SB 1166 in Jeopardy! Calls Needed ASAP!

[melody]

SB 1166 in Jeopardy! Calls Needed ASAP!


Both SB 1166 (Game) and SB 1168 (Fish) bills are scheduled for a Game & Fish Committee vote Tuesday morning, September 20th.

Representative Maloney has filed an amendment to SB 1166 that would replace the license increase language with his language from HB 2083. This language would strip the game commission of their ability to manage deer and turn management over to a politically appointed group of non-professionals with personal agendas. This is legislation that most all of the state's major sportsmen's groups have opposed. The Sportsmen's Alliance, the National Deer Alliance and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation also oppose the HB 2083.

Please contact the members of the House Game & Fish Committee and ask them to oppose all Amendments to SB 1166, particularly Maloney's amendment, and support SB 1166 & SB 1168 as written, to allow our resource agencies the financial backing they need to operate efficiently.



Email Contacts for House Game & Fish Committee Members:


[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];



Reminder:

Public Hearing Scheduled:

TUESDAY - 9/20/16
House State Government
8:30 a.m., Room G-50, Irvis Office Building
Public hearing on: HB 2083 Maloney, David Amends Title 34 re management & accountability

HB 2083 By Maloney. Amends Title 34 (Game), in preliminary provisions, for defs., in PA Game Commission, for powers & duties of commission & accountability; hunting & furtaking, senior hunting licenses; &, special licenses & permits; authority to issue permits.
- Jun 22, 2016 - Referred to House State Government


Note: PFSC and the majority of the state's sportsmen's groups all oppose this dangerous precedent setting legislation. The legislation is also opposed by many National groups, including the Sportsmen's Alliance, the National Deer Alliance and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.


Action Alert:

Please contact your state representative and the members of the State Government Committee, and ask them to oppose this and any other similar legislation that would take wildlife management out of the hands of professionals and place it under the control of political and personal agendas.

State Government Committee Members:

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

[robinpa]

So how did the vote turn out on SB 1166

[Loggy]

Tabled


SB1166

[dennyf]

Both bills to allow the wildlife agencies to set their fees (with continued legislative oversight), passed out of HG&F and onto the full House, think it was 17 to 8? First consideration was given yesterday, needs two more days before a vote, IIRC? Then it goes back to the Senate for final concurrence, then to Wolf for signing.

It is critical for supporters to keep contacting their state Reps on these bills.

BTW, those in Lancaster County represented by Bryan Cutler, might want to put some pressure on him? Don't think he supports either bill?

[Dutch]

Cutler is a jackarse.

[dennyf]

Not much time to act. Bills may well be on the floor by next Tuesday?

[turkeykiller]

IMHO, these bills would not even have been written were it not for the passed 20 yrs. of the PGC's misguided deer management. Their HR plan was a disaster in some areas, and their hokus pokus formula for deer harvests is a joke. You reap what you sow.

[dennyf]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with nearly every point you made. But we're all entitled to an opinion.

The PGC bill may not have been "necessary", had the legislature not piddled around for 17 years since the last increase.

I recall when an adult license was around $6.50, then went to about $12. The next raise was to $20 around 1999.

Someone else can figure out the percentage of those raises over the years, but if they jump it $10, won't bother me any because it is still a bargain. When they raise the cost of a bear tag, bobcat permit and doe tags,I will still buy them like I have for years.

USP opposed the bill and blamed the loss of hunters on "no deer", in their testimony. We've lost more hunters due to aging, physical issues and mortality, than what they claim as the reason. Not to mention hunters that come and go as the mood strikes them, or gave it up for other reasons? Pretty much every other organization supported the bill.

When the license went to $20 around 1999, the politicians were told the increase would last the agency roughly 6 or 7 years max, then they would soon be needing more $$. It was already projected that rising salary/benefit/retirement costs would continue to increase. Only way PGC has to deal with those increases, is to cut their staffing. They have zero control over employment costs.

Add to that, higher fuel bills, electricity and insurance over the years since '99. Increasing costs for replacement vehicles, equipment and materials needed to maintain SGLs, etc. Coal has dropped in value, so have many species of timber, two commodities from SGLs that once brought in needed funds.

