I was listening when the results of the survey were given to the Board of Game Commissioners. I doubt they were being lied to.

Interesting ---- and yet just a couple posts ago you stated you looked at them and posted the link.  I think I will put my boots on now.  When are you going to tell us how what you are trying to do is going to improve either the lack of places to hunt or the amount of game to hunt for the majority of hunters. After all your own QDMA states it is a major problem.
 
I would imagine the spin doctors have formulated their own version of the meaning of the survey by now since it counterdicted what they had been claiming for years.  We all saw what happened to the CAC's when they didn't go as expected. 

Their option is a simple one for them but a bad one for those who rely on their land to hunt. I know some who say they will post and one who already has because he got tired of hearing about it. Ironhed says a landowner near him stated he would post 5,000 acres. You don't tell a landowner what to do with his land without problems. The PA landowners assoc came about as a result of folks telling them what to do with their land.

My guess is you don't own any acerage because if you did you would see  it from a different perspective. I own two fairly small but stratecially located pieces of property. I have put up with other hunters on them for 40 years and other landowners have let me hunt theirs. Sunday is the only day I work my property during hunting season. I don't want to get into pizzin matches because I screwed up someone's Sunday hunt. My options will be either post no Sunday hunting or solve all my problems. Living 100 miles from here you and Kathy don't care. There are some here that deeply care.  Multiply that times a few thousand landowners facing the same decision.

Ironhed says a landowner near him stated he would post 5,000 acres.

 
+1
 
Ironhed

I care deeply about it despite you wishing to paint me otherwise, S-10.
 
The reason is you are trying to push Sunday hunting without losing land to hunt when the landowners (at least many) are telling us they don't want us. It's the old adage--- what part of NO don't you understand.
Perhaps it's due to not being a landowner yourself. 
 Now, on the other side is those hunter/landowners who don't have an access problem and who have their land posted, control the game numbers, and who just want to hunt it on Sunday. This lawsuit may help them but to the detriment of the vast majority of hunters.
 

You keep referencing the PFB but forget that it is the majority of ALL landowners who are against it. The PFB just has a spokesperson to convey their message. As for the public holdings, The pressure of  HR the last decade has led to their being the fewest deer on them of all the ground in the state  to the point that many areas are not worth hunting and you will be forcing more hunters on them as land gets posted.
 
As several on here have said in the past, address the declining game numbers and then discuss Sunday hunting. More time to hunt for less game will not increase hunter sastification, retention, or recruitment as our recent history has proven.
 
As for the PGC listening to us and making the decisions, explain to me why they just based their current doe allocations on the same number of deer in the state as we had BEFORE the start of HR.
As for claiming --what part of no don't you understand--- being out of the PFB playbook--- that is what I mean about not listening but just trying to tell the landowner what to do-----
 
BTW--- I stay out of my woods (unless I am hunting it) 6 days a week when deer or turkey is in season.

Juse because land is "posted"doesn't mean you can't hunt it ,you still can with the land owners permission ,im not a land owner but I know alot do because they dont want the dirty dutch and everyone else hunting it,even if its " public access" you still need permission ,if you dont wana hunt on Sunday then dont,I sure will everyone of them to,and thats my right your license dont cost more then mine,and if you dont want me hunting your land on Sunday thats fine its your land, sunday hunting ant the end of the world or killing every animal, a true sportsman has morales not like the dutch and poachers ,worry about them not the licensed animal loving guy who works 5 days a week with no vacation time to hunt weekdays that respects the wildlife I mean really I think your all getting bent out of shape for nothing

s-10,

You keep stating that landowners are somehow being told what to do. This is perplexing to me. Exactly how are landowners being told what to do when it comes to hunting in PA.

From 2003- and as a result of heavy posting during the 90s.

