For All You Complaining about the Deer =====

Here's your chance to do SOMETHING ABOUT IT..... finally our area is getting CACs... apply today.. I DID !!!!!

GAME COMMISSION SEEKS CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOLUNTEERS


HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Game Commission is calling for nominations of citizens willing to participate in one of four Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) to help gather input related to the deer management goal of reducing deer-human conflict in three Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) in 2011.


Those WMUs identified for next year are: WMU 2D, which consists of areas in Armstrong, Butler, Clarion, Jefferson, Venango, Indiana and Westmoreland counties; WMU 2F, which consists of areas in Forest, Warren, Elk, McKean, Jefferson, Clarion and Venango counties; WMU 2G, which consists of areas in Clinton, Lycoming, Tioga, Potter, McKean, Cameron, Elk, Clearfield and Centre counties; and WMU 3C, which consist of areas in Bradford, Susquehanna, Wayne, Wyoming and Lackawanna counties.


All nominations will be compiled and presented to the Commonwealth’s Office of Strategic Services, who will interview potential candidates, make the final selections of participants and facilitate the meetings. The Game Commission does not participate in the selection process, and there is no guarantee that any nominee will be selected or even contacted for an interview.


“Citizens will serve as representatives of specific stakeholder groups and work with other stakeholders to provide a deer population recommendation for each WMU,” said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. “CAC recommendations then will be considered by Game Commission personnel – along with indicators of deer health, forest habitat health and deer population trends – when making deer management recommendations to the Board of Game Commissioners.


“We are looking for nominees that are fair and open-minded; have good interpersonal skills; are not holding office in organizations related to the stakeholder group they are seeking to represent; and are willing to collect input from members of the stakeholder group they represent outside of formal Citizen Advisory Committee meetings.”


Roe noted that the Board of Commissioners retains the authority to make final deer management decisions.


“The purpose of the CACs is to gather input related to the deer management goal of reducing deer-human conflict,” Roe said.


The objectives of CACs include providing an opportunity for the Game Commission to understand stakeholder values regarding deer management; an opportunity for stakeholders to interact with one another; an opportunity for stakeholders to have direct input concerning deer population goals that ultimately affect all Pennsylvanians; and an opportunity for the Game Commission to inform stakeholders on the mission of the Game Commission, complexities of deer management, and the importance of proper management.


Stakeholder groups needing representation in all CACs, except where noted, are: sportsmen-resident; sportsmen-nonresident; forest industry; rural non-farm landowner; homeowners in developed areas; highway safety agent; public land owner; conservationist; and agriculture.


CAC Nomination Form can be downloaded from the Game Commission website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) by clicking on “White-Tailed Deer” on the homepage, and then choose “Citizens Advisory Committee.” Individuals also may contact the Game Commission by phone at 717-787-5529 to obtain a CAC Nomination Form, which should be returned to the address provided on the form.


Nominees must live in the WMU in which they apply and must complete a CAC Nomination Form to be considered. All nominations must be received by Sept. 15.


For further information, visit the Game Commission’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) click on “White-tailed Deer”, and then choose “Citizens Advisory Committee,” where additional information can be found, including detailed reports from previous CACs held in WMUs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 3A, 3B, 3D, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D.



# # #

Back when my area was allocated at 40,000 tags per year, the CAC asked for a decrease in tags and were denied. The CAC's represented my 'immediate' area. Just sayin'

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

I posted that for any one else that may be interested...

now...



take a deep breathe...



don't be sipping on any liquids....



if you have heart troubles do NOT go any further...


ready for a surprise ??



are you sure......


here comes something no one thought they would ever see or hear .....


ready...


are you sure......



have NO FEARs....

====WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE PGC ======

Dr. Trout CAN NOT be on a CAC ---


can you believe because I am an officer of our local sportsman's organization I can not be a "rep" for the resident sportsman....

how UNBELIEVABLE is that.....


I could automatic give them opinions of the several hundred members of our club ?????



UNBELIEVABLE!!!

No way I'd give up my office for that ...... just who are these people then ?????

RANT OVER !!!!

 
That is amazing especially considering it would be an automatic "yep, whatever the PGC says is perfect" vote.
 
Just foolin' with you Doc.

Doc- the reason for your problem is simple. If you remember the WMI audit, they acnowledged that most of the CAC's asked for a increase in the deer herd even though the PGC had a hand in picking the CAC members. Quite embarrasing for the PGC. The recommended answer from the WMI was to increase the number of farmers and non hunters on the CAC's to overload the representation in hopes they would give them(the PGC) the answer they wanted. Your mistake was telling them you were a hunter. Even though you are on their side they want more non-hunters just to be sure they get the result they want. That's all documented in the audit report in case you don't believe me.

S-10..

I am not sure how much say the PGC has in who gets on .. I am hoping for that answer in some of my e-mails..

can anyone say for sure what exactly are the reasons there is no Sunday hunting in PA? With the vast majority of other states already living in the 21st century, what is stopping our legislature from abolishing this archaic law?

That's true, but what is also true is that Sunday hunting is not even supported by many hunters for various reasons. The last survey I recall pegged support amoung hunters at a bit over 50%.

