The migration attracts large numbers of bird watchers and photographers, many of which return year after year to enjoy an exciting and fulfilling experience. Unfortunately some in the hunting community view bird watchers, photographers, hikers, etc. with contempt and would like to see the area maintained for hunting only, with other user groups excluded. If they had their way scenes such as those below would be a thing of the past.
Snow Geese At Dawn-Willow Point |
Morning Take-off At Willow Point |
Here is a portion of Mr. Hough's statement as stated in News Release #017-16:: (to read the release in its' entirety, click Here. )
"This almost 20-year-old pricing structure simply is not sufficient for the agency to maintain its current level of services and respond to the growing list of challenges it currently faces. For instance, it should be noted that none of the wildlife diseases I mentioned were present in Pennsylvania at the time of the last license increase.
Already the Commission has implemented budget cuts in response to decreasing revenues. This past year, we eliminated 28 full-time positions from our complement. This has been done through furloughing employees and not back-filling positions as they became vacant.
We also will not be renewing the contracts for about 45 limited-term employees. Some represented the only means we had to effectively and efficiently monitor many non-game wildlife populations.
In addition, we concluded the agency could not hold the Wildlife Conservation Officer class that was scheduled to begin in March of 2017. In light of that decision, the earliest we could begin a class would be March of 2018, with the cadets graduating a year later. By then, we project almost one-third of the officer districts will be vacant due to retirements. Obviously, the longer we go without resources to conduct a class, the greater the number of vacant districts across the state, resulting in violations going undetected, a decrease in response time and fewer services that officers can provide to the public.
"Without additional revenues in the near future, we will have to take even greater steps at reducing expenditures. Some of the proposals under consideration include closing facilities – such as the Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area, shooting ranges on game lands, and our Howard Nursery, and substantially reducing the pheasant-stocking program. I have no doubt that these proposals will not be popular with the general public and our hunting-license buyers, but without additional revenues we will have no choice but to make significant reductions to our budget."
Analysis
But
is Middle Creek really likely to close? While I was at Middle Creek
last week I did not talk to any Pennsylvania Game Commission personnel,
but rather discussed the situation with fellow wildlife photographers.
In addition I have read quite a bit of commentary in articles posted
online and comments on the PGC Facebook Page.
"Middle Creek being considered for closure cast-strapped Game Commission says" by Ad Crable and published by Lancaster Online on 02/25/2016 is one of the best articles I have read on the subject. It features interviews with PGC officials both past and present and has an informative comments section as well.
We
always hear that the State Game Lands System was bought and paid for
with hunter's license dollars, and in many cases that is true, but
according to the article and other information included in the comments
section, Middle Creek itself
was bought with Project 70 Funds, while Game Lands 46, which adjoins
it, was indeed bought with PGC funds. Below is a direct quote from the
article which touches on the source of funding and the purpose for
building Middle Creek. Its main purpose was to provide a vital resting stop for migrating waterfowl whose numbers at the time were worrisome. Since then, Canada geese and other species have rebounded."
Another quote, this one from past Game Commissioner, Stephen Mohr, brings us to the main point that I wish to address today.
“Closing Middle Creek will infuriate the nonhunters. The hunters could care less. The PGC is only attempting to divide the troops. Middle Creek was built with general revenue moneys. Our elected officials should call their bluff.”.
In reading the comment section on the Pennsylvania Game Commission Facebook page it is clear that some of the more militant hunters would like to see the non-consumptive user excluded from Middle Creek.
Most disturbing to me was a thread on the PGC FB page which began with an individual(from now on referred as commenter A) asking, "Is there snow goose hunting opportunities at Middle Creek? Why can't the bird watchers go ask the farmers instead of us?
Another person replies-"If you could hunt snows at MC they would not be there.
A replies-"Not true. An area that size, with that
quaility of habitat, and along a traditional migratory corridor would
always draw snow gesse. Yes it will not be the artificial refugia it
is as evinced by these disgusting photos, but the geese will still
use the wma, they will just be one their toes more, like wildlife
should be"
The
photos he was referring to are much like the ones posted below and
shows large numbers of snow geese or snow geese with photographers and
bird watchers looking on.
"Disgusting photo of Snow Geese In artificial Refugia" |
.
Another "disgusting photo of Snow Geese In artificial Refugia" |
Willard
Hill "So it is disgusting to have wildlife that is easily
view-able by the public? I am sure that if and when the vast numbers
of easily view-able birds are gone at some point in the future, that
there will be a great effort extended to get them back. You may still
have snow geese if the refuge portion of the WMA was opened, but you
would not see them in large numbers for long. As for contribution to
the upkeep of Middle Creek- many bird watchers would be willing to
pay to help support this area, but the Game Commission does not ask
them to do so."
This
entire string of comments vanished soon after I made the above comment,
and I have looked repeatedly to find it again. Commenter A posted his
question in the comments immediately under the main PGC post and all of
the replies that vanished were in response to his comment and not as
responses to the main PGC post so it is possible that he removed his
question and thus deleted the entire string.
