SaltWaterRocks
I'm a couple posts behind, but I would ask you to temper your anger at the PGC(PFBC, State Police, Teachers, etc) and focus it where it belongs, with those who created the problem.  The state has underfunded the state retirement systems by using investment returns to fund their contributions; at times, they were actually paying in less that 1% of the 6.5%(or more) they should have been paying.  While this isn't a bad thing per se, they saw this coming in 2001(and possibly before) and yet the only action they took exacerbated the problem.  I agree, we are stuck with the problem and a fix needs to be implemented, but I believe we need to push for a permanent fix and stay away from the band-aids which the legislators passed and got us here!
Here are some relevant facts.  BTW, all of this came AFTER they had increased the multipliers for retirement by 25-50%.  Anyone wanna guess who got the 50% increase?  The legislators.

Personally I have no anger towards the PGC or PFBC when it comes to the pension crisis we face in this state. The legislature is responsible for most, if not all of it. They have to fix it and seem more willing to kick the bucket down the road than address it as they don't want to pee off any constituent that they rely on for a vote. Tax and fee increases with spending will not get us out of this financial crisis.
 
With the said, the entitlement attitude of public sector unions is not helping the matter either. Very few in the private sector are getting yearly raises of 2-4% and minimal contributions to their insurance plans like many in the public sector do. Few in the private sector have "early out" retirement options. Very few in the private sector even have pensions any longer.
 
In the private sector, pensions can be eliminated or reduced for retirees. That is illegal by law in this state.
 
The pension fiasco in this state must be addressed sooner than later. In the meantime, there are steps, and have been steps, the PGC can take to reduce costs. Some have been done but many yet remain like the pheasant permit that should have been implemented years ago and reduces costs associated with the failing wild pheasant recovery areas.

Two of my favorite things are to watch is people fish for trout as soon as the 2nd round of stocking truck dumps trout into the nearest creek. And also the people that shoot pheasants as soon a PGC release them off the stocking truck, usually at the 2nd or 3rd stocking of the season.

Personally I have nothing to say.
🎅 Tis the season to be jolley.

I break the discord with the PGC into five separate entities -- law enforcement; financial; deer program; policies; and, the ubiquitous, other. Some I have a personal issue with, others, I do not. But all have been touched upon by posters on this thread, so obviously, some take issue with each entity.

I have never had a bad experience with the LE arm of the PGC (the PBFC is another story -- being checked five time in one day and over 12 times in a three day span by the same officers was a tad excessive). I've only actually been checked twice in over 40 years of hunting in PA. Both were pleasant encounters and I wasn't even asked for my license or ID. Neither interfered with my hunt. But I have heard some not so pleasant stories where the encounter started with a suspicion of wrongdoing, even when there not only was none, but not even a hint that there might be.

With regard to the financial issues, that, as explained by another poster, I see as a state responsible issue. While the PGC does not have a public sector union (although they tried to use the on-duty killing of an officer to install one), they are treated, financially, as if they do.

This model has proven to be unsustainable even when tax dollars, which can be increased, unlike the current license dollar model, is in place. Something here must change going forward. Perhaps it will be necessary to draw a line of demarcation that has the old pension and post retirement health care on one side and a defined contribution retirement plan and participatory health care plan on the other side of a hire date. The county I live in was forced to do this. For a period of time, it resulted in difficult employee recruitment, but the county found a balance by increasing starting wages in order to attract applicants. The short term cost increase was far more fiscally sound than long term legacy costs.

Merging the PGC with the PBFC will do little to nothing with regard to either' fiscal issues because both are broke. Sure, some short term savings will be realized by elimination of duplicity positions, but under the current models, the long term costs are still there.

As for the deer program, this was the tipping point for the PGC with regard to going from respected to where they are today. This board was rife with discussions concerning what AR/HR would do -- some saw it as great and others warned it would end hunting as we know it. Even years after implementation, some on here were stating that it didn't effect them. Others told them to wait and it would. The later appear to have been right.