What "saved" them, was the unpredicted advent of Marcellus gas exploration in the mid 2000s. Without that and no license increase, where would things be now? But ya know, many will continue to fuss about "not enough deer" as their primary reason to oppose an increase in license fees and it ain't the PA Deer Commission.

[Dutch]

"Rep. Truitt noted there seems to be disagreement on what is the proper number of deer. He wanted to know if the number of deer is at the right level. Hough reflected on the different areas of the state. He said that in the southeast and in the southwest "we have way too many deer." Hough noted the habitat is very poor in north central Pennsylvania. He also noted the commission reduced the deer herd but the forest has not yet responded."

Hasn't responded? It sure has.

[turkeykiller]

Sept 21, 2016 19:01:36 GMT -5 dennyf said:

Not surprisingly, I disagree with nearly every point you made. But we're all entitled to an opinion.

The PGC bill may not have been "necessary", had the legislature not piddled around for 17 years since the last increase.

I recall when an adult license was around $6.50, then went to about $12. The next raise was to $20 around 1999.

Someone else can figure out the percentage of those raises over the years, but if they jump it $10, won't bother me any because it is still a bargain. When they raise the cost of a bear tag, bobcat permit and doe tags,I will still buy them like I have for years.

USP opposed the bill and blamed the loss of hunters on "no deer", in their testimony. We've lost more hunters due to aging, physical issues and mortality, than what they claim as the reason. Not to mention hunters that come and go as the mood strikes them, or gave it up for other reasons? Pretty much every other organization supported the bill.

When the license went to $20 around 1999, the politicians were told the increase would last the agency roughly 6 or 7 years max, then they would soon be needing more $$. It was already projected that rising salary/benefit/retirement costs would continue to increase. Only way PGC has to deal with those increases, is to cut their staffing. They have zero control over employment costs.

Add to that, higher fuel bills, electricity and insurance over the years since '99. Increasing costs for replacement vehicles, equipment and materials needed to maintain SGLs, etc. Coal has dropped in value, so have many species of timber, two commodities from SGLs that once brought in needed funds.

What "saved" them, was the unpredicted advent of Marcellus gas exploration in the mid 2000s. Without that and no license increase, where would things be now? But ya know, many will continue to fuss about "not enough deer" as their primary reason to oppose an increase in license fees and it ain't the PA Deer Commission.

IMHO,  alot of hunters would not have a problem with a license increase if the deer herd was in better shape. How many golfers would pay to play a course with only 5 holes?  How many fishermen would fish a lake with no fish?  The condition of the deer herd is a direct result of the policies of the PGC,  and the consumers (license buyers) are responding accordingly.







t



of hunters would not have a problem with a license increase if

[turkeykiller]

Sept 21, 2016 21:22:05 GMT -5 Dutch said:

"Rep. Truitt noted there seems to be disagreement on what is the proper number of deer. He wanted to know if the number of deer is at the right level. Hough reflected on the different areas of the state. He said that in the southeast and in the southwest "we have way too many deer." Hough noted the habitat is very poor in north central Pennsylvania. He also noted the commission reduced the deer herd but the forest has not yet responded."

Hasn't responded? It sure has.

Mr. Hough uses a "blanket" statement to defend his position.  I admit there are too many deer in the highly populated areas around Pittsburgh and Philly where hunter access limited, but to use that problem to say there are too many deer in the southwest is a real stretch.

[dennyf]

There are probably areas scattered over much of the state, that now have too many deer? Just as there are areas with too few deer and other places with enough to keep most hunters fairly happy. Some hunters would even be fairly happy in areas that others claim have too few deer? Wide range of hunter skills, time to hunt, persistence and access issues on private lands.

Look at the haggles Dutch and I have over 3A. His part, mostly public land above Rt. 6, has too few deer in his observations. 30 miles NW of there, we have oodles of deer and it's been like that for the past several years. Yet I still hear complaints that there aren't enough deer there, from some hunters.

Major differences in the predominant habitats in "his" area and "mine". Some Ag down his way, mostly mature forest and some cuts that are in the regen stages. Up my way, lots of Ag, nearby big woods and one helluva lot of big wood lots scattered around. Plenty of food through all seasons of the year, plenty of cover.