Abstract:
Recent reductions in access to private property have resulted in declining availability of private land for recreational purposes, including hunting. In Pennsylvania, access to such land for deer hunting is critical to effectively manage the Commonwealth's deer herd. Posting is among the most commonly used means a private landowner has available to limit access to property. This study examined landowners' motivations to post their land against hunting and other recreational uses. Nearly 70% of all landowners in a mail survey posted their property. Variables that increased landowner likelihood of posting included past problems with recreational users, location, number of acres owned, and concerns about property rights, illegal hunting activities, safety, and potential liability issues. Variables that decreased the likelihood of posting included length of ownership, ownership primarily for agricultural purposes, and concern about deer-related damages. Implications of these findings are advanced.
Outdoors: Penn State study shows 7 in 10 landowners post their property and that the trend will likely continue
Sunday, August 31, 2003 By Ben Moyer A recently completed Penn State study set out to identify the factors driving a trend that hunters see all around them -- an increase in private land posted against hunting. Private land is an important element of Pennsylvania's hunting culture. According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, about 55 percent of all hunting trips in the state take place on private land, while state-owned lands provide the setting for about 38 percent of Pennsylvania hunting outings. Virtually all cropland in the state and nearly three-quarters of all forest land is privately owned. Hunting provides valuable recreation for about 900,000 Pennsylvanians, and it is the only practical way of managing deer populations on the landscape. "There seems to be a trend developing for more property owners to post their land," said Gary San Julian, Penn State professor of wildlife resources who supervised the research. "Deer managers need to better understand why landowners allow and deny access to their property, so they can identify outreach needs and strategies for meeting recreational and resource-management goals." The researchers surveyed 1,900 landowners in three Pennsylvania counties about their attitudes toward access to private property, whether or not they posted signs, what factors influenced that decision and what government policies might influence them to change their mind. Three diverse counties were selected to enable researchers to compare landowner attitudes under a range of social and environmental conditions. The three counties studied were Greene in the southwest, Pike in the northeast and York in the southeast. Pike County is dominated by forests, but it is the fastest-growing county in the state with a rapid influx of permanent and seasonal residents from New York City and Philadelphia. York County is predominantly agricultural, but growing rapidly along the suburban corridor between Harrisburg and Baltimore. Greene County holds a mixture of forests and agriculture, but has not experienced significant urban or suburban growth. Sixty-nine percent (nearly seven in 10) of responding landowners in the three counties said they posted signs on their land. The percentage of landowners posting signs ranged from a low of 60 percent in York County to a high of 88 percent in Pike County. Just under two-thirds (63 percent) of Greene County landowners said they posted signs. Landowners who had recently purchased property and owners of forest land were more likely to post them, while owners of agricultural land and those concerned about deer damage were less likely. Thirty-two percent of landowners in the three counties who posted cited the desire to "control who is on the land" as the single most important reason influencing their decision. Other important reasons were: human safety, 19 percent; liability concerns, 15 percent; reserve wildlife for family/friends, 7 percent; and property damage, 4 percent. "People just want some knowledge and control of who is on their property," San Julian said. "And it also seems increasingly evident that even people who don't post really like hunters to stop in and say hello -- to let them know what visitors are up to. They like to maintain that contact." Among landowners who did not post signs, the most important reason for their decision was "control deer population," cited by 14 percent of respondents in the three counties. Eleven percent decided not to post because of their "relationship with neighbors," and 6 percent said they kept their land open because it was a family tradition. The survey confirmed the importance of courteous behavior by hunters while hunting on private land. More than two-thirds (70 percent) of posting landowners said they had experienced problems with people who used their land for recreation, and 39 percent said they decided to post because of a bad experience with people on their property. The situation may not be as bleak, however, as some hunters assume. "When land is posted, the common assumption is that the owners do not want any hunting on their land," said Coren Jagnow, a doctoral student who did much of the research. "Our data suggests that this may not be the case at all. Clearly, owners want to control who is on their land. But just because land is posted doesn't mean that hunting with permission is strictly prohibited. Three quarters of posting landowners still allow some hunting on their properties." According to the survey, six percent of posting landowners actually use signs that read, "Hunting with permission only," indicating that a good impression and respect for private property can still win hunting opportunities for strangers on private land. Use of the "hunting with permission only" sign was most prevalent in Greene County (used by 10 percent of posting landowners), and least so in Pike (1 percent). Jagnow cautioned that hunters cannot rely on deer damage as a justification to expect to be admitted to private land. "There is also a perceived idea that when landowners experience damage to their property from deer, they will open their land to hunting," he said. "Our data suggests that this is not necessarily the case. Owners remain more concerned with their experiences with recreationists and wanting exclusive use of their land. Those landowners who had a negative experience with recreationists on their land are unlikely to open their properties under any circumstances." The researchers concluded that because new landowners are more likely to post signs on their property, compared to those who have owned their property for longer periods, the trend toward posting is likely to continue. The results also indicate that posting landowners are not likely to open their land in response to changes in hunting policy, such as antler restrictions or firearms restrictions. The 58 percent of landowners who currently do not post signs said they would do so if Sunday hunting were legalized in Pennsylvania. The days of hunters enjoying casual access to private property in Pennsylvania are gone. Many of the factors contributing to posted property are beyond the control of hunters and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The Penn State data shows that every hunter can minimize the impact of posting on Pennsylvania's hunting tradition by presenting a positive image, respecting private property and asking permission before entering land whose boundaries are as unmarked.




























Abstract:
Recent reductions in access to private property have resulted in declining availability of private land for recreational purposes, including hunting. In Pennsylvania, access to such land for deer hunting is critical to effectively manage the Commonwealth's deer herd. Posting is among the most commonly used means a private landowner has available to limit access to property. This study examined landowners' motivations to post their land against hunting and other recreational uses. Nearly 70% of all landowners in a mail survey posted their property. Variables that increased landowner likelihood of posting included past problems with recreational users, location, number of acres owned, and concerns about property rights, illegal hunting activities, safety, and potential liability issues. Variables that decreased the likelihood of posting included length of ownership, ownership primarily for agricultural purposes, and concern about deer-related damages. Implications of these findings are advanced.
 