Sure, some still have it good, particularly the urban area archery hunters, but the backbone supporters of the PGC, the 2-3 day per season gun hunters, were dissatisfied to the point that they left the sport in droves, reducing the opening day participation numbers from around a million hunters to closer to 500,000. Those hunters, and their financial contribution, are not only gone forever, so are any future generations that may have been associated with them had they continued to hunt rather than give it up.

And the sad thing about the deer program changes was that it was an attempt to fix something that wasn't broken. PA deer hunters, for the most part, didn't give two hoots about bigger antlers. Sure, it was nice if one harvested a big buck, but antlers didn't make the deer, they made the deer legal. But, as government agencies tend to do, the PGC tried to tell hunters what they should want. And it was a failure.

As for policies, at some point, the PGC forgot who their paying customers were. They added staff, and the associated costs, to the songbird group. While I am sure that hunters do care about songbirds (maybe not), this is not what they anticipated their license dollars being used for.

And the focus on non game species does not end at the biologist level. I hunt on occasion with a retired PGC land management supervisor and his focus, as directed by his district manager, changed drastically over the years. It swung from habitat management that not only promoted what was preferred by game species such as pheasants, grouse, and rabbits, but also included ensuring that SGL's were huntable for those species to ensuring that songbird habitat took precedence. No longer could paths be mowed; over sized autumn olive trees be pushed over to provide brush piles; or scrub trees in fence rows be cut on a rotating basis because those actions may effect songbirds. Controlled burns of warm season grasses were stopped. Planting of milo and sorghum was stopped.

Land management was no longer about game and the hunting there of. It was about non game species (and don't think for a second that should the non hunter voice be added via requiring a SGL user fee that this will change once the non hunter has financial skin in the game).

As for the catch-all "other," category, I place the MY programs, the pheasant program, and anything else that seems to be happening in a Willy Nilly fashion.

I have no youths to mentor, so I have no skin in that game. I know a few folks that do and for them it has been a resounding success. I'm not sure, however, that it really makes any difference. I believe, perhaps erroneously, that those who have kids that desire to hunt would still have kids that desire to hunt, even if they had to wait until age 12. I think that few would be lost if required to wait and am not sure any are gained by letting them start early. But I don't see any harm in it.

The pheasant program progressed and regressed over 40 years. I've seen pheasant hunting go from almost no birds to plenty of really dumb cage raised birds to great experiences to not so good again. And now there is a proposal to add a permit.

I'm actually okay with the permit, although I don't see it being enforced. I also don't see it making the pheasant program any better. It doesn't cover the cost of the program.

The issue I have with the pheasant program is again, the PGC telling hunters what they should want. When the pheasant program was having issues and rebuilding the pheasant farms, only 100,000 birds were being stocked for several years. During that time period, I could take a group of hunters (many of them novices), of up to the limit of five total, and not only limit out for all hunters in about two hours, but have the dogs point another 6-10 birds on the way back to the parking lot.

That changed, oddly enough, when the number of birds stocked increased to 200,000 birds. Since the increase, my groups have yet to limit out. I asked a coworker, who is a DWCO and went along for stocking, what changed. His response was two fold -- the birds were being spread out to other properties and they were stocking at night.

The rationale for stocking more properties was to spread the birds out. This is admirable except it was taken to the extreme and actually reduced the number of birds stocked in traditional SGL areas. Hunting these birds required making contact with the property owner and hunting multiple properties, many that are 10 miles or more apart, in order to hunt over the same number of birds as before the stocking numbers changed. Some of these properties get as few as 10 birds. It doesn't take long for that few birds to be reduced by hunters and predators to zero.

Why the PGC would think that hunters would prefer to travel to many places to maybe find a huntable population is beyond me. Sure, it might elevate some crowding, but most pheasant hunters I know aren't bothering with the co-ops that get only a few birds.

I suggest that it would have been more prudent, when stocking numbers went up, to keep the numbers stocked on the SLG's (and other traditional stocking areas) the same and do the co-op program on a smaller scale.

