PGC MEETING RESULTS ===

Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4417
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
  • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
  • Status: offline
2011/02/01 17:25:12 (permalink)

PGC MEETING RESULTS ===

JUST IN ======


The following news release contains seven articles regarding actions taken by the Board at today’s meeting:



1) BOARD ELECTS WEANER AS BOARD PRESIDENT FOR 2011

2) BOARD APPROVES STEP TO PROTECT GAME COMMISSION SHOOTING RANGES

3) BOARD APPROVES LIMIT ON TREESTANDS/BLINDS ON STATE GAME LANDS

4) BOARD ALLOWS USE OF BAIT ON ‘RED TAG’ FARMS IN SOUTHEAST

5) BOARD ADOPTS CHANGES TO DMAP PROGRAM

6) BOARD APPROVES NEW TOOL FOR SNOW GOOSE CONSERVATION HUNT

7) BOARD TAKES OTHER ACTIONS





BOARD ELECTS WEANER AS BOARD PRESIDENT FOR 2011

HARRISBURG – The Board of Game Commissioners today elected new officers during its annual reorganization for 2011.


Game Commissioner Ronald A. Weaner, of Biglerville, Adams County, was elected president. First appointed to a full eight-year term on the Board in 2008, Weaner was elected vice-president in 2010, and was elected as board secretary in 2009.


Game Commissioner Ralph A. Martone, of New Castle, Lawrence County, was elected vice-president. He was appointed to the Board in 2009.


Game Commissioner David J. Putnam, of Centre Hall, Centre County, was elected secretary. Putnam was first appointed to the Board in 2009.


Other Game Commissioners are: Thomas E. Boop, Sunbury, Northumberland County; Gregory J. Isabella, of Philadelphia; David W. Schreffler, of Everett, Bedford County; James “Jay” Delaney Jr., of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County; and Robert Schlemmer, Export, Westmoreland County.


Game Commissioners are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate to serve an eight-year term. They receive no salary, but are reimbursed for expenses to attend Game Commission quarterly meetings and other functions.


For more information on Board members, visit the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us), click on “About Us” in the menu bar in the banner and then click on “Commissioners’ Page” in the drop down menu listing.





BOARD APPROVES STEP TO PROTECT GAME COMMISSION SHOOTING RANGES

The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave final approval to a regulatory change to require State Game Land shooting range users to possess either a valid Pennsylvania hunting or furtaker license or purchase a range permit. In doing so, the agency is taking a step toward accomplishing the twin goals of having unlicensed persons contribute toward the cost of maintaining the ranges, and better quantifying and controlling the use of the shooting ranges.


“Over the past few years, the Game Commission has made large investments into its 29 State Game Land shooting ranges across this Commonwealth,” said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. “These investments have taken the form of lead remediation, safety barrier reconstruction, shooting range redesign and other related projects. These investments came at a high cost, but kept many shooting ranges open and available to the public.


“Historically, hunter and furtaker license dollars have provided most, if not all, of the resources for keeping the agency’s shooting ranges open to the public. Additionally, the open use of State Game Lands for shooting activities by those not licensed has resulted in some situations where ranges and State Game Lands have been used for illicit activities.”


The new regulation requires all users of State Game Land shooting ranges to possess either a valid Pennsylvania hunting or furtaker license or a Game Commission-issued range permit, which would cost $30 per year for residents and nonresidents. Exceptions to this permit requirement are those 16 years of age and younger properly accompanied by a licensed or permitted person 18 years of age or older, and each licensed hunter or range permit holder could have one guest.


For the first year, all permits will be effective from April 1, 2011, until June 30, 2012. After the first year, each permit issued will be valid from July 1 until June 30.


Permits will be able to be purchased through the Game Commission’s “The Outdoor Shop” on the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us). Following the purchase, which will require payment by credit or debit cards, a downloadable permit will be provided and permittee’s may print it on a home computer. The agency also will be able to sell the permits through its Harrisburg headquarters and six Region Offices. However, since the purchase will be processed through “The Outdoor Shop,” only credit cards will be able to be used for payment.


The regulation also prohibits all other target shooting from taking place on State Game Lands, except at designated ranges. The regulatory change will not result in any increased cost or change in privileges for licensed hunters and furtakers.





BOARD APPROVES LIMIT ON TREESTANDS/BLINDS ON STATE GAME LANDS

The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave final approval to a regulatory change to allow the placement of portable hunting treestands and blinds from two weeks before the opening of the first big game season to two weeks after the close of the last big game season within each respective Wildlife Management Unit, excluding the spring gobbler season.


“Hunters need to remember that locating a treestand on State Game Lands does not reserve a hunting area,” Commissioner Weaner said. “The first person to arrive in a certain spot has the right to hunt that area.”


A portable treestand is one that is not permanently attached to a tree. They include climbing, hang-on and ladder treestands, as well as those constructed and lashed to trees. Treestands nailed or bolted to trees are illegal on State Game Lands.


As approved, hunters will be able to place their treestands on State Game Lands two weeks prior to the archery deer season, and then have to remove the stands two weeks after the late flintlock deer seasons.





BOARD ALLOWS USE OF BAIT ON ‘RED TAG’ FARMS IN SOUTHEAST

To further the Game Commission’s efforts to find effective tools to manage the deer populations on agriculture lands in the southeast corner of the state, the Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave final approval to a regulatory change to create a focused, limited authorization permitting the use of bait for deer hunting in WMUs 5C and 5D on approved properties enrolled in the agency’s Agriculture Deer Depredation Program, commonly referred to as the “Red Tag” program.


“In 2010, the Game Commission’s three-year evaluation of the effectiveness of permitting the use of bait for deer hunting across the southeast Special Regulations Areas counties expired,” said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. “The agency concluded that broad scale and widely accessible baiting did not establish viable increases in harvest rates to justify an extension of the experimental program.


“Under this new regulation, the agency is focusing the use of bait on those farms most in need of deer control assistance during the ‘Red Tag’ deer harvesting timeframe. Farmers applying to enroll in the Red Tag program would need to include in their application justification for the need to use bait.”


