"Explain the political influence in the current deer management that you think is present. " Tinpa2


Tinpa2..... is this a real question or are you that far out in left field you don't know??? Can there still be some who are so in the dark that they think there is no politics in wildlife mgmt?

boscola the appointee that started this thread is a part of the Governors sportsmans advisory council. He gets his advice from these folks, THEY PICK THE COMMISSIONERS who are all political appointees. In fact it was members of Governor Ridges GSAC that lobbied to have a Pa game commissioner removed specifically because he opposed the major herd reductions proposed. Either you never read a newspaper or are just clueless. Many of the members( and former members) of the GSAC are leaders in sporting orgs like Melody Zullinger of PFSC, Ralph Saggiamo of USP, Don Heckman of nwtf, etc... and they are there just to play politics and they make no bones about it. Also members of that
council are those in the business of FORESTRY.

If you think that politics plays no part in wildlife mgmt you are out to lunch. Vern Ross WAS THE GOVERNORS SPORTSMANS ADVISOR, and he had no background what-so-ever in Wildlife Managment. He was appointed because he is a political friend of Tom Ridge. He managed a grocery store FCOL before being exec director of the PGC... it was pure politics and being a yes man on the GSAC that got him to the PGC plain and simple. And yes he hand picked Dr. Alt to put forth a more QDM managment plan in pa because that was the way other states were going. How did the money come in to finance studies and justify herd reductions. The Audubon Society through pure politics collected 1.3 million dollars in 'anonymous' donations (at least one of which was the Hienz endowments) and thru politics it was paid to PSU to do studies FOR the PGC. Talk about buying yourself studies to justify what direction you want. The studies were done AFTER the new rules were put in place. Talk about politics ruling where science had not even been done yet....

And we have been under "psuedo scientific management' for 5 years. In each of the last five Dr. Alts team took steps to change the way we do things. Earlier seasons, ML changes (in the use of thier tag), additional doe tags, ARHR, Concurrent seasons, more weapons, changes to SRA's were touted as the answer to different problems. But they all are part of the "deer plan". You can't just single out ARHR as the one thing you want to focus on. It is a comprehensive plan that started in 1999, five full seasons ago.

And the politics is all encompassing in wildlife management. State reps are regular speakers at the PGC meetings. They tout many different things for special interests. Crossbows, outfitters, farmers, deer hunters, spelunkers, turkey hunters you name it. They are politicians and they influence every aspect of our wildlife management. You will see members of the governors staff there, Reps like Staback and Smith, lobbyists from capital hill. Lobbyists for sportsmans groups. Lobbyists for manufacturers, Lobbyists for timber companies (kane collins pine etc...), lobbyists for Pa farm bureau. They are all part of the process.
Its all politics at the meetings.

Probably the biggest political influence is in the PGC's sister agency DCNR pushing its agenda on Pa deer management at the behest of thier largest customers, Big timber and tourism. Big time politics is played regularly. It is Bryon Shissler who works for DCNR that wrote Pas' forest certification which included the stipulation that in order for PA to have the largest certified forest in the country. In order to charge customers premium prices for hardwood timber, the state would have to drastically reduce its deer population. Now thats playing politics with wildlife.

Have you forgotten how just this year DCNR played politics by both withholding lands from the PGC for hunters to use. DCNR refused to cooperate on land sales to the PGC unless they INCREASED herd reductions and gave them more DMAP rules. When that hit the media DCNR backed off slightly.....then they took the ridiculas and tact of having thier biologist Merlin Benner threaten Pa sportsman with the lame threat of bringing in large predators to Pa to control deer numbers if sportsman would not (something the PGC would not have approved permits for anyway) which makes THAT HOLLOW THREATH ONE OF THE WORST examples of playing politics in PA for 2004. And no one is surprised that came from the environmental extremists of DCNR.


Surely people cannot be so dim as to think that politics is not part of Pa wildlife mgmt???? I mean really....are people that out of it?