When I asked about the stocking at night program, the response was it was designed so hunters did not know when and where birds were stocked. I get it, it is supposed to be hunting. But, just like any stocked program, it us put and take. The difference is that studies show that predetors take 30% of stocked pheasants on their first night out. Why throw those birds away by stocking them at night rather than permitting them to actually be hunted by those that paid for them? And no , safety is not an issue.

Basically the PGC is getting cute with the pheasant program and it is hurting hunter satisfaction. According to the PGC, there are 100,000 hunters that target pheasants in PA and the average number of birds killed per hunter per season is, drum roll please -- ONE.

Now, I can tell you that despite not killing as many as we did when the stocking numbers were actually down, my group kills way more than one per person per season. That means that there are a great portion of those 100,000 pheasant hunters that are not killing a single bird. Just how long does the PGC think those folks will continue to fork over $25 for a pheasant permit to kill nothing?

In short, rather, in long, the PGC, whether it is the deer program, the pheasant program, land management, songbirds, etc. have forgotten whom their customers, and sole source of income (other than federal sports equipment excise tax dollars, which are license sale number based) is. If they want to survive for the next 20 years, that better change.

OK OK not from PA but -did work in Le for 28 years then got into politics and served on a local pension board for quite  a while--- a relatively SOLVENT pension.
Its true today that many govt pensions are grossly underfunded causing serious fiscal issues.
Ya gotta ask WHY.
As benefits are given its  likely that employee contributions go up as well as employer contributions to the pension fund.
Far and away too many Govt agencies never  submit their share to the funds.
One here  took the employee contributions and put them in the general  fund and spent them for decades leaving the fund very insolvent--folks blamed the employees when finding out taxes may increase for their pension fund.
Many govt agencies borrow from the pensions  for pet projects and to alleviate general tax increases.
All of these and more lead to VERY insolvent funds -which IMHO is usually the fault of the management of the funds over decades.
Doesn't make it better to know, but its proper to know WHO caused the issue.
Generally the same boards and elected folks choose to reduce the benefits to meet the dollars left in the funds when they themselves ( or largely their predecessors in the same positions) are largely responsible for the problem.

DarDys

BeenThereDoneThat.
Might the actions of the PGC, be bringing true meaning to:

"BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR"?



As for the $25.00 "Ditchchicken" permit fee or the gameland use fee(s), some yinz are missing the intent. Don't ya know yinz are suppose to be mad as hell, demanding from your state legislators the PGC be allowed to raise, the general hunting license fees?

The PGC needs strong support from the hunting community and I'm pretty sure they ain't gonna get it from groups such as "Squirrels Forever" but maybe there might be other special interest groups or lobbyist that will.

During the last election cycle, TV ads for a challenger to a state rep clearly stated in her own voice as the pictures depicted hunters, "I support the sportsmen of PA and, if elected, will NEVER support ANY license increase for hunting or fishing." So good luck with getting any legislative action in that direction.

I have no idea if she won or not, she was not interested district, so I didn't follow the results. But that she found that addressing license increases was important enough to take up 1/3 if her commercial running time kind of punctuates that no movement in that direction is imminent.

Never saw the results of public pressure change the minds of a politician at re-election?

How about the dangling of the political contribution carrot by special interest groups and lobbyist?

Pretty sure a Wolf might be a example of flip flopping on issues. But just one, of course.

I have. I also suspect that is why she, as a candidate, was taking that strong of a stance on not raising license fees.

Frankly, at this point, and I know this will be unpopular, I no longer care. I can take hunting or not. Never thought I would get to that point, but it has arrived.

How many of you guys have lived and hunted out of state, and how does it compare to what we have in PA?
 
When I lived in NC almost 20 years ago, you could get a Sportsman License for $40.  It's $50 now.  It included
1.  Statewide freshwater fishing (salt was a few bux extra) including mountain trout
2.  All big game.  Not sure on numbers now but you got 6 deer tags (shoot up to 4 bucks); a bear tag; two spring and two fall turkey tags; and wild boar.  
3.  All small game and migratory birds (of course federal waterfowl stamp was extra).  
 
