The PGC Plan for 2009 - 2014

[venado]

The audit will be done by the professionals at WMI, the results, whatever they are, will be accepted as fact by everyone but the perpetual whiners. I'm sure that the WMI recommendations will be considered seriously, will be incorporated as needed into the plan and the stage will be set for continued professional game management in Pennsylvania.

The new management plan for 2009-2014 will continue with the basic concepts that were there from the previous plan, 2003 - 2008. The following is from the draft version of that plan:

The PGC's "Vision":

The leader among wildlife agencies, and champion of all wildlife resources and our hunting and trapping heritage.


The PGC "Values" are:

Place wildlife first in all decision making
Respect the views of our various stakeholders
Be open, honest and forthright in all matters
Provide quality service both internally and externally
Carry out responsibilities in a polite, professional and considerate manner
Be ethical in the performance of all duties
Encourage the professional development of all employees
Have pride in our wildlife management heritage
Reflect on our success and lead for the future
The PGC "Mission" is :
To manage Pennsylvania's wild birds, wild mammals, and their habitats for current and future generations.

Those all seem to me like reasonable and thoughtful concepts to operate around. The plan itself is quite large and filled with details designed to meet the Goals of the Plan.

The idea for herd reduction in PA has been trumpeted by biologists in PA since the 1930s, but until now there had never been a group of Commissioners with the will to resist hunters and the Legislature and effectively manage the herd.

The PGC has passed through a difficult period of their history over the past few years and the Commission has been very steadfast to the chagrin of a minority of complainers. Many thought that the Commission couldn't stand the pressure and stay the course of herd reduction, however they did, and HR appears to generally be a herd maintenance scope now. Even though Dr. Alt was the big initiator for the HR effort, he too did not believe that the Commissioners had the will; however, he has been proven wrong. Dr. Rosenberry followed Dr. Alt and has been diligent in his approach to management for the benefit of all of the people of PA, not just the hunters.

Having personally following this for a few years after recognizing that what happened in PA was important to the rest of the nation's deer herd (especially the northeast), I'm glad to have seen how an agency can negotiate what their professionals determine is right for the resource in spite the pressure that has been applied by those that delight in complaining and bringing the legislature into an arena where they have limited knowledge. I do not think my own state agency could resist political pressure as well as what we have seen happen in PA.

I imagine that many of us that deal with QDM on a daily basis in our small immediate area of interest and see the frustrations that accompany that effort can only imagine how difficult it must be to try it on a statewide basis. I do not envy either the PGC or their Commissioners when they have to deal with a few people that don't want to consider anyone but themselves and are grasping at straws to defend their indefensible positions.

[Sabre]

Pa's big mistake was making the whole plan so public and throwing AR's in with the HR in the first place. NY quietly started a massive herd reduction back in the early 80's when they started handing out doe permits like so much Halloween candy and nobody complained because DEC never made a big public deal out of it like PGC and Dr. Alt did.

[Renegade]

It's hard to keep anything a secret that the PGC does, and I never recall a time when some hunters weren't complaining about something. I'd say that they tried to reduce the herd on a less vocal scale. They started the bonus tag program and the special regs areas in the 1980's. But it got to a saturation point where they just couldn't sell anymore tags, or I should say hunters wouldn't buy anymore in the 90's. The herd kept increasing because we weren't able to keep it in check. Plus the sitting commissioners back then kept reducing the biologists recommendations for tag allotments.
So if you can't sell enough tickets for a 3 day show, make the show a 12 day one and ticket sales will pick up. Many hunters were limited to few days afield. This allowed more opportunity and most likely participants.
Reducing the herd without limiting the buck harvest via AR would have made the buck harvest even lower. If you think it's low now you'd have been really disappointed if they didn't implement it till the herd was reduced.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Pa's big mistake was making the whole plan so public and throwing AR's in with the HR in the first place. NY quietly started a massive herd reduction back in the early 80's when they started handing out doe permits like so much Halloween candy and nobody complained because DEC never made a big public deal out of it like PGC and Dr. Alt did.

Same here in Texas. In the early 80's they started issuing landowner doe permits based on how many you wanted. Then in the mid 80's they simply opened the season on does. In our county you could shoot 5 per year if you wanted them. The buck tags are still either/or. There are still those who look disparagingly on shooting does as not sporting and they are right, it's not. It is management plain and simple. The deer bag limits, currently, are set on a county by county basis but I understand some changes are in the works which will change the whole system up and accomplish the same thing. I haven't heard many folks complaining that Texas bucks are too small since then or that there aren't enough of them. Most of the management in Texas is done by private landowners and is for producing numbers of quality trophy type bucks.

