years, not the intent of the management program. Actually I am happy to talk to somone from PA who likes the management program for a change instead of a chronic, "there are not enough deer, or the deer are extinct complainer. Good luck in the upcoming season.
Thanks. Good luck on your upcoming season.
hatchet jack is offline  
Old 06-22-2015, 11:17 AM
  #22  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,377
Default

You are welcome, get a bigun.

Last edited by Oldtimr; 06-22-2015 at 11:20 AM.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 07:13 AM
  #23  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 103
Default

Originally Posted by super_hunt54
While I don't have paperwork, what I DO have is a wife that worked in the Insurance industry for 30+ years and 12 of those years was in Pa. SHE is the one that told me the insurance companies were putting pressure on those that had influence on the commission. The reason was because they WERE losing money in Pa and had been for several years. The Insurance companies were trying to get the costs down plain and simple. They put it quite simply to the ones that had the influence either do something about it or they were going to have to skyrocket the premiums. That's not a rumor, myth, or anything else of the sort, it's plain and simple fact that is WELL known. You obviously have a bug up your butt with ANYONE that has anything to say about the PGC but you have some serious blinders on when it comes to simple and WELL KNOWN facts. I didn't say that it was the ONLY reason they did it, just that it was a contributing factor in the decision. Now according to the wife, who just looked this stuff up for me by the way, deer/car collisions are some 35% lower than they were 12 years ago and the general car insurance premium's have risen within the normal rate per annual cost graduation as most other states. (her words not mine I THINK that means they haven't went nuts). And are you really naive enough to think that there would be ANY minutes from the commission meetings that would show an outside source pressuring the committee? Especially where money more than likely changed hands? Come on Oldtimr, you've been on this Earth long enough to know better than that! You can't sit there and HONESTLY say that the deer/car collisions had absolutely NOTHING to do with them acting! Take your blinders off, get Dr. Alt off that pedestal and see the PGC for what it is, was, and always has been, a group of people plain and simple. With people come greed, mistakes, theft, and the rare PROPER things done. I DO know whats going on in the hunting world, have for many years. I don't listen to rumors most times, I go with what I see for myself and SOMETIMES take FEW people at their word.

As far as the gun/archery part, I never stated that YOU were the one saying it would be better for Gun first. It was back on the first page someone was stating it would be better.
That is absolute and utter nonsense.I've owned an insurance agency for the past 25 years and I can guarantee you that not only has the insurance industry not lobbied anyone for less deer in Pa,they actually could care less.Deer claims are a very small percentage of the total loss ratio.However,what they are is predictable from year to year.That predictability allows them adjust premiums accordingly and make a profit.Also,in the vast majority of cases collision rates are much higher than comprehensive rates.As an insurance agent,I watch my loss ratio very closely.Big claims like fires and multi-vehicle collisions concern me.I don't even pay attention to deer claims because they're small and they don't add up to anything worth worrying about.
dougl is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 08:24 AM
  #24  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,377
Default

Thank you Doug, I was hoping someone in the industry would chime in.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 08:39 AM
  #25  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 103
Default

That urban legend drives me up a wall.When people hit deer,it's dangerous,inconvenient and it costs the consumer money so any state agency obviously wants to reduce that risk.The big issue was with the habitat.It was impacted so greatly in many parts of the state that severe herd reductions were a necessity.Herd reductions in Pa had nothing to do with the insurance industry lobbying or paying anyone off.
dougl is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 09:13 AM
  #26  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,377
Default

Unfortunately, there are some people who will never be convinced, the truth is too inconvenient so it is easier to blame others. The truth of the matter is, that the fault for the overgrown herd lays with the previous boards of commissioners who did not have the courage to do the right thing when presured by hunters and legislators to let the herd grow. Now it appears the myth has made it outside our borders. Nice to see you post again.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 10:15 AM
  #27  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 103
Default

Thanks,unfortunately the current board is once again playing the 'SOCIAL CONCERNS" card.In a few years the herd will be out of control again and any gains with the habitat will be lost.The current BOC rejected several of DCNR's dmap applications around here based on social concerns.
dougl is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 10:42 AM
  #28  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 15,377
Default

That is unfortunate. We need Commissioners who don't think they are elected public servants. They are appointed to represent the resource first and hunters "wants" based on self interest needs to take a back seat.
Oldtimr is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 03:37 PM
  #29  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Southampton Pa BUCKS CO
Posts: 2,492
Default