But wow, can you imagine getting all of that for $50 in PA?  I know that we'd never get 6 deer tags here.  More than twice as many deer hunters in PA as in NC.  
 
Makes it hard for me to stomach another increase just to hunt or just to fish in PA, although I'd probably do it anyway.  Shows just how bloated our state government is and how wasted our license dollars are when you stack it up next to some other states.   
 
 

Anymore my bow hunting is reserved to ohio and pa I hunt only both Saturdays. But that's only because the last few seasons I've seen less and less deer and alot fewer hunters. Unless I'm part of a drive I don't like pushing deer to others so most of my time is spent sitting. I can't complain though 2 doe in ohio and the buck in pa and my freezers full.

Perception is reality. PGC did this to themselves.
 
 
 

Big Tuna ya ain't alone in the age thingy category and I think by now, you know the "brains" of the PGC, give absolutely no consideration to that problem.

The PGC for some reason, does not realize that the older generation is where the money comes from and we far out number the mentored youth of whom they placate to.

Special regulations set aside for a few, maybe they will but pretty much proven they don't, spend money after becoming of age mentored hunters.

Meanwhile we older, who do spend money, hunters that can no longer hike deep into the woods over hill and through valley in search of, that elusive PA. White Tailed Deer having three or more points to one antler, not counting the brow tine are suppose to swallow our pride and shoot a doe, if we wish to enjoy a meal of venison. That is if one gets to see a deer, maybe because some capable hunter, inadvertently chases a doe to our area.

However, there's nothing like taking advantage of today's technology allowing us to enjoy the success of other hunters.

Certainly is nice seeing pictures posted on the different web sights, but some do have me wondering if hunting "The Pennsylvania Wilds" can (or should) any longer be considered a heritage?

I find the pictures of trophy elusive PA. White Tails, to be quite interesting.

Don't yinz just love seeing those cute pictures of dead spotted bambi's?

However, that being said Etc. Etc. Etc..... come Dec 26 this year I shall once again partake in the heritage of hunting the elusive PA. White Tailed Deer.

Wish me luck.... Eh?

Big Tuna
DarDys you probably know how much the PGC says it cost to raise a pheasant ? I saw it somewhere but can't remember.

It is actually a hard number to pin them down on. I've seen reports of $18-$20 each. I've seen reports of $30-$35 each when the actual stocking activity was included. I've seen reports where 80% of the cost of a PGC stocked pheasant was due to labor and benefits cost. So who really knows?

That will also change when they switch from hatching birds to buying day old chicks. (Will that be the end of providing chicks to clubs to raise?)

Another way to look at it is the PGC pheasant program costs $4.3 million. They claim there are 100,000 pheasant hunters which harvest an average of one bird per hunter. That translates to a cost of $43 per harvested bird.

DarDys
Another way to look at it is the PGC pheasant program costs $4.3 million. They claim there are 100,000 pheasant hunters which harvest an average of one bird per hunter. That translates to a cost of $43 per harvested bird.

Yep. With that talk of a pheasant permit, one has to wonder about the end game. A $10 permit will bring in 1 million. A $20 permit 2 million. The program still draining the agency, even with a permit in place. How many of the 100,000 will hang it up instead of buying the permit?

From what the PGC spokesman wrote to an outdoor writer friend, the addition of the pheasant permit was not intended to pay for the entire program, but rather just reduce the amount of general license money that went into it. In other words, like most government and quasi government programs, it cannot be self sustaining.

Our club still raises about 3 to 5 hundred birds each year but not for the reasons from years ago. Use to be the G.C. rules were we could only release the birds on properties that were open to public hunting and we had to account for every bird we raised, then lowlifes got in birds landed in freezers rather than the woods, G.C. quit coming around to inspect the pens and birds and it went to he!! In a handbag. They just open the fence and let the birds fend for themselves but no one around here hunts them because everything is posted. I've had 30-40 birds feeding in my yard till they get hit on the road or they just disappeared.