I don't think Hough made a blanket statement. He didn't have enough allotted time to sit there and try to explain all the variables of wildlife management, to a group of people that probably aren't capable of understanding half of it.

You need to watch the annual dog and pony show, when he's summoned to give the annual PGC report to that same bunch and half of them just use their time to pound him and the agency, trying to impress their constituents, instead of asking relevant questions and receiving viable answers.

[Dutch]

Straight line Denny, I bet I'm not much more than 10 miles from you?

[dennyf]

Gonna make me dig out a map and check, ain't ya? Brookland might be ten or fifteen "air miles", but from the corner of the county down to most of your state lands, farther than ya think.

[Dutch]

I'll check Google Earth fer ya.

[Dutch]

14.5 or so.

[turkeykiller]

Sept 22, 2016 13:06:59 GMT -5 dennyf said:

There are probably areas scattered over much of the state, that now have too many deer? Just as there are areas with too few deer and other places with enough to keep most hunters fairly happy. Some hunters would even be fairly happy in areas that others claim have too few deer? Wide range of hunter skills, time to hunt, persistence and access issues on private lands.

Look at the haggles Dutch and I have over 3A. His part, mostly public land above Rt. 6, has too few deer in his observations. 30 miles NW of there, we have oodles of deer and it's been like that for the past several years. Yet I still hear complaints that there aren't enough deer there, from some hunters.

Major differences in the predominant habitats in "his" area and "mine". Some Ag down his way, mostly mature forest and some cuts that are in the regen stages. Up my way, lots of Ag, nearby big woods and one helluva lot of big wood lots scattered around. Plenty of food through all seasons of the year, plenty of cover.

I don't think Hough made a blanket statement. He didn't have enough allotted time to sit there and try to explain all the variables of wildlife management, to a group of people that probably aren't capable of understanding half of it.

You need to watch the annual dog and pony show, when he's summoned to give the annual PGC report to that same bunch and half of them just use their time to pound him and the agency, trying to impress their constituents, instead of asking relevant questions and receiving viable answers.

I understand now. Us uneducated "deplorable" hunters should just accept what the Commissioners and their "elite" biologists spoon feed us.

[dennyf]

TK, that might actually work? But I'd skip the commissioners and just go with PGC staff?

Hey, Dutch: Up yers. Even better if it's only that short of a distance. According to some of the Forest Study GPS tracking, maybe all of "your" former deer are now "my" deer?

[turkeykiller]

Sept 22, 2016 14:27:41 GMT -5 dennyf said:

TK, that might actually work? But I'd skip the commissioners and just go with PGC staff?

Hey, Dutch: Up yers. Even better if it's only that short of a distance. According to some of the Forest Study GPS tracking, maybe all of "your" former deer are now "my" deer?

Being of a courious nature, I have to wonder if the Forest Study GPS tracking uses the same "magical deer formula" that Mr. Laroche used on his spotlighting adventure. He said he "figured" he only saw half the deer that were really there. Open wide for another spoonful.

[dennyf]

...that Mr. Laroche used on his spotlighting adventure. He said he "figured" he only saw half the deer that were really there. Open wide for another spoonful.

I've spotlighted the same "route" near camp annually since the 70s. Roughly a two square mile area that covers the hollows on either side of the ridge our camp is on. Used to do a little in the fall during turkey/bow seasons, always did the three nights before the firearms deer openers.

Using the higher numbers of the later 90s, some nights we'd only see 50 or 60 deer out. Another night there, we might see closer to 100 deer. It takes about 45 minutes to drive around that route, on average. Some nights we'd go out not long after sunset, maybe wait a coupla hours the next night. I think the highest number of deer noted, was well over a hundred one Saturday night in the late 90s, just before opening day.

If one would base their opinions on the night only 60 were seen and hadn't gone out the next two nights and had a far higher total, which number is "right"? Posed that to one of USP's guiding lights about 15 years ago and he said it didn't mean anything.

Well, if I know there are between 50 and 100 deer within the two square miles around my camp, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of deer around?

