Maybe these statements will make it clearer...

"Roe noted that, should the state Department of Agriculture approve the use of GnRH for use in Pennsylvania, and should a municipality apply to the Game Commission to use GnRH on deer within their boundaries, this policy will establish guidelines for the use. Those guidelines would require that the municipality first exhaust all other options to reduce deer-human conflicts, including lethal and nonlethal means, before the agency would consider approve the use of GnRH.

Additionally, Roe stressed that the municipality would need to provide an approved deer management plan that includes a rigorous research and monitoring component, and the funding for the use of GnRH, as the Game Commission would not provide any funding for the project.


As approved by the Board, the following statement has been added to the agency’s policy manual: “Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments. The Game Commission recognizes that species overabundance in localized or isolated areas is often largely influenced by landscape features and human manipulation of the environment, and these factors may not be easily modified.



“Therefore, when hunting methods are not adequately controlling wildlife populations, the Game Commission considers alternate methods that complement current management efforts including properly approved and registered fertility control agents. Fertility control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populations to healthy or socially acceptable levels.


“Application of any wildlife fertility control will be based on appropriate science and species population biology. Educational efforts to disseminate information on scientifically sound solutions for reducing problems with overabundant wildlife, including limitations of wildlife fertility control will be made available to the public. If fertility control agents prove to be safe, humane, and effective methods for resolving human-wildlife conflicts associated with overabundant species, the Game Commission may authorize their use.”
----------

Sounds like to me, its a done deal. Its gonna be used, and they support it. Just a matter of how and when. In other words, a whole bunch of bull- that 100% equates to a pro use policy. The conditions...meaningless, can change at will, and its all part of the antideer crusade. We cant even trust them to allocate reasonable antlerless allocations, set reasonable goals etc... And we are supposed to trust them with the new "tool im the tool box" as Roe put it previously?? Had they made their policy statement that it WILL NOT be used period, then it may have gained them once shred of trust. This is just one more thing that hunters arent gonna trust them over. Course they didnt have much trust to lose among pa hunters anyway did they?

That is just the method they have now. Viagra was first injected when the first trails were done. Guess where it was injected at? As soon as it is an accepted method of controling deer, other better and easier drugs will be developed. You can bet your PETA ****.........WF

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Maybe these statements will make it clearer...

"Roe noted that, should the state Department of Agriculture approve the use of GnRH for use in Pennsylvania, and should a municipality apply to the Game Commission to use GnRH on deer within their boundaries, this policy will establish guidelines for the use. Those guidelines would require that the municipality first exhaust all other options to reduce deer-human conflicts, including lethal and nonlethal means, before the agency would consider approve the use of GnRH.

Additionally, Roe stressed that the municipality would need to provide an approved deer management plan that includes a rigorous research and monitoring component, and the funding for the use of GnRH, as the Game Commission would not provide any funding for the project.


As approved by the Board, the following statement has been added to the agency’s policy manual: “Where safe and appropriate, hunting always is the primary method used to manage wildlife populations in all environments. The Game Commission recognizes that species overabundance in localized or isolated areas is often largely influenced by landscape features and human manipulation of the environment, and these factors may not be easily modified.



“Therefore, when hunting methods are not adequately controlling wildlife populations, the Game Commission considers alternate methods that complement current management efforts including properly approved and registered fertility control agents. Fertility control agents are only to be used in conjunction with hunting and other wildlife management methods because contraception alone cannot reduce wildlife populations to healthy or socially acceptable levels.


“Application of any wildlife fertility control will be based on appropriate science and species population biology. Educational efforts to disseminate information on scientifically sound solutions for reducing problems with overabundant wildlife, including limitations of wildlife fertility control will be made available to the public. If fertility control agents prove to be safe, humane, and effective methods for resolving human-wildlife conflicts associated with overabundant species, the Game Commission may authorize their use.”
----------

Sounds like to me, its a done deal. Its gonna be used, and they support it. Just a matter of how and when. In other words, a whole bunch of bull- that 100% equates to a pro use policy. The conditions...meaningless, can change at will, and its all part of the antideer crusade. We cant even trust them to allocate reasonable antlerless allocations, set reasonable goals etc... And we are supposed to trust them with the new "tool im the tool box" as Roe put it previously?? Had they made their policy statement that it WILL NOT be used period, then it may have gained them once shred of trust. This is just one more thing that hunters arent gonna trust them over. Course they didnt have much trust to lose among pa hunters anyway did they?

 
Well let me ask you this. Do you have any idea how many deer are being killed by the Department of AG snipers or on the deer depredation permits issued to several of our larger municipalities where hunting isn’t permitted or controlling the deer populations to socially accepted levels every year? That has been going on for a long time now. Is a sniper killing them somehow less lethal than using an anti-fertility drug? Why is it so important to you to have deer breeding and reproducing in places hunters can’t hunt them and snipers are killing them at night with spotlights just to keep the population in check?
 
It would seem to me that any logical thinking person would recognize that those are the places where GonaCon MIGHT someday be used. I serous doubt if anyone living today will ever see the day any anti-fertility drug would be used for population control where hunting can be used instead.
 
There is no conspiracy to eliminate deer or deer hunting. The Game and Wildlife, which is the law governing such issues, establishes hunting as the method used for wildlife management so it would even require legislative action for the Game Commission to use GonaCon anywhere hunting can be used.
 