Farmers enrolled in the “Red Tag” program are provided with a specific number of antlerless deer permits, which are red in color. Farmers then give these permits to hunters to harvest antlerless deer from Feb. 1 to Sept. 28 each calendar year, excluding Sundays, during the hours of dawn to dusk only. The permits are not valid from May 16 to June 30, and can’t be used to take bucks.


The listings of farms enrolled in the “Red Tag” program are maintained by the respective Region Offices as those landowners enrolled in the program change from year to year.





BOARD ADOPTS CHANGES TO DMAP PROGRAM

The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave final approval to a regulatory change to enhance accountability for the public landowners seeking to enroll in the Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP).


Under the new regulations, which were requested by Game Commission Thomas Boop in April, all public landowners will be required to provide an approved deer management plan along with their DMAP application. The regulation also advances the application date one month earlier to allow staff adequate time to review and process DMAP applications in a timely manner, as well as notify applicants about permit availability prior to the issuance of regular antlerless licenses.





BOARD APPROVES NEW TOOL FOR SNOW GOOSE CONSERVATION HUNT

To give waterfowl hunters another tool to assist with efforts to address overabundant snow goose populations, the Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave final approval to a regulatory change to allow the use of electronic decoys during the Snow Goose Conservation Hunt. If published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the official compendium of Pennsylvania regulations, the regulatory change could be in effect for hunters participating in the 2011 Snow Goose Conservation Hunt (Feb. 21-April 16).


“Snow goose populations have reached levels that are causing extensive and possibly irreversible damage to the arctic and sub-arctic breeding grounds they and other nesting birds use,” pointed out Kevin Jacobs, Game Commission waterfowl biologist. “For some populations of snow geese, their nesting habitats can no longer support these large numbers. What’s more, these geese are beginning to impact habitat and crops in Mid-Atlantic States and Quebec.


“It’s likely that North America has never had as many snow geese as it does now. They have become a huge and unexpected problem for themselves and other wildlife that shares the wintering and breeding grounds these waterfowl occupy. In addition to extending hunting hours and allowing the use of electronic calls for the Snow Goose Conservation Hunt, electronic decoys should provide hunters additional opportunity to harvest snow geese.”





BOARD TAKES OTHER ACTIONS

In other action today, the Board of Game Commissioners:



- Gave final approval to a technical change to remove conflicting language in the regulations (Title 58) that resulted when the law (Title 34) was changed to permit hunters or trappers to harvest furbearers with a firearm having a light mounted on it;



- Gave final approval to a measure to apply the regulatory protections afforded to State Game Lands to State Game Farms, where the agency raises pheasants;



- Gave final approval to expand the non-toxic shot authorization to both fall turkey and spring gobbler seasons. The Board previously had approved the use of types of non-toxic shot that could be used for small game;



- Gave final approval to a regulatory change to prohibit the use of fishing hooks or snagging hooks or any other device that is not a lawful trap, firearm, bow or crossbow from being utilized during licensed trapping activities;



- Gave preliminary approval to allow the use of single projectile muzzleloaders and shotguns for bear hunting in Special Regulations Areas counties (Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia);



- Gave preliminary approval to remove language from Title 58 (Game Commission Regulations) related to the now defunct baiting provisions that expired on March 31, 2010;



- Gave preliminary approval to technical changes to fluorescent orange regulations for clarity and consistency. No substantive changes were made to the requirements;



- Gave preliminary approval remove three redundant and outdated definitions, as well as add two definitions for consistency with recent changes in Title 34 (Game and Wildlife Code);



- Gave preliminary approval make Title 58 (Game Commission Regulations) consistent with recent changes in Title 34 (Game and Wildlife Code) related to fines, penalties and reporting periods;



- Gave preliminary approval to a variety of amendments to define and clarify the standards relating to certain trapping activities. Among the changes are the clarification that the 20 trap or snare limitation is a statewide total - not a WMU, watercourse or waterway limitation – and that add definitions for “artificial cubby” and “foot encapsulating trap” as part of the definitions of what is legal for trapping;



- Approved two State Wildlife Grants (SWG). The first, for $143,700 to Indiana University of Pennsylvania, will be used to identify “best management practices” (BMPs) for golden-winged warbler breeding habitat on public lands in Pennsylvania. The second, for $156,500 to Penn State University, will be used to conduct research the effects of Marcellus Shale exploration and development on Wildlife Action Plan species of greatest conservation need, such as scarlet tanager, blackburnian warbler and black-throated green warbler, and to quantify the effects on wildlife habitat, thus enabling predictions regarding shifts in species composition at different levels of drilling intensity. The two projects will not require any net reduction in the Game Fund, since all are cooperator projects and the Game Commission will be reimbursed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Aid program for all SWG-eligible costs;



- Approved a project to restore habitat for Great Lakes piping plovers, a federally endangered species, and other Pennsylvania species of greatest conservation need. This project will not require any net reduction in the Game Fund. The Game Fund will be reimbursed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with funds from the Endangered Species Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Grants Program;



- Based on a motion by Game Commissioner Ralph A. Martone, approved a policy directive to set the process for review and acceptance of wildlife management plans and future strategic plans for the agency;



- On Monday, Jan. 31, received a report on the agency’s deer population estimating methodology and release of deer population estimates, which is consistent with the Wildlife Management Institute’s recommendations on the Game Commission’s deer management program, as outlined in the “The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, A Comprehensive Review and Evaluation,” which is commonly called the “Deer Audit.” Release of this information was proposed by Game Commissioner James J. Delaney at the Board’s October meeting. The report can be viewed by going to the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) and clicking on the “White-Tailed Deer” icon in the center of the homepage, then selecting “Monitoring Deer Populations in Pennsylvania” in the “Research Publications” section;



- On Monday, Jan. 31, recognized state Rep. Edward G. Staback (D-Lackawanna), Democrat chair of the House Game and Fisheries Committee for sponsoring House Bill 1859 (now Act 54 of 2010), that increased the fines and penalties to crack down on chronic poaching. Under the new fines and penalties, which took effect in September, convicted poachers now face felony charges and jail time for certain poaching violations;



- On Monday, Jan. 31, presented Dana and Lucy Grove, parents of Wildlife Conservation Officer David Grove, with the Game Commission Medal of Valor. WCO Grove was killed in the line of duty, on Nov. 11, 2010, while apprehending individuals suspected of poaching. WCO Grove is the first recipient of the agency’s Medal of Valor; and



- Established the dates of the Board’s meeting schedule for 2011 as follows: April 11-12, at the agency’s Harrisburg headquarters, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, just off the Progress Avenue exit of Interstate 81; June 27-28, at the agency’s Harrisburg headquarters; and Oct. 3-4, at a location to be announced at a later date. The Board also set Jan. 29-31, as the first meeting of 2012, which will be held at the agency’s Harrisburg headquarters, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, just off the Progress Avenue exit of Interstate 81.