Originally Posted by super_hunt54
While I don't have paperwork, what I DO have is a wife that worked in the Insurance industry for 30+ years and 12 of those years was in Pa. SHE is the one that told me the insurance companies were putting pressure on those that had influence on the commission. The reason was because they WERE losing money in Pa and had been for several years. The Insurance companies were trying to get the costs down plain and simple. They put it quite simply to the ones that had the influence either do something about it or they were going to have to skyrocket the premiums. That's not a rumor, myth, or anything else of the sort, it's plain and simple fact that is WELL known. You obviously have a bug up your butt with ANYONE that has anything to say about the PGC but you have some serious blinders on when it comes to simple and WELL KNOWN facts. I didn't say that it was the ONLY reason they did it, just that it was a contributing factor in the decision. Now according to the wife, who just looked this stuff up for me by the way, deer/car collisions are some 35% lower than they were 12 years ago and the general car insurance premium's have risen within the normal rate per annual cost graduation as most other states. (her words not mine I THINK that means they haven't went nuts). And are you really naive enough to think that there would be ANY minutes from the commission meetings that would show an outside source pressuring the committee? Especially where money more than likely changed hands? Come on Oldtimr, you've been on this Earth long enough to know better than that! You can't sit there and HONESTLY say that the deer/car collisions had absolutely NOTHING to do with them acting! Take your blinders off, get Dr. Alt off that pedestal and see the PGC for what it is, was, and always has been, a group of people plain and simple. With people come greed, mistakes, theft, and the rare PROPER things done. I DO know whats going on in the hunting world, have for many years. I don't listen to rumors most times, I go with what I see for myself and SOMETIMES take FEW people at their word.

As far as the gun/archery part, I never stated that YOU were the one saying it would be better for Gun first. It was back on the first page someone was stating it would be better.
Nobody ever stated in this thread that it would be better for a Gun first season before Archery season.

HJ
hatchet jack is offline  
Old 06-23-2015, 03:48 PM
  #30  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Southampton Pa BUCKS CO
Posts: 2,492
Default

Originally Posted by Oldtimr
You are correct, it was hatchet jack who said that, however it doesn't matter,because what I said was still to make the point. As far as what your wife told you, it is not true it is a myth that has been around for a long time started by people who did not want the deer herd reduced and were looking for someone to blame for applying preasure for reduction. If there is one thing I am not, it is naive and I don't wear blinders! What I said it absolutly true. Your wife is wrong about lobbying or presure by insurance companies. If you want to believe it, I don't care, just don't try to put it out as the truth. By the way, commission meetings have always been recorded, either by a stenographer or now by electronic means, it is required. To insinuate that certain things may be deleted from the minutes or not entered at all is ridiculous and a desperate attempt to bolster nonsensical allegations. Outside entities have always lobbied the commission to either do or not do things, a common thing to happen, and at open public meetings. For the record, I didn't say deer car collissions had nothing to do with reducing the deer herd, obviously it did because the numbers of them clearly showed there were far too many deer in the state, what I said was insurance companies had nothing to do with deer management decisions. Did you really expect the number of deer vehicle collisions to go up after over a decade of serious deer reduction efforts? That doesn't prove insurance companies were lobbying the PGC for deer reduction. The wildlife managers were well aware of that, hence the reason they worked since the 70s to make it happen but were unsuccessful due to hunters lobbying the Board of Commissioners and the legislature not to reduce the herd. The numbers going down only show the reduction program is working When you have been involved in wildlife management in PA for over 3 decades and have attended as many commission meeting as I have and know the players on both sides of the table as I do, perhaps you will have the knowledge to attempt to tell me what is going on in PA from where you live in Illinois, until then, figures on deer/vehicle collissions from your wife is not a reliable source of evidence of anything to prove your incorrect claim, they are meaninless numbers when used to make a claim that insurance companies had anything to do with PA deer management. To insinuate that I put Gary Ault on a pedistal is ludicris, while he did a good job, I didn't like him personally, that and the nonsense that I am naive and don't see what is happening around me is also ridiculous and pretty bold since you do not know me. Generally that kind of thing is used by those who have no facts and is called a red herring, used to take peoples attention away from the facts and is weak! If those you take at their word told you what you wrote above, you need better sources. What you are claiming is not true, I could say more but I will leave it at that.
For the record. Hatchet Jack never said that!

Hatchet Jack
hatchet jack is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.