Researching this individual led to a Face Book post by a group called "The Bird Hunting Society", which among other things supports the closing of all but the hunting part of Middle Creek and getting the non-hunters out. Here it is in their own words.
"If you hunt Pennsylvania take action!
Middle Creek WMA is an upland and waterfowl mecca. Although hunting is allowed, the wma is used more for bird watching. That may be changing. There is a proposal to CLOSE Middle Creek. We are NOT sure but do not believe that means hunting will end, but think rather it will get the non hunters out and decommission many of the unnecessary (useless to hunters and wildlife) facilities. Waterfowl hunting has been by lottery permit on this wma, and that may be a good thing or a bad thing, however we doubt the closure is because of the expense of running the hunting program. We ask you to support the closure but still keep the wma remain available to hunters, and if appropriate to distribute hunting opportunity and provide quality hunting, the controlled waterfowl hunt be kept."
So there you have it--get rid of those pesky bird
watchers and photographers so that the WMA is used only by the real
owners and by the way let's forget that this land was not purchased
solely with hunting license dollars,
Another thing that really rings my bell is the common refrain to ask the photographer, the bird watcher, etc. to help foot the bill for wildlife conservation, while at the same time making sure they are unable to do so in a method that quantifies their input. It is really quite simple--make it so that to be present on Game Commission land within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that one must be in possession of a valid hunting licenses or in lieu thereof a valid use permit. The fee could be based on the cost of a resident adult general hunting license. Since it would be very expensive for a large family, this could be modeled on what I have seen at the national parks where if one person in the group has a valid pass,this allows all in the vehicle access. There would be some sticky fine points to address for sure, but it could be done.
Researching this individual led to a Face Book post by a group called "The Bird Hunting Society", which among other things supports the closing of all but the hunting part of Middle Creek and getting the non-hunters out. Here it is in their own words.
"If you hunt Pennsylvania take action!
Middle Creek WMA is an upland and waterfowl mecca. Although hunting is allowed, the wma is used more for bird watching. That may be changing. There is a proposal to CLOSE Middle Creek. We are NOT sure but do not believe that means hunting will end, but think rather it will get the non hunters out and decommission many of the unnecessary (useless to hunters and wildlife) facilities. Waterfowl hunting has been by lottery permit on this wma, and that may be a good thing or a bad thing, however we doubt the closure is because of the expense of running the hunting program. We ask you to support the closure but still keep the wma remain available to hunters, and if appropriate to distribute hunting opportunity and provide quality hunting, the controlled waterfowl hunt be kept."
Middle Creek Visitor Center-Some consider it useless to hunters and wildlife and want to see it closed |
Another thing that really rings my bell is the common refrain to ask the photographer, the bird watcher, etc. to help foot the bill for wildlife conservation, while at the same time making sure they are unable to do so in a method that quantifies their input. It is really quite simple--make it so that to be present on Game Commission land within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that one must be in possession of a valid hunting licenses or in lieu thereof a valid use permit. The fee could be based on the cost of a resident adult general hunting license. Since it would be very expensive for a large family, this could be modeled on what I have seen at the national parks where if one person in the group has a valid pass,this allows all in the vehicle access. There would be some sticky fine points to address for sure, but it could be done.
Many
photographers, bird watchers, hikers, etc. that do not hunt, do
purchase a hunting license or donate to the PGC. This is a good thing,
but the problem with buying the license, is that you are counted as just
another hunter. If every photographer, bird watcher, and hiker bought a
hunting license under the current system, there would still be those
that said that these groups were still not contributing. Now if there
was a box to check as to why you bought the license that would
statistically record what interest group you belong to it would be a
different story. As it currently stands you are still considered a
dead-beat who refuses to pay their way because no one but you knows why
you bought the license. The same would be true to a certain extent
with donating money because it would be assumed you were basing your
donation on a glowing approval of programs as they are currently
implemented. I wish to emphasize that this is not a criticism of those
that do chose to contribute by buying a license or donating.
Another
aspect of the situation and perhaps the most important is that a
significant portion of the traditional sporting community and at least a
portion of important policy makers in the Pennsylvania Game Commission
does not want these interest groups to be paying stakeholders. This is
not only true in Pennsylvania, it is true throughout the rest of the
country as well. The problem is only going to get worse as traditional
sources of funding for conservation agencies continues to shrink and
they desperately try to maintain sufficient funding without including
input or monies from other user groups. This in turn leads to
situations like last year where a blatant attempt was made to exclude
everyone not engaged in legal hunting and trapping from State Game Lands
for a significant portion of the year.
At this point it seems that the threat of closure is more a strategical move announced to coincide with the seasonal upsurge of interest in Middle Creek due to the spring migration.and hopefully motivate the vast numbers of visitors to contact their state legislators about approving a license increase for the PGC.
At this point it seems that the threat of closure is more a strategical move announced to coincide with the seasonal upsurge of interest in Middle Creek due to the spring migration.and hopefully motivate the vast numbers of visitors to contact their state legislators about approving a license increase for the PGC.
Originally published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.