# # #



DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


#1

50 Replies Related Threads
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/01 17:31:16 (permalink)


    GAME COMMISSIONERS PROPOSE 2011-12 SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS

    HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave preliminary approval to hunting and trapping seasons and bag limits for 2011-12, including big and small game seasons and furbearer seasons.


    The public may offer comments on all proposed 2011-12 seasons and bag limits, as well as other Board actions, between now and the Board’s next meeting, April 11-12, at which time the Board is scheduled to finalize seasons and bag limits for 2011-12.


    Also, the Board will be presented for its consideration staff recommendations for antlerless deer license allocations for the 22 WMUs at its April meeting. Deer harvest estimates for the 2010-11 seasons will be available in mid-March.


    Following are several articles on meeting highlights.





    BOARD PROPOSES EXPANDED SPLIT RIFLE DEER SEASONS

    The Board of Game Commissioners gave preliminary approval to a slate of deer seasons for the 2011-12 seasons that expands the split, five-day antlered deer season (Nov. 28-Dec. 2) and seven-day concurrent season (Dec. 3-10) to a total of 11 Wildlife Management Units. The list includes (WMUs) 2A, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 3B, 3C, 4B, 4D and 4E. The package retains the two-week (Nov. 28-Dec. 10) concurrent, antlered and antlerless deer season in WMUs 1A, 1B, 2B, 3A, 3D, 4A, 4C, 5A, 5B, 5C and 5D.


    Hunters with DMAP antlerless deer permits may use them on the lands for which they were issued during any established deer season, and will continue to be permitted to harvest antlerless deer from Nov. 28-Dec. 10 in WMUs 2A, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 3B, 3C, 4B, 4D and 4E. Fees for DMAP permits are $10 for residents and $35 for nonresidents.


    Additionally, the Board also gave preliminary approval to extend the statewide late archery and late flintlock muzzleloader seasons. If approved in April, these late seasons will open on Monday, Dec. 26, 2011, and run until Monday, Jan. 16, 2012.


    In related action, on Monday, Jan. 31, the Board received a report on the agency’s deer population estimating methodology and release of deer population estimates, which is consistent with the Wildlife Management Institute’s recommendations on the Game Commission’s deer management program, as outlined in the ‘The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, A Comprehensive Review and Evaluation,’ which is commonly called the ‘Deer Audit.


    Release of this information was proposed by Game Commissioner James J. Delaney at the Board’s October meeting. The report can be viewed by going to the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) and clicking on the “White-Tailed Deer” icon in the center of the homepage, then selecting “Monitoring Deer Populations in Pennsylvania” in the “Research Publications” section.





    ANTLER RESTRICTIONS TO CHANGE IN FOUR-POINT AREA

    The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today took the first step to change the antler restriction definitions in the current four-point area in the western Wildlife Management Units of 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 2D. If approved by the Board in April, hunters in these five WMUs would need to identify “three up,” not including brow tines, which is the point immediately above the antler burr. This essentially requires three points on the main antler beam for a buck to be legal.



    “The idea of changing antler restrictions in the four-point area began a year ago when Game Commissioner Robert Schlemmer and I were hearing from many sportsmen about the difficulty of seeing brow tines,” said Game Commissioner Ralph Martone. “Recently, when Cal DuBrock, Bureau Director for Wildlife Management, reported on research showing that such a change would affect only a small percentage of antlered deer, Commissioner Schlemmer and I asked the Executive Director to prepare language eliminating the need to identify brow tines in the four-point areas for inclusion in the agenda for January’s Board meeting.”





    BOARD PROPOSES TO ADD NEW WILD PHEASANT RECOVERY AREA

    The Board of Game Commissioners today gave preliminary approval to create a fifth Wild Pheasant Recovery Area (WPRAs) for the 2011-12 seasons, which is part of the agency’s ongoing effort to re-establish wild pheasant populations in Pennsylvania.


    The fifth WPRA is to be designated the Franklin County WPRA, and will need to be approved by the Board in April before taking effect. It is expected that wild-caught pheasants will be released in this WPRA beginning in 2012.


    The agency’s Ring-necked Pheasant Management Plan seeks to restore self-sustaining and huntable populations of wild pheasants in suitable habitats, and specifically calls for the creation of WPRAs. The agency is releasing wild-trapped pheasants into these areas, with a goal of achieving a density of 10 hen pheasants per square mile.


    To give these wild pheasants the best opportunity to establish naturally reproducing populations, the Board has banned pheasant hunting or the releasing of any artificially propagated pheasants – including Game Commission-raised pheasants – within these WPRAs. Also, to limit disturbances to nesting hen pheasants, dog training of any manner and small game hunting is prohibited in WPRAs from the first Sunday in February through July 31 each year.


    “Working with major partners, such as Pheasants Forever, the California University of Pennsylvania and local landowners, we already have a jump start on creating WPRAs,” said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. “These groups have invested in creating the necessary pheasant habitat in these four areas of the state.


    “The Game Commission will continue to raise and release pheasants on public lands with suitable pheasant habitat each fall. And, should we receive additional revenues, we plan to increase our pheasant production level to 250,000 birds, as noted in the Ring-necked Pheasant Management Plan.”


    For the 2011-12 seasons, the WPRAs will be defined as follows:



    (1) Pike Run WPRA: The portion of Washington County, WMU 2A, bounded on the east by the Monongahela River, on the north by I-70, on the west by PA Rt. 917 to Swagler Rd. to Spring Valley Rd. to PA Rt. 2015 to Lone Pine Rd. to the intersection with Tenmile Creek in West Zollarsville, and bounded on the south by Tenmile Creek.