Alan

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

It's hard to keep anything a secret that the PGC does, and I never recall a time when some hunters weren't complaining about something.



I think this qualifies as on of the "Top Ten" understatements I've heard.



Alan

[Sabre]

There are still those who look disparagingly on shooting does as not sporting and they are right, it's not. It is management plain and simple

I always looked at it as a great opportunity to put more prime venison in the freezer and still do. I'll take all the doe tags I can get every year and never let one go unfilled. Most of the guys I've hunted with over the years looked at it the same way and several of us raised our families on lots of cheap, healthy doe meat throughout the 80's and 90's.

[Sabre]

Oh, and btw Renegade. Sorry I kinda jumped on ya there in that other thread. It appears I may have spoken too soon and misjudged you and your intentions on these boards. Anyways, welcome to Huntamerica.;)

[Renegade]

No problem Sabre. Thanks for the welcome. I've got fairly thick skin. I try to eliminate emotion as much as possible on these sites because I've never met most of the users in person to know what their emotion was. Sometimes that's not easy as I'm sure your aware. I have no ill intent, but only a desire to provide the real story. I've been following the happenings in PA pretty intensely for the past 11 years or so and have hunted the state since 1974. I was also once on the "other side of the fence" blaming the PGC for everything bad and believing about any rumor.
Actually, in my quest to prove them wrong and expose their "secret agenda", it didn't take long for me to see things were really 180 degrees from my initial perception. Like the saying goes, "the truth shall set you free". I've got scads of info at home in file drawers from years gone by and a bunch on my computer. At one point early on I had a voracious appetite for learning all I could. I even took a college course on forestry and have been to many seminars and habitat tours. I'm not trying to toot my horn but rather to give you a perspective from where I'm coming from. I don't claim to know it all or have all the answers, but I've got a pretty good grasp.
I had no intention of dragging this site to the gutter as you could probably tell from my initial posts. But then what seems to happen to all sites at some point, the gremlins made their rounds. And I'd like to apologize to ALL for the turmoil he brought. Most PA. guys are civil and can agree to disagree without the child like behavior.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Sabre, I don't think it was a big mistake in making the plan public. On the other hand, it was a means to their end because it was a rather severe change and need to be well explained to get the hunters on board. Many of which have while the others choose to do otherwise. I am not familar with NY, but by not making a big deal out of it, they were just acting responsibly to the science of deer management and recognized a problem and started managing for it. As Renegade mentioned, some would see the opportunity to take more does and did so.

Here in LA, they haven't made a big deal of it either, they just contined to add doe days in an effort to take a adequate number each year. Now finally they have issued tags allowing each hunter to take three a year at they will instead on special "doe days".

Renegade, I applaude your effort to "learn all you can" and take an interest in what your state is doing.

[venado]

Pa's big mistake was making the whole plan so public and throwing AR's in with the HR in the first place. NY quietly started a massive herd reduction back in the early 80's when they started handing out doe permits like so much Halloween candy and nobody complained because DEC never made a big public deal out of it like PGC and Dr. Alt did.

Interesting comment Sabre. You might be right however based on my observations those PA black helicopter guys would have seen "silence" as the extreme conspiracy and would be just as upset. Theoretically, we are taught that the more people understand about the why and wherefore of what is done, the more likely it is that the intelligent ones will support needed change.

As opposed to TX where private land dominates, PA has considerably more huntable acres that are "public" and included in that are what they call the "Game Lands" which were partially purchased by hunters. Logically the hunters that hunt those game Lands feel that they deserve special rights, and I do not necessarily disagree. The bulk of the "public" land is controlled (much as if it was a private owner) by an agency other than the PGC (the DCNR) and they have a totally different obligation to the people of PA. The DCNR, to meet their obligation to the people of PA requires a managed deer herd. Often what you hear from the perpetual complainers is their total misunderstanding of why those lands are made available to them and why HR is very important to the DCNR in meeting their obligation. I do think that an approach in the beginning that gave special favor to Game Lands and better explained why HR was mandatory on DCNR property might have been a better sell, and perhaps would have gotten ahead of the conspiracy thinking.

Any rules that the PGC establishes regarding game limits within the state only sets the MAXIMUM harvest. Any private property, and I seem to recall that is about 80% of the deer hunting land in PA is only constrained by that MAXIMUM take. Just as it is here in TX where 95%+ is private, the private landowner can chose to take LESS than the MAXIMUM. Any private land owner in PA has that same option.