To get back to the CACs for a minute... here is one repsonse I received from Harrisburg PGC Office....

I think his statement, “I could automatically give them the majority opinion from several hundred of our members”, is a good example of our concerns with officers serving on CACs. The CAC members must be able to represent the opinions of sportsmen from across the entire WMU, not just a specific organization. The potential for conflict between an officer representing his group of sportsmen and the role of a CAC member representing all sportsmen is too great.

What about my "bias" for the PGC deer plan since day 1...
I'm a Member of QDMA... bias???
I'm a Member of PFSC... bias ???
Lots of opinions on my websites and message boards I belong to... bias ???
What about the hundred or so deer hunters I talk to every year in the store ... bias ???

just whose opinion do they think I would single out instead of truthfully reporting what I would have found out from interviewing deer hunters etc ????????

The cac's are an absolute joke from top to bottom.

If the unit doesnt have 5 dpsm, you can forget completely about any hope for increase coming from cac decision, and if it does have 5, then you're probably still outta luck.

They attempt to stack the board. Other times they dont accept the suggestions. Then as if that werent enough, the very structure itself is a joke. Its not majority rule.... In order to get a "herd increase" suggested, you have to have everyone in the group of stakeholders to agree except one dissenting vote. So if there are 10 stakeholders voting....Even if 8 agreed to a increase, it wouldnt be good enough to grant increase because of 2 against.

The entire cac design from top to bottom is intended to keep the herd slaughter agenda in place and to screw the hunter.

Id like to see the cac done away with completely. Its a joke, and an absolute insult to our intelligence.

If anyone thinks that their wmu is gonna get a "increase" vote, then a OK from pgc, + them actually follow through and make necessary adjustments...Theyre living in a dream world.

Oh yeah, btw, forgot to add... If by some chance of miracle say for example everthing went through, a (for example) 25% increase were approved.... The way the increase will be worked towards slowly and will be over a period of 5 years. By the time the increase might possibly be finalized...its time for another cac & vote, and if the goal were not achieved (which it probably wouldnt even be strived for) then tough luck to the last cac voters for the wmu! lol.

To get an increase through this system...You'd have a better chance at getting struck by lightning.

Besides cacs are not needed. Anyone can give input by contacting pgc, and attending meetings etc. No use jumping through hoops to be ignored when you can much more easily be ignored through letter or email.

Not necessarly, when designed to decimate the prey species those actions will lead to long fruitless days afield which will lead to dissatification for many who will move on to more entertaining activities with a better chance for some success. It has been proven in many studies that a person needs some success in an activity or he/she soon loses interest. That fact is starting to show up with our junior hunters whose numbers were showing a upward trend but are now in reverse. Would you spend much time fishing a stretch of water with no fish in it.

ORIGINAL: S-10
 Would you spend much time fishing a stretch of water with no fish in it.

 
Nope, which is why I fish Elk instead of 4 mile. 

ORIGINAL: S-10

Not necessarly, when designed to decimate the prey species those actions will lead to long fruitless days afield which will lead to dissatification for many who will move on to more entertaining activities with a better chance for some success. It has been proven in many studies that a person needs some success in an activity or he/she soon loses interest. That fact is starting to show up with our junior hunters whose numbers were showing a upward trend but are now in reverse. Would you spend much time fishing a stretch of water with no fish in it.

Just out of curiosity, why would the PGC be working against the very things that feed it's existence? They are funded by hunters dollars only. To push hunters away from the sport would be counterproductive. This makes no sense to me.

A couple of things--- First I didn't say they were anti-hunters but answered spoonchuckers comment of (strange actions for anti-hunters). Allowing more hunters or more days to hunt an already depleted resource will not increase hunter satisfaction as claimed. It is spending many hours or days in prusuit of game and coming home not only empty handed but without even seeing much that will cause hunters to quit the sport faster than anything else and that is the course of action the PGC has been taking in recent years. I happen to agree with the last paragraph of Wayne's post above that the PGC has moved away from the hunters viewpoint to that of the enviromentalists in that we are just a tool to get the deer herd to a point where natural mortality will keep them in check regardless off the number of hunters. If you watch where they are spending their time and money that should become fairly obvious.

"The exact same reason RSB had said on another board that he'd like to see hunters take their money and take a flying leap! They want SOMEONE ELSE to feed their existence. That someone else being the general public."

I could see where they would want a more reliable revenue stream, but is alienating the guys who pay the freight now the way to do that? Hunters are taxpayers too. Plus, wouldn't accepting money from the general fund allow more voices into policy making? Surely they dont want that? Why would they?

Actually Danes, several of the top Exec's are on record advocating just that.(outside revenue stream) It doesn't make much difference for the top dogs because they will be protectd regardless how it wash's out. Those lower on the pole could be hurt but in order to hang on you don't rock the boat. It's no different than when a business changes direction, you go along or find yourself no longer needed.


2003-2008 Strategic Plan
Opjective 5.3--Seek general fund augmentation
Resources from the states general fund will be necessary in the future--

This is what the Audubon has been pushing so they will have more say and the hunters less in game management.