    (2) Somerset WPRA: That portion of Somerset County, WMU 2C, bounded on the western side starting at the intersection of Coleman Station Rd. and Stutzmantown Rd. proceeding south on Coleman Station Rd., crossing SR 31, to Brotherton Rd., continuing south to Round Hill Rd., then east onto Wills Church Rd., then to Archery Rd. The boundary then follows Berlin Plank Rd. (US Rt. 219) south into the town of Berlin where it joins the Mason Dixon Hwy. (US Rt. 219) proceeding south to Pine Hill Rd. to Walker School Rd. then east on Maple Valley Rd., to Sawmill Rd. to the Cumberland Hwy. (SR 160). The boundary then follows the Cumberland Hwy. (SR 160) south to Salco Rd. and then proceeds north on Salco Rd. to Huckleberry Hwy. (SR 160) in the town of Berlin. The boundary follows Huckleberry Hwy. (SR 160) north, crossing SR 31, to the intersection of Roxbury Rd., then north to Shanksville Rd. The boundary then proceeds north to Stutzmantown Rd., then west to the beginning at the intersection of Coleman Station Rd.



    (3) Central Susquehanna WPRA: Portions of WMU 4E in Northumberland, Montour, Columbia and Lycoming counties from the West Branch of the Susquehanna River south to the intersection with PA Rt. 642 and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River in Milton. The southern boundary is defined by PA Rt. 642 east from Milton to Mausdale, then north on PA Rt. 642 to just south of Jerseytown, proceeding east on Eyersgrove Rd. to Eyers Grove at PA Rt.42. Proceeding south on PA Rt. 42 to Mordansville, northeast of Mordansville along Robbins Rd. (Rt. 600) to Mordansville Rd. (Rt. 541), south on Millertown Rd. (Rt. 4011), then continuing east to follow Mount Pleasant Rd. (Rt. 4020) and Mount Pleasant St. (PA Rt. 4034) to Orangeville at the southeast corner of the WPRA. PA Rt. 487 lines the eastern boundary from Orangeville north to Maple Grove/intersection with PA Rt. 254. The northern boundary begins with PA Rt. 254 west of Maple Grove to the intersection with Winters Rd. (Rt. 459) proceeding west to the intersection with Austin Trail (PA Rt. 4039). Continuing west on Owl Rd. (Rt. 599), north and west on Reese Rd. (Rt. 578), and north and west on Trivelpiece Rd. (Rt. 576). Eagle Rd. (PA Rt. 4037) then continues northwest to the intersection with Whitehorse Rd./Whitehorse Pike (Rt. 661) heading west to just south of Sereno, and then south on PA Rt. 42 to Millville. From Millville, proceeding southwest on PA Rt. 254 to Jerseytown. Then northwest on PA Rt. 44, north on Swartz Rd., west on Shultz Rd., north on Ants Hill Rd., west on Wolf Hollow Rd., then north on Katy’s Church Rd. Crossing into Lycoming County and proceeding northwest on G Wagner Rd., west on Ridge Rd., crossing into Montour County, southwest on County Line Rd., south on Muncy Exchange Rd. (PA Rt. 1003), west on Hickory Rd. (PA Rt. 1008), west on Mingle Rd. (Rt. 433), west on Hickory Rd. (PA Rt. 1008) for the second time, and proceeding north on Gearhart Hollow Rd. (Rt. 441). Continuing west on Showers Rd. (PA Rt. 1010), crossing into Northumberland County, proceeding north and west on Pugmore Lane, north on Hockley Hill Rd. (PA Rt. 1011), west on Miller Rd. (Rt. 653), continuing southwest on Balliet Rd. (Rt. 664). Proceeding northwest and west on Schmidt Rd. (Rt. 564). continuing north on Susquehanna Trail (PA Rt. 1007), continuing west on Hughes Rd. (Rt. 655), crossing under I-180, proceeding south on Crawford Rd. (Rt. 507) to PA Rt. 54. Proceeding northwest on PA Rt. 54 to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.



    (4) Hegins-Gratz Valley WPRA: That portion of WMU 4E in Schuylkill and Dauphin counties from Matterstown Road (Rt. 1007), to PA Rt. 901 at Taylorsville. The WPRA is bounded on the north by the Mahantango Creek. Beginning at the town of Pillow in Dauphin county, proceeding east on Market Street (Rt. 1026) to the Mahantango Creek, which is the Northumberland and Dauphin county border until entering Schuylkill county at Klingerstown. Continuing northeast along the Mahantango Creek in Schuylkill county to Taylorsville Road (Rt. 4039) at Haas, to Taylorsville and then proceeding south on PA Rt. 901. Proceeding south and southeast on PA Rt. 901 to I-81. Proceeding southwest on I-81 and then west on PA Rt. 25, then from PA Rt. 25, proceeding south and west on Dell Road and then northwest and west on Pine Drive (State Hwy. 4009), continuing west on Pine Drive, T593 and north on T592 to Pine Creek. The southern boundary then follows Pine Creek west along the northern side of Broad Mountain to Spring Glen. From Spring Glen, continuing west on PA Rt. 25, crossing into Dauphin county to Gratz, then proceeding southwest from Gratz on Specktown Road (State Hwy. 1014) to South Crossroads Road (PA Rt. 1009). Proceeding south on South Crossroads Road (PA Rt. 1009) to PA Rt. 209 and southwest to Elizabethville. From Elizabethville continue west on Main Street (PA Rt. 209), then turn north onto Botts Road (T462). At the first intersection, turn north onto Feidt Road (T461), then turn 24 east onto West Matterstown Road (Rt. 4008), turn north onto Matterstown Road (Rt. 1007). Turn right or east onto Berrysburg Road (PA Rt. 25) which turns into Market St. Turn left or north onto Lykens St. Turn right or east onto Mountain Road (T639). Turn left or north on PA Rt. 225 into Pillow on PA Rt. 225, ending at Market St. (Rt. 1026).