Science,thats a joke,Political science maybe. I really have no problem with AR's. And most of the people who support alt would like trophy buck here in Pa.Who would not?? But hey there is something missing,Genes and good food in the mountains. I had some hunters say I cant afford or my wife wont let me spend 3000 to go to ill. or iowa or where ever.Thats why they will support Alt. Again no problem with AR's ,but the doe slaughter is just to appease the timber people. Not for the hunters benefit.Again a deer ratio of 1 to 1 is good. But why kill the doe so aggressively to get the match?? Why not bring the buck herd up to the doe level instead of the doe level down to the buck ?? Why cause it is cheaper for the PGC to do so.And Basically after living in 4 big buck states we as hunters in Pa are some of the cheapest hunters I ever seen. They think their contribution is kill and buy a few tags.Just ask them to help contribute some of their money to enhance the food sources and they run and hide behind Moms skirt. For pete sake nothing is a free ride.I got permission from a land owner to plant 7 acres of good food plots next year. And the property is next to a federal park that is loaded with deer I mean 10 deer for every acre. The food plot would draw a hunting paradise in our grasp. Who wants to put in 500 a piece to do it ?? thats the question I took to some hunters that hunt around here.You Know what they stumbled and said the hell with that I will find some other way.

Anyone who has heard Alt knows that he readily admits that politics from all angles, IE hunters, farmers, timber co.s etc etc are a very big part of this.

The trick he's trying to pull off is to balance all the factors involved. That will never completely satisfy any of the interests involved. Keeping the resource as the first priority is the one way to not let one political faction or another win to the detriment of all others.

We as hunters will need to settle for less deer. Loggers and farmers will have to settle for more deer than they think is ideal. Our benefit is a healthier herd and better but yes less bucks. The folks who own most of the habitat and feed and shelter these deer will still have to put up with more deer than theyd like. They say a good compromise is when no one walks away completely satisfied.

Quicksilver,

Ulysses has been around a long time under many other names and has always been an Alt obstructionist. He might have been an Altie when Gary was the bear guy but not since.

If anybody wants to borrow a set of gloves, all ya have to do is ask....It's gettin a little chippy in here........[>:]

T in Pa heck it's been longer than 5 yrs not all under Alt I agree we had bonus tags back in the 80s.
and if you don't see how politics have shaped the current deer management in Pa from pressure of the timber companies, farmers, etc. I sure won't be able to show you!

put those gloves away moosehorn if we can't argue among ourselves about the PGC then things have really gotten bad! I may not share some of the views some of these guys have but there's none I wouldn't share a deer camp with, besides it's almost Christmas ( and I still say MERRY CHRISTMAS)
Hey BT Bwhntr I'm thinking of a cool signature like you have, how about this one....kill a little buck let a big doe have twins

I agree politics do play a roll in areas but justification in deer management, what this topic is about, is biological. It would be political if changes are made that go against sound biological management just because we cry loud enough.

If you think the influence of the timber industry, the DCNR and the Audubon Soc. is not political you are living in fantasyland. And, that is why the hunters have to use the poitical route to counteract their influence.

like I said earlier someone got a better idea to stop the doe slaughter in your area go for it, me I'm doing what I can for mine. besides posting my property and getting my neighbors to post which we all did in 2004 I'm pulling all the stops out.
So either join up or get out of the way! Call Boscola, call commissioners write a letter or two (it won't kill you).
BTW you'll get a kick out of the standard reply to a email set via the PGC website contacts. I wrote 7 of them from 7 different 'puters and got 1 answer to all 7 " thank you for your comments I will forward them to the board "

let me ask this question to all you "Alties" out there: when you see land getting posted up and approach the landowner asking for permission. what do you think of Alt's agenda when you hear " I posted because too many doe are being shot" or "my property is over run with hunters since the gamelands is now shot out of deer"
those are the answers we in Hector Twsp are now giving hunters whom knock on the door an ask for permission.
Hard to put the blame anywhere else other than Alt