 |
| The Future In Pennsylvania If Proposed Use Regulations Are Approved |
First off I wish to thank Donna and Woody Meristem for their comments on yesterday's post.
Donna said, "Those who want to have their opinions heard can send comments to
pgccomments@pa.gov to be shared with the board. However, do it quickly,
as they meet on January 25. This would really affect photographers,
bird watchers, hikers, and all nature lovers. Offer to pay for a
non-hunting use permit, etc. Losing access to State Game Lands for
nearly half the year would hurt many of us".
Woody Meristem's said, "A user fee to contribute to the management and acquisition of State Game
Lands would be very appropriate. But to close SGLs to everyone but
hunters and trappers for almost half the year is something else
entirely".
"If the PGC wants to turn a horde of non-hunters into
anti-hunters and as a bonus get a lot of additional land posted against
hunting this is the way to do it. It's hard to think of a better way to
get bad PR for the agency, but I'm sure they could come up with some if
they tried".
I think both comments are right on the
money. Not only that but concerned citizens should make their thoughts
known to their state senator and representative and the governor's
office as well.
Remember this is the e-mail address to comment directly to the Pennsylvania Game Commission. pgccomments@pa.gov
Also I want to point out that Woody Meristem writes an excellent Blog,
"In Forest and Field". He addresses conservation funding issues In his November 30th article,
"It's Time For A Change", by pointing out that
,"wildlife
is a public resource that belongs to all the citizens of Pennsylvania
whether they are hunters, non-hunters or anti-hunters". I highly
recommend that you check his blog out and be sure to read this timely
and extremely important post.
I submitted a comment today to the Pennsylvania Game Commission which is posted in its' entirety below:
My Comment
I am writing to comment on the
proposed rule changes to Code §§ 135.41 and the new Chapter 147,
Subchapter AA.
I am commenting both from the
standpoint of a private citizen and the perspective of a retired Game
Lands Maintenance Supervisor, and DWCO. I have no problem with either
buying a hunting license or paying a use fee of commensurate cost for
the privilege of using State Game Lands. I do find it very
distressing that the Commission would consider banning the presence
of those not engaged in hunting from the game lands during the
periods that the proposed regulation states.
From a law
enforcement perspective it seems the thing would be a nightmare
unless very specific definitions of unlawful behavior were
formulated. Most objectionable is the "Hike on foot" part
. Does the Commission seriously plan to make it illegal for one to
walk on any game lands during the times in question unless they are
hunting or trapping? If a properly licensed hunter fills their deer
tag/tags will they still be allowed to enter game lands unless they
are actively assisting someone in hunting? There is a lot that is not
spelled out here--what if one is properly licensed, but hunts only in
rifle deer season--will they be permitted to scout before season
without being actively involved in hunting another species? If they
have a valid hunting license, will they be arrested if they carry a
camera and tripod instead of a hunting weapon?
While the game lands may have been
mostly bought with hunting license dollars a lot has been contributed
by groups such as the Richard King Mellon Foundation, Western
Pennsylvania Conservancy, and The Rocky Mountain Elk foundation so it
is not all a one-way street. In addition it receives a very favorable
deal on taxation of property with payment in lieu of taxes that if I
understand correctly is generally less than tax rates on similar
types of property. In addition hunters have the use of DCNR lands
which are not paid for or maintained by hunting license dollars, yet
it appears we want to repay this by severely restricting the ability
of the general public to access game lands.
Has anyone stopped
to consider the potential this has to damage the image of the
Commission in the eyes of the general public?
I thank you for
your consideration and for the opportunity to comment. I hope the
Pennsylvania Game Commission will not follow the rash, draconian
course of action that the proposal seems to set forth, but rather
work together will all groups concerned for the benefit of wildlife
and wild lands.
Sincerely,
Willard C. Hill