    (5) Franklin County WPRA. That Portion of Wildlife Management Units 4A and 5A in Franklin County from PA Rt. 30 on the northern border to the Pennsylvania/Maryland state border on the southern border, and from Cove Mountain on the western border to the towns of Laurich and Williamson and the Conococheague Creek on the eastern border. The WPRA is bounded on the north by PA Rt. 30 (Lincoln Highway). Beginning at the town of Fort Loudon at the intersection of PA Rt. 30 (Lincoln Highway) and PA Rt. 75, proceed east on PA Rt. 30 (Lincoln Highway), through St. Thomas, and continue east to Laurich. Just east of Laurich, proceed south along Back Creek to SR3012 (Jack Road). Proceed west along SR3012 (Jack Road), then south along Weber Road. Continue south and southwest along Weber Road to the intersection of Weber, Grapevine and Jacks Mill Roads. Proceed southwest along Grapevine Road and then northwest to intersection with SR 3013. Turn south onto SR 3013 (St Thomas Williamson Road) and then west onto State Rt. 995. Proceed west and then south on State Rt. 995 through Williamson to the West Branch of the Conococheague Creek (northeast of Welsh Run). Proceed along the West Branch of the Conococheague Creek to the confluence with Conococheague Creek. Follow the Conococheague Creek south to the Pennsylvania/Maryland state border. Proceed west along the PA/MD state border to State Rt. 456. Proceed northeast along State Rt. 456 to State Route 16. Proceed east on State Route 16 to Mountain Road. Proceed northeast on Mountain Road to State Rt. 75. Proceed northwest on State Rt. 75 to the intersection of State Rt. 75 and State Rt. 30 at Fort Loudon.





    BOARD PROPOSES PORCUPINE SEASON FOR 2011-12

    The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners, based on a request from Game Commissioner David Putnam at the Board’s October meeting, gave preliminary approval to lift protection on porcupines. As proposed, porcupines could be taken by hunters with general hunting license from July 1 to June 30, excluding Sundays and during the two-week firearms deer season. There would be no bag limit.





    MOVE TO EXTEND GROUNDHOG HUNTING DURING SPRING GOBBLER

    The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave preliminary approval to a regulatory change to allow for groundhog hunting during the overlap with the spring gobbler season.


    Additionally, the proposal would allow the hunting of starlings, English sparrows, opossums, skunks, porcupines and weasels during legal hunting hours of the spring gobbler season. The Game Commission staff noted that this change will increase opportunities for hunters pursuing these species without creating unacceptable conflicts with spring gobbler hunters.





    BOARD VOTES TO EXPAND BEAR SEASONS

    As part of its preliminary approval of seasons and bag limits for 2011-12, the Board of Commissioners today proposed bringing back the concurrent bear and deer seasons in specific Wildlife Management Areas (WMUs) and portions of WMUs, as well as extending the traditional statewide bear season to four days.


    The slate of 2011 bear seasons, which must be given final approval in April before taking effect, includes: a statewide five-day archery bear season (Nov. 14-18); a four-day statewide bear season that will open on Saturday, Nov. 19, and then continue on Monday through Wednesday, Nov. 21-23; and a concurrent bear/deer season in WMUs 3D, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5B and 5C on Nov. 30-Dec. 3.


    Also, a concurrent bear/deer season has been proposed to be held Nov. 28-Dec. 3 in the following:



    - in WMUs 3A and 3C;



    - in portions of WMU 3B, that are East of Rt. 14 from Troy to Canton, East of Rt. 154 from Canton to Rt. 220 at Laporte and East of Rt. 42 from Laporte to Rt. 118 and that portion of 4E, East of Rt. 42; and



    - in portions of WMUs 2G in Lycoming and Clinton counties and WMU 3B in Lycoming County that lie North of the West Branch of the Susquehanna River from the Rt. 405 Bridge, West to Rt. 15 at Williamsport, Rt. 15 to Rt. 220, and North of Rt. 220 to the Mill Hall exit, North of SR 2015 to Rt. 150; East of Rt. 150 to Lusk Run Rd. and South of Lusk Run Rd. to Rt. 120, Rt. 120 to Veterans Street Bridge to SR 1001; East of SR 1001 to Croak Hollow Rd., South of Croak Hollow Rd. to Rt. 664 (at Swissdale), South of Rt. 664 to Little Plum Rd. (the intersection of SR 1003), South of SR 1003 to SR 1006, South of SR 1006 to Sulphur Run Rd., South of Sulphur Run Rd. to Rt. 44, East of Rt. 44 to Rt. 973, South of Rt. 973 to Rt. 87, West of Rt. 87 to Rt. 864, South of Rt. 864 to Rt. 220 and West of Rt. 220 to Rt. 405 and West of Rt. 405 to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.





    TURKEY SEASONS PROPOSED FOR 2011-12

    The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today gave preliminary approval to fall turkey seasons for 2011 and spring gobbler dates for 2012.


    The restructured fall season dates for 2011: Oct. 29-Nov. 12 and Nov. 24-26 for Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2E, 4A, 4B and 4D; Oct. 29-Nov. 18 and Nov. 24-26 for WMUs 2B, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4C and 4E.


    Also, fall season dates of Nov. 1-3 were set for WMU 5A; and WMUs 5B, 5C and 5D will remain closed for the fall seasons.


    For the 2012 spring gobbler season, which is proposed to run from April 28-May 31, the Board continued the change in legal hunting hours to reflect the following: from April 28 until May 12, legal shooting hours will be one-half hour before sunrise until noon timeframe; and from May 14- 31, hunters will be able to hunt all day, from one-half hour before sunrise until one-half hour after sunset.


    The Board proposed holding the one-day Spring Gobbler Youth Hunt on April 21, which will run from one-half hour before sunrise until noon.





    HUNTERS REMINDED ABOUT PROCESS FOR SETTING WATERFOWL SEASONS

    The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners gave preliminary approval to nearly all of the 2011-12 seasons and bag limits; however, there is one group of seasons that won’t be finalized until summer: waterfowl and migratory bird seasons.


    In July, in concert with federal frameworks, the Game Commission will set seasons and bag limits for September resident Canada goose and webless migratory birds, such as doves, woodcock, snipe and moorhens.


    In August, the Game Commission and waterfowl hunting organizations will host waterfowl organizations, individual sportsmen and the public to attend a briefing on the status of waterfowl populations and proposed preliminary federal frameworks for the 2011-12 hunting seasons.


    In addition to reviewing frameworks established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for upcoming waterfowl and migratory bird seasons, Game Commission staff, along with conservation partners, will provide updates on current and planned research and management programs, as well as past hunting results.