We have shown proof that some PA land owners have dramatically been able to improve their buck harvest quality by the controls that they place on their harvest. In the old site some of those guys even came to this site to help other PA hunters with this and of course the complainers would have nothing to do with trying to learn from their fellow PA hunters. I believe that taking control themselves would have interferred with their complaining about the mean ol' PGC...!:D

[Laturkeyhtr]

I believe that taking control themselves would have interferred with their complaining about the mean ol' PGC...! :D

Does that mean then that complaining is more fun or rewarding? "D

[Renegade]

No, just much easier to do!:cool:

[Pa greed commission]

"Interesting comment Sabre. You might be right however based on my observations those PA black helicopter guys would have seen "silence" as the extreme conspiracy and would be just as upset. Theoretically, we are taught that the more people understand about the why and wherefore of what is done, the more likely it is that the intelligent ones will support needed change."

It doesnt take black helicopters to push an agenda. PGC, Audubon and others are doing just fine without them. And the majority of we whom are intellectual enough DO support NEEDED change. NEEDED being key word. We do not NEED extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity that doesnt exist anywhere else in the nation!

"As opposed to TX where private land dominates, PA has considerably more huntable acres that are "public" and included in that are what they call the "Game Lands" which were partially purchased by hunters."

Yet audubon society and other NONHUNTING factions currently are dictating the usage by having large amount of input asked for and taken by pgc thanks to such an "environmentalist friendly/hunter nonfriendly" pgc currently. Their input often effects the "huntability" and or game holding ability of those gamelands.

" Often what you hear from the perpetual complainers is their total misunderstanding of why those lands are made available to them and why HR is very important to the DCNR in meeting their obligation."

Pure bunk. The deerless sham plan has effected the huge majority of the states lands both public and private. Though some public land was hit the hardest, the only lands "spared" were those very restricted access. Gamelands (using "game" loosely) were among the hardest hit. Many wmus that are mainly private land, yet open to hunting (even though more and more are now posting thanks to the slaughter) have seen the wmus deer herd decline 50% of more to some of the ow deer densities according to annual reports... and that is even in wmus where less than 5% of the land is public.

" I believe that taking control themselves would have interferred with their complaining about the mean ol' PGC...!"

Noone other than pgc (and legislators) can "control" 900,000 hunters statewide in a responsible manner. Thats what they are charged with doing, paid to do, but arent doing. Time for legislators to step in further than they have already.

[Pa greed commission]

"Does that mean then that complaining is more fun or rewarding?"

Fun? Depends on who you ask i guess. Rewarding? It has helped politically. Believe it.;) Fee increase denial by legislators. Political pressure from legislators. Audit (though that was a mis-step and fraud)....

anyway, NOTHING is accomplished by keeping your mouth shut, or pretending to put on a happy face. You wouldnt do it if the engine in your brand new car blew up, you wouldnt do it if a doctor botched your surgery, you wouldnt do it if you didnt get service or item you paid for... Why on earth would anyone do it when their "lifestyle" is being compromised for some VERY poor reasons and environmentalist nutcases are trying to dictate to us that we need to stick with a completely miserably failed plan that they and ONLY they will someday benefit from?

Yeah. Complaining is necessary and has effect. Why do you think politically motivated hpa doesnt allow it on their site?;)

[Laturkeyhtr]

Pgc, You sound proud of the fact that politics held up a fee increase but not the audit. In both cases you got what you asked for and you are still not happy.

But just how much complaing about the "new politics" that is promoting "change" are you doing? And sadly it is only going to get worse. :mad:

[venado]

DAFC said:

Noone other than pgc (and legislators) can "control" 900,000 hunters statewide in a responsible manner. Thats what they are charged with doing, paid to do, but arent doing.


Looks like the PGC has accomplished almost exactly what they set out to do. Reduce the herd by a significant amount and then go into a maintenance program. It must be very painful for the complainers to realize that in general the PGC did what they said they would do and that they were not deterred by the Slinskys, USPs and perpetual whiners.

Whatever reduction in the deer herd on private land was, it was the private land owner that controlled it not the PGC. Here in TX we have 5 WT tags supplied with every license issued and many additional tags at no additional cost when special conditions exist. If landowners here authorized maximum TPWL harvest to govern their private property, I suppose our herd could be greatly diminished in just a few years as PAs was. The reality is, we have a fairly stable population of deer over an extended period of many years.

Looks like this issue always goes back to a balance between freedom and responsibility. DAFC, how do you explain the reduction on PA private land beyond what the private land owner desires?