And a news article on the topic. 
Outdoors: Penn State study shows 7 in 10 landowners post their property and that the trend will likely continue
Sunday, August 31, 2003 By Ben Moyer A recently completed Penn State study set out to identify the factors driving a trend that hunters see all around them -- an increase in private land posted against hunting. Private land is an important element of Pennsylvania's hunting culture. According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, about 55 percent of all hunting trips in the state take place on private land, while state-owned lands provide the setting for about 38 percent of Pennsylvania hunting outings. Virtually all cropland in the state and nearly three-quarters of all forest land is privately owned. Hunting provides valuable recreation for about 900,000 Pennsylvanians, and it is the only practical way of managing deer populations on the landscape. "There seems to be a trend developing for more property owners to post their land," said Gary San Julian, Penn State professor of wildlife resources who supervised the research. "Deer managers need to better understand why landowners allow and deny access to their property, so they can identify outreach needs and strategies for meeting recreational and resource-management goals." The researchers surveyed 1,900 landowners in three Pennsylvania counties about their attitudes toward access to private property, whether or not they posted signs, what factors influenced that decision and what government policies might influence them to change their mind. Three diverse counties were selected to enable researchers to compare landowner attitudes under a range of social and environmental conditions. The three counties studied were Greene in the southwest, Pike in the northeast and York in the southeast. Pike County is dominated by forests, but it is the fastest-growing county in the state with a rapid influx of permanent and seasonal residents from New York City and Philadelphia. York County is predominantly agricultural, but growing rapidly along the suburban corridor between Harrisburg and Baltimore. Greene County holds a mixture of forests and agriculture, but has not experienced significant urban or suburban growth. Sixty-nine percent (nearly seven in 10) of responding landowners in the three counties said they posted signs on their land. The percentage of landowners posting signs ranged from a low of 60 percent in York County to a high of 88 percent in Pike County. Just under two-thirds (63 percent) of Greene County landowners said they posted signs. Landowners who had recently purchased property and owners of forest land were more likely to post them, while owners of agricultural land and those concerned about deer damage were less likely. Thirty-two percent of landowners in the three counties who posted cited the desire to "control who is on the land" as the single most important reason influencing their decision. Other important reasons were: human safety, 19 percent; liability concerns, 15 percent; reserve wildlife for family/friends, 7 percent; and property damage, 4 percent. "People just want some knowledge and control of who is on their property," San Julian said. "And it also seems increasingly evident that even people who don't post really like hunters to stop in and say hello -- to let them know what visitors are up to. They like to maintain that contact." Among landowners who did not post signs, the most important reason for their decision was "control deer population," cited by 14 percent of respondents in the three counties. Eleven percent decided not to post because of their "relationship with neighbors," and 6 percent said they kept their land open because it was a family tradition. The survey confirmed the importance of courteous behavior by hunters while hunting on private land. More than two-thirds (70 percent) of posting landowners said they had experienced problems with people who used their land for recreation, and 39 percent said they decided to post because of a bad experience with people on their property. The situation may not be as bleak, however, as some hunters assume. "When land is posted, the common assumption is that the owners do not want any hunting on their land," said Coren Jagnow, a doctoral student who did much of the research. "Our data suggests that this may not be the case at all. Clearly, owners want to control who is on their land. But just because land is posted doesn't mean that hunting with permission is strictly prohibited. Three quarters of posting landowners still allow some hunting on their properties." According to the survey, six percent of posting landowners actually use signs that read, "Hunting with permission only," indicating that a good impression and respect for private property can still win hunting opportunities for strangers on private land. Use of the "hunting with permission only" sign was most prevalent in Greene County (used by 10 percent of posting landowners), and least so in Pike (1 percent). Jagnow cautioned that hunters cannot rely on deer damage as a justification to expect to be admitted to private land. "There is also a perceived idea that when landowners experience damage to their property from deer, they will open their land to hunting," he said. "Our data suggests that this is not necessarily the case. Owners remain more concerned with their experiences with recreationists and wanting exclusive use of their land. Those landowners who had a negative experience with recreationists on their land are unlikely to open their properties under any circumstances." The researchers concluded that because new landowners are more likely to post signs on their property, compared to those who have owned their property for longer periods, the trend toward posting is likely to continue. The results also indicate that posting landowners are not likely to open their land in response to changes in hunting policy, such as antler restrictions or firearms restrictions. The 58 percent of landowners who currently do not post signs said they would do so if Sunday hunting were legalized in Pennsylvania. The days of hunters enjoying casual access to private property in Pennsylvania are gone. Many of the factors contributing to posted property are beyond the control of hunters and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The Penn State data shows that every hunter can minimize the impact of posting on Pennsylvania's hunting tradition by presenting a positive image, respecting private property and asking permission before entering land whose boundaries are as unmarked.

To Thunderpole and HuntSunday: Thunderpole, you stated 60% of the reason you hunt Ohio is Sunday hunting. Sunday hunting is 100% of the reason I hunt NY State.

While where at it lets not fish on Sunday or drink beer on Sunday or mow the grass on Sunda or take a s**t on Sunday ,thank you pp and huntsunday,Sunday is my day and yours to do as I please ,POSTED ANT UNHUNTABLE ,just ask permission I could care less if its posted I will still ask permission......