    Based on public comments received and gathered at the meeting, Game Commission staff will prepare and present recommended composite waterfowl and migratory bird seasons, bag limits and related criteria to the USFWS for final approval. All migratory bird hunting seasons and bag limits must conform to frameworks set by the USFWS. States select their hunting seasons within these established frameworks.


    By mid-August, once the final selections are made, the Game Commission will print and distribute brochures outlining the seasons and bag limits for waterfowl and migratory bird seasons to U.S. Post Offices, where hunters may purchase their mandatory federal duck stamp. The brochure also will be posted on the Game Commission’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) along with a news release announcing the agency’s final selections by mid-August.




    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #2
    DownSouth1
    Avid Angler
    • Total Posts : 102
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2007/04/14 21:05:23
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/02 16:06:47 (permalink)
    Looks like the Bears are going to go the same way as the Deer
    #3
    zugbug
    New Angler
    • Total Posts : 33
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2003/12/12 11:17:25
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/02 17:50:31 (permalink)
    so screw the hunters in the 3 pt mu's...they still have to identify a brow tine, correct?  What a freakin' joke!  For those of you familiar w/ the Peter Principle; I've never seen it more clearly evidenced that with the PGC.  News flash....I'm never looking for another brow tine.  Two up and it's down.  If hassled, I'll sue....bet I'd win too..... 
    #4
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/02 18:37:34 (permalink)
    Not often I disagree on the PGC with deer stuff.. but this is the exception..

    after taking the time to explain to us what was and was not a point.. now they say brow tines don't count for determining if a buck is legal in some WMUs... I think sooner or later someone will challenge this rule .. they are either considered points to be legal or they are not...


    What will happen when someone shoots a 6 pointer with 2 12 inch tines and a 12 inch brow tine that from 100 yards away looks like it is "up" ?????



    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/02/02 18:40:49

    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #5
    psu_fish
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3140
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
    • Location: PA
    • Status: online
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 09:44:51 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

    Not often I disagree on the PGC with deer stuff.. but this is the exception..

    after taking the time to explain to us what was and was not a point.. now they say brow tines don't count for determining if a buck is legal in some WMUs... I think sooner or later someone will challenge this rule .. they are either considered points to be legal or they are not...


    What will happen when someone shoots a 6 pointer with 2 12 inch tines and a 12 inch brow tine that from 100 yards away looks like it is "up" ?????





     
     
     
     
    will USP sue?
    #6
    Triple B
    Novice Angler
    • Total Posts : 90
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2007/07/09 21:58:53
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 12:04:55 (permalink)
    Dr. Trout,

    Your 6 point shooter will call to report the mistake. Pay $25 and keep his deer. I think the 3 up rule makes sense. How many guys have you heard ****ing that all these big 6 pointers are running around that nobody can shoot? So now, shoot 'em. Bet we'll find that there weren't that many after all. In many more instances a guy can see 3 up but can't verify a brow point so doesn't shoot. More often than not, the deer had the point but due to any number of reasons it couldn't be verified in time to shoot. I'd also bet that more ground checking for that brow point happens than we'd like to admit. Ultimately I think the new rule helps and applys to many more situations than your exceptional 6 pointer with tall brows.
    #7
    bingsbaits
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5028
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 12:14:27 (permalink)
    BOARD PROPOSES PORCUPINE SEASON FOR 2011-12

    The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners, based on a request from Game Commissioner David Putnam at the Board’s October meeting, gave preliminary approval to lift protection on porcupines. As proposed, porcupines could be taken by hunters with general hunting license from July 1 to June 30, excluding Sundays and during the two-week firearms deer season. There would be no bag limit.


    There goes the deer herd in the big woods.

    You know if you kill a porcupine you will starve 3 deer that winter.

    "There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
     
     


    #8
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 12:55:47 (permalink)
    That's a bit of a stretch but as you may already know a porky can and does help the deer out quite a bit in the winter. In this area of the country they spend most of the winter feeding in the tops of hemlocks and sugar maple. You have probably given more than one a wild ride to the ground.Many of the twigs and buds they are biting or breaking off fall to the ground where the deer can get to them. A couple of my winter hiking trails take me into areas where I see this quite often.
    #9
    bingsbaits
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5028
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 14:31:14 (permalink)
    In bad winters they are on our tree tops as soon as we leave.
    In the ANF during the winters of 77 & 78 they were waiting for us to break for lunch and would eat the tops while we had lunch. There was 4 feet of snow in the woods those winters.
    We always whacked the he11 out of the porkies, Boss didn't like them they ate his trees.

    "There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
     
     


    #10
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 14:40:12 (permalink)
    Triple B....

    I agree with all you posted EXCEPT... I do NOT believe you are allowed to keep the deer... RSB can tell us for sure... but I'm almost positive the WCO will take the deer and the antlers....

    MY main objection is if brow tines are not going to count in some WMUs it seems unfair they should have to count in the others........ again just my opinon... not suggesting "2 up" by any means...if they want to go to "3 up" for the whole state I can live with that .. but I do not like the idea that in some areas brow tines are points and in others they are not counted as points...


    TOO MANY DIFFERENT RULES FOR DIFFERNT AREAS!!!!!
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/02/03 14:41:32

    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #11
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/03 14:58:46 (permalink)
    TOO MANY DIFFERENT RULES FOR DIFFERNT AREAS!!!!!


    No difference than it was before, one set of rules for one group of WMU's and a different set of rules for another group of Wmu's. You just have to remember what WMU you are in and what the rule is just like you did before.
    #12
    270wbmag
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 347
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/07/19 11:23:40
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 08:12:06 (permalink)
    people who hunt with dogs in big woods are liking that law...only good porky is a dead one..vet's will be objecting that law..kill em all...the porkies that is..
    #13
    World Famous
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2213
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
    • Location: Johnstown
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 09:22:14 (permalink)
    I agree with Zug. Rules are rules, but if it is too difficult to see a brow tine in Butler County, why should it be any easier to see one in Somerset County? AR has been proven to be a joke so why add more BS to it. I ,also, would challenge this in court....WF
    #14
    DarDys
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4912
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
    • Location: Duncansville, PA
    • Status: online
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 09:45:06 (permalink)
    "MY main objection is if brow tines are not going to count in some WMUs it seems unfair they should have to count in the others........"
     
    I agree with Doc here.  I beleive the reason for the proposed change was stated as being because it is easier to not have to id brow tines.  Do the hunters in the still 3-point areas have better eye sight than those in the soon to be former 4-point area?  Why would it need to be easier to not have to id brow times in certan WMU's, but still be required to in others?  Is it not just as diffiucult to id brow tines ib both areas?
     
    This is a case in which the rationalization for the change is pretty dumb.  SOP.

    The poster formally known as Duncsdad

    Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
    #15
    Esox_Hunter
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2393
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 12:19:13 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: World Famous

    I agree with Zug. Rules are rules, but if it is too difficult to see a brow tine in Butler County, why should it be any easier to see one in Somerset County? AR has been proven to be a joke so why add more BS to it. I ,also, would challenge this in court....WF

     
     
    But....but....but....it is just not fair
     
     
    Good luck with suing the PGC over clearly stated regulations, I am sure you will win.
    #16
    World Famous
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2213
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
    • Location: Johnstown
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 12:33:35 (permalink)
    Esox, fair has nothing to do with it. Assinine regulations are what they are. They are just opening themselves up for suits that have to be defended. I am not a fan of AR but we have lived with and abided with it for 10 or so years.The reason ,I believe, was written that is was difficult to see the brow tines in a 3 point area. How , then,would it be easier to see them in a 2 point area?....WF...BTW, not sueing the PGC but defending oneself in a court case. I would definately take my chances..
    post edited by World Famous - 2011/02/04 12:36:07
    #17
    Esox_Hunter
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2393
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 12:47:29 (permalink)
    Same difference, you would not stand a chance if the proposed regs go through.  The language is very clear and with the current WMU system the boundaries are very well defined.  If you would want to waste that much time and money just to shoot an illegal forkhorn, you are more than welcome to. 
     
    The biggest reason I am against the 3 up top is that like you stated, the rest of the state is going to cry for 2 up top.  With 2 up top, what is the point of having ARs if you are basically only going to protect spikes?
     
    If the 3 up top comes to the western WMUs, which seems likely, I sure hope the rest of the state will eventually transition to 3 up top as well.   
     
    #18
    World Famous
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2213
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
    • Location: Johnstown
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 12:55:12 (permalink)
    You hit it one the head baby!!! Either have them or not. As far as the court, I would still take my chances. I have always been a rebel!!...WF
    #19
    DarDys
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4912
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
    • Location: Duncansville, PA
    • Status: online
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 12:59:28 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

    Same difference, you would not stand a chance if the proposed regs go through.  The language is very clear and with the current WMU system the boundaries are very well defined.  If you would want to waste that much time and money just to shoot an illegal forkhorn, you are more than welcome to. 

    The biggest reason I am against the 3 up top is that like you stated, the rest of the state is going to cry for 2 up top.  With 2 up top, what is the point of having ARs if you are basically only going to protect spikes?

    If the 3 up top comes to the western WMUs, which seems likely, I sure hope the rest of the state will eventually transition to 3 up top as well.   


     
    The point is not sueing or defending.  The point is that the PGC's stated reason for going to 3-up is that it is too difficult to id brow tines.  What comes into question is just how STUPID that rationale becomes when they keep a regulation requiring brow tines to be identified in one part of the state, but not in another.  How can it be so diffiuclt in one area, but perfectly fine in another?  It can't.  It is either too diffiuclt in ALL areas or it isn't too difficult in ALL areas.  To rationalize it any other way is just making rules for the sake of making  rules.

    The poster formally known as Duncsdad

    Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
    #20
    psu_fish
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3140
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
    • Location: PA
    • Status: online
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 13:14:59 (permalink)
    PGC and logic dont mix
    #21
    Esox_Hunter
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2393
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 13:15:10 (permalink)
    Dars, I agree with you.  I was just poking a little fun at WF.
     
    To me the rule change is pointless, unless they they do make it 3 up top statewide.  I also agree that if they are going to use the logic that brow tines are too hard to identify(which I don't agree with), then they need to do the same statewide.
     
    Again, I do not support this change because of the future implications this will have.  If this passes I truly believe that they must either make it 3 up top statewide or 2 up top in the eastern 2/3 of the state, which I feel is a terrible idea.     
    #22
    retired guy
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3107
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/08/26 15:49:55
    • Location: ct-vacation place in Richland
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 15:06:39 (permalink)
    You all need to consult that guy who posted his photo a few weeks ago with the 28 (as I recall ) point buck from PA.
      Think it was back in December.
    post edited by retired guy - 2011/02/04 15:15:05
    #23
    RSB
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 932
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 19:59:36 (permalink)
    There is HUGE difference between relaxing the need for a brow tine between the current four point and three point areas.
     
    In the current four point areas relaxing the regulation to three on top would result in only slightly more bucks being harvested and a fair percentage of that additional harvest would be 2 ½ year old bucks. Thus it would have minimal affect on the over all buck harvest or the percentage of bucks protected through the season.
     
    But, to relax the need for a brow tine in the current three-point area would mean any three-point with a little Y on top would be a legal buck. That would result in WAY too many 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested with very few bucks being protected and projected into the next fall deer population.
     
    The entire point is about the Commissioners taking a step that makes it a little easier for slightly more hunters to be successful while still being within the objectives of the deer management plan.
     
    What pray tell is so wrong about them doing that? Isn’t that exactly what we should want them to do? I simply don’t understand why there would be such controversy over this proposal. It benefits hunters, allows for more hunter success and all without adversely affecting the future of the resource, so why the controversy? It sounds like a win all the way around to me. Hunters need to get over this attitude that if it benefits someone else instead of me I am gong to be apposed to it. That attitude is very harmful to the future of both hunting and wildlife management.
     R.S. Bodenhorn   
    #24
    RSB
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 932
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 20:15:50 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: S-10

    That's a bit of a stretch but as you may already know a porky can and does help the deer out quite a bit in the winter. In this area of the country they spend most of the winter feeding in the tops of hemlocks and sugar maple. You have probably given more than one a wild ride to the ground.Many of the twigs and buds they are biting or breaking off fall to the ground where the deer can get to them. A couple of my winter hiking trails take me into areas where I see this quite often.