That is established, by law, in Section 103 of Title 34.
 
Sec. 103. Ownership, jurisdiction and control of game and wildlife.

General rule. - The ownership, jurisdiction over and control of game or wildlife is vested in the commission as an independent agency of the Commonwealth in its sovereign capacity to be controlled, regulated and disposed of in accordance with this title.
Method of management. - The commission shall utilize hunting and trapping as methods of effecting necessary management of game, furbearer and wildlife populations.
R.S. Bodenhorn    

Mr. Scheffler was at our local club last night. I was hoping to express my concerns of the usuage of gonacon. Which is, if we get an anti-hunter governor, the first thing they'll do is cut the commissioner terms to 4 years and try to stack the odds in their favor. I wanted to know what the pgc plan was for that.

But I didn't get to ask. Between poaching, no deer and no pheasants.. I didn't get a chance.

It was interesting listening to the folks that hunt that club ground. There are three permanent stands about 200 yards from the club and the ground is all maple trees and was stripped of its oaks. I usually walk thru it and walk to the top of the mountain which is state game lands..about a 1.5 hour walk. Maybe a 1000 yard walk but very steep so it takes a while to get there. I saw over 30 deer the last time I hunted there which was the last day of rifle three years ago. I wouldn't expect them to walk to the top which is why I have no problem telling anybody about what's up there. I don't hunt there often but it's a great spot after Christmas.

Scheffler said the amount of stocked pheasants would be doubled with a license increase. They have found that penned raised pheasants don't do as well as wild, so they are trading up with Montana with turkeys for wild pheasants.

"Mr. Scheffler was at our local club last night. I was hoping to express my concerns of the usuage of gonacon. Which is, if we get an anti-hunter governor, the first thing they'll do is cut the commissioner terms to 4 years and try to stack the odds in their favor. I wanted to know what the pgc plan was for that."

I donno, but i dont see longer terms solving a thing. It could also be argued, that with people in place, with longer terms more damage can be done. The regime of Pallone & Shleiden that just ended is a glaring example. Besides, you dont expect them to be carrying signs on their backs that says "I SUPPORT GONACON, TO HELL WITH THE PA SPORTSMEN" and pictures of models naked saying id rather go naked than wear fur on the walls of their offices do you? No. It'll be slow and subtle to avoid sportsmen and others screaming for them to be tossed on their cans. Nice and subtle like Writing new policies on contraceptive usage...claiming its necessary. Downplaying it...while getting the foot further in the door by suggesting its use in limited urban situation....then a few years later expansion of usage slowly and deliberately. If you have the concern over the contracption, as i do, and as you claim to...then you should be able to agree with the logic stated above, even if you dont believe its occurring currently. The gonacon nonsense wasnt brought about by the commissioners. They just rubber stamped the policy statement. It came from pgc upper staff, some of the same characters that have been a thorn in our backsides for years. And unfortunately they have no term limits.


I could support current term limits or even longer, But there needs to be an approval rating system or something of that nature in place to take out the trash when necessary, and hunters need a say in that, something they currently do not have.

A governor is on seat for eight years as is a commissioner. Reducing commissioner terms to four years could double the amount of newly appointed commission seats within a governor's term. As it stands now, because we are stacked in our favor (pro-hunter), it would be foolish for hunters to support a reduction in commission term length, especially with a new governor on the way. You may think you're going to get eight Tom Boop's by wanting a reduction in terms, but you may be shooting the hunting heritage in the foot.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"Reducing commissioner terms to four years could double the amount of newly appointed commission seats within a governor's term. As it stands now, because we are stacked in our favor (pro-hunter), it would be foolish for hunters to support a reduction in commission term length, especially with a new governor on the way. You may think you're going to get eight Tom Boop's by wanting a reduction in terms, but you may be shooting the hunting heritage in the foot."

I think that is nothing more than scare tactics, and i dont buy it. I dont want 8 Tom Boops, even though it would be a heckuva lot better than 8 Isabellas from a hunter perspective. I would like to see a more hunter friendly majority. And as i said i dont see the term limits as the main problem here at all. Though if i had the say over term limits and had to choose, id probably lean towards the shorter. The argument you present against them, can also be the same argument used for them. We may (or may not depending on your perspective) have hunter friendly board... But what of the near or even distant future? We've already seen what its like to be stuck with ones in there that most didnt want. Id rather take my chances with 4 and get them out of there when and if necessary. Might be better and more acceptable if they could implement a way to have them approved for a 2nd 4 year term to make it 8 IF they deserved it.

 
The problem with having shorter terms for Commissioners is that since they are appointed by the Governor, who usually serves eight years, is that should we have anti hunting governor he/she could stack the Commissioner deck with enough anti-hunters during their term to gain control of any Commission vote.
 
If you are sincerely concerned about things like the use of GonaCon and other anti-hunter actions of the Game Commission I don’t know why you would want shorter terms since that would surely increase the likelihood of more anti-hunter Commissioners on the same board.
 
With eight-year terms it is highly unlikely any Governor would be able to seat enough Commissioners to have control of the Commission voting direction. That is why the Commissioner terms were set with the eight-year terms in the first place.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn