Recently there has been much ado in the outdoor press about the
possible closing of Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area, which is
located on the Lebanon/Lancaster County line close to Kleinfeltersville,
Pa. Middle Creek is home to a wide variety of wildlife, but it is best
know for the massive snow goose migration that occurs each year in late
February and March.
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/927c9/927c971fa88411693635c8aa06f0d34a692558fd" alt="" |
Snow Geese At Dawn-Willow Point |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/41aa9/41aa97a062a613e3c50df4e9751e3dfdfa8d9c71" alt="" |
Morning Take-off At Willow Point |
The problem is that the Pennsylvania Game Commission
has not been granted a license increase since 1999 and officials say
they cannot continue operating at their current level without making
substantial cuts. On February 24, 2016 Executive Director Matt Hough
gave the agency's annual report to the General Assembly and testified in
front of the House Game and Fisheries Committee. In his report Hough
gave an overview of agency activities and accomplishments during the
past year, and then went on to discuss some of the cuts the agency is
considering if a license increase is not approved.
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.
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.
"Middle Creek was built with state taxpayer money as part of a
statewide referendum and opened in 1973. Its ongoing management is by
the Game Commission, which pays for its operation.
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.
“They are digging themselves a big hole,” Stephen Mohr, a
former Game Commissioner and Conoy Township supervisor, said in
reaction to the Game Commission's consideration of closing Middle
Creek.
“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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ead3a/ead3a9f7caf9429ff893e12127fb921a4015aa30" alt="" |
"Disgusting photo of Snow Geese In artificial Refugia" |
.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/499a9/499a91bb6a6f7047a2e162221be99241f0c337a5" alt="" |
Another "disgusting photo of Snow Geese In artificial Refugia" |
This was a bit too much to take so I posted the following reply:
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."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6f85/a6f85c6f7df6bffb0afd72b0c08d16a7451bfae2" alt="" |
Middle Creek Visitor Center-Some consider it useless to hunters and wildlife and want to see it closed |
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.
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.