Mostly drive around the same area just before dusk now, instead of doing much spotlighting. But I do it from spring to deer season. Similar variations in deer numbers noted. Been doing that dusk thing from late summer into the fall, for the past several years. Far easier to glass any bucks seen, than at night with a spotlight.

Last year on the Saturday night before firearms, my cousin and I were out from 8 until almost 9, spotlighting. We saw over a hundred deer that night. By comparison, went out around 7:30 Friday night, only saw 36 deer. Drove around before dark Sunday, saw 35. Spotlighted later, after going over to the Grange Hall for supper, saw 42 deer around 7 to 8. Come opening morning, far more deer scooting around, that what I had seen spotlighting.

You can ridicule whomever you want to, but I know damn well there are nights spotlighting when you're lucky to have seen half the deer around an area. They don't always feed at the same times, or even in the same areas, night after night. At least where I'e been looking at them for the past 45 years?

[Dutch]

Laroche is also the guy, along with Charles Alsheimer that brought us the moon phase theory.

Its been debunked by biologists all around the country, INCLUDING those doing deer studies IN Pennsylvania.

He should never have said what he did. We still laugh, years later, as my brother said the same thing when he came back from spotting one night. He saw "X" number of deer, but figured there were twice that number. Mighta been right, mighta been 4 times that.

[dennyf]

Yeah, they all disappear when a full moon occurs. Back in the 80s my bud and I went down to the restaurant on Rt. 49 for supper not long after dark, full moon was just coming up. Might have been fall turkey, forget, pretty sure it wasn't just before deer season?

Spotlighted down to the restaurant, quite a few deer out along the way. On the way back up to camp, spotlighting as we went, Blazer pulls up beside us while we're stopped looking at some deer, dome light comes on. Two DWCOs checking to see if we "have any weapons", yap, yap.

Driver says "You won't see many deer out tonight with that full moon."

So, I responded that he must be onto something there, since we'd only seen about 50 deer on the way down to eat (maybe five miles and we only lit up the places we figured there'd be deer).

Driver wanted to know what I'd said, passenger told him to just go.



BTW Amos, I think Charlie still appears at the Penn York Camp each year, when they have their sportsmen's banquet the weekend prior to firearms openers? At least he did for quite a few years. That's the church camp over near Ulysses, on Rt 49.

That used to be a migrant labor camp back in the 50s, when I was a kid and spent summers up there. We hauled rolls of tar paper over there each year to "refresh" the shacks, right before the migrants showed up to pick peas. Guessing the church folks may have upgraded it a bit since then?

[Dutch]

His moon "theory" was that the timing of the rut was determined by the moon phases.

Just read an article by our biologists that said the rut isn't even effected by high temps, like a lot of bowhunters think.

I did not know that Penn York was a migrant camp. Interesting.

[turkeykiller]

Dennyf, you can defend the PGC and Mr. Laroche all you want. I do find your last post most humorous..

If I were to write a post or letter stating there were no deer in my area because I didn't see any while spotlighting, I would be ridiculed for not being a "professional", and my spotlighting not being any kind of "scientific" study. You,on the other hand, have no problem using your personal spotlighting examples to defend  Mr. Laroche's "unscientific" method of counting deer.

[dennyf]

Yep, my experiences are unscientific. But they've been pretty indicative of actual deer numbers in that area throughout the year, not just based on what I see (or don't see), come deer season. Also helpful to me personally, that I've been doing it in the same area for a very long time.

Several years ago in March, went up to camp for two days, having been in Williamsport over the weekend. First prolonged warm period that March. Cousin and I drove around before dark for about 45 minutes, went beyond my usual observation areas just to see what was around, so it got dark before I ever got to finish my normal route that day.

He lives there, had grumbled a few times over winter phone conversations, that there weren't near the deer around that there once was. We saw about 120 deer out that late afternoon in March. After the first 30 or so, he made a comment about "WTH were they during deer season". Since my 10x50 Nikons didn't find any wings on 'em, told him they were all here someplace back then. Also reminded him that deer numbers were at their lowest point in March and within a few months, there would be darn near twice as many around.

Oddly enough, I know lots of hunters whose impressions of deer numbers are based solely on what they saw - or didn't see - on those few days they're out hunting? Good to know you were mildly amused.