     
    By darn we do agree on something after all.
     
    You are 100% correct. I don’t suppose a few less porcupines would be a major issue but the fact remains that the porcupine does feed a lot of deer both summer and winter. Having fewer porcupines in the big woods areas absolutely will result in having less deer food.
     
    Porcupines rarely kill a tree and the once they do kill are usually small root sucker beech that have no food benefit to wildlife. What porcupines do is climb up in the trees and eat the bark off of a tree limb. That causes that limb to die without adversely affecting the health of the mature tree. That limb no longer getting leaves on it though allows much needed sunlight to reach the forest floor. That burst of sunlight on the forest floor is what results in the regeneration of new tree seedlings. Those seedling are eaten to the rune of about 5-7 pounds per deer every day though the summer and often into the fall unless there is a good mast crop. Those seedlings are also where you get a new forest started but without a doubt the biggest benefit of those new seedlings is in deer browse.
     
    Then just as S-10 pointed out the porcupine feed a lot of hungry deer during harsh winters when the deer get locked into the wintering grounds habitats.
     
    Having fewer porcupines WILL result in fewer deer in many areas of this state. What wildlife management benefit is there in killing a porcupine? I can’t think of even one but I can think of several reasons not to kill them. They can be killed now where they are chewing on camps, buildings or equipment but if that is the concern then it shouldn’t be too hard to develop a regulation that simply removes the protection where damage to real property is a occurring.
     
    R.S. Bodenhorn
    #25
    Esox_Hunter
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2393
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 20:32:10 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: RSB

    There is HUGE difference between relaxing the need for a brow tine between the current four point and three point areas.
     
    In the current four point areas relaxing the regulation to three on top would result in only slightly more bucks being harvested and a fair percentage of that additional harvest would be 2 ½ year old bucks. Thus it would have minimal affect on the over all buck harvest or the percentage of bucks protected through the season.
     
    But, to relax the need for a brow tine in the current three-point area would mean any three-point with a little Y on top would be a legal buck. That would result in WAY too many 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested with very few bucks being protected and projected into the next fall deer population.
     
    The entire point is about the Commissioners taking a step that makes it a little easier for slightly more hunters to be successful while still being within the objectives of the deer management plan.
     
    What pray tell is so wrong about them doing that? Isn’t that exactly what we should want them to do? I simply don’t understand why there would be such controversy over this proposal. It benefits hunters, allows for more hunter success and all without adversely affecting the future of the resource, so why the controversy? It sounds like a win all the way around to me. Hunters need to get over this attitude that if it benefits someone else instead of me I am gong to be apposed to it. That attitude is very harmful to the future of both hunting and wildlife management.
     R.S. Bodenhorn   


    No one is arguing that a significant difference exists by eliminating counting brow tines in the current 3pt vs. the 4pt areas.

    My problem is; what provisions will be made to the current 3pt areas? There is going to be an uproar from dissatisfied hunters in that area. Why should only 2/3 of the state have to count a brow tine? Honestly, it would present a valid argument.

    The PGC needs to develop a backbone and stand behind their decisions. The only reason they have imposed the 3 up was to please hunters, right? There is no science behind it. So why are they only caving to a 1/3 of the hunters? Is it harder to see brow tines in Washington County than it is in Pike County?

    This whole idea is a joke. Grow a set and stand behind the science, whiny hunters should not be influencing the DMP. The only way I would remotely support this would be if it were proposed to be statewide.

    For what it is worth, I hunt in an area that obviously has high antler growth rates. 1.5YO bucks that have 3 up top but do not have a brow tine of an inch or more are fairly common. Look for an increase in harvests of 1.5YO from my area....
    #26
    World Famous
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2213
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
    • Location: Johnstown
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 20:59:30 (permalink)
    A little Y on top and one little brow tine and it is legal...WF
    #27
    RSB
    Expert Angler
    • Total Posts : 932
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/04 23:42:28 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter


    ORIGINAL: RSB

    There is HUGE difference between relaxing the need for a brow tine between the current four point and three point areas.
     
    In the current four point areas relaxing the regulation to three on top would result in only slightly more bucks being harvested and a fair percentage of that additional harvest would be 2 ½ year old bucks. Thus it would have minimal affect on the over all buck harvest or the percentage of bucks protected through the season.
     
    But, to relax the need for a brow tine in the current three-point area would mean any three-point with a little Y on top would be a legal buck. That would result in WAY too many 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested with very few bucks being protected and projected into the next fall deer population.
     
    The entire point is about the Commissioners taking a step that makes it a little easier for slightly more hunters to be successful while still being within the objectives of the deer management plan.
     
    What pray tell is so wrong about them doing that? Isn’t that exactly what we should want them to do? I simply don’t understand why there would be such controversy over this proposal. It benefits hunters, allows for more hunter success and all without adversely affecting the future of the resource, so why the controversy? It sounds like a win all the way around to me. Hunters need to get over this attitude that if it benefits someone else instead of me I am gong to be apposed to it. That attitude is very harmful to the future of both hunting and wildlife management.
     R.S. Bodenhorn   


    No one is arguing that a significant difference exists by eliminating counting brow tines in the current 3pt vs. the 4pt areas.

    My problem is; what provisions will be made to the current 3pt areas? There is going to be an uproar from dissatisfied hunters in that area. Why should only 2/3 of the state have to count a brow tine? Honestly, it would present a valid argument.

    The PGC needs to develop a backbone and stand behind their decisions. The only reason they have imposed the 3 up was to please hunters, right? There is no science behind it. So why are they only caving to a 1/3 of the hunters? Is it harder to see brow tines in Washington County than it is in Pike County?

    This whole idea is a joke. Grow a set and stand behind the science, whiny hunters should not be influencing the DMP. The only way I would remotely support this would be if it were proposed to be statewide.

    For what it is worth, I hunt in an area that obviously has high antler growth rates. 1.5YO bucks that have 3 up top but do not have a brow tine of an inch or more are fairly common. Look for an increase in harvests of 1.5YO from my area....


     
    The science already indicates that relaxing the brow tine in the four point areas would have minimal affect on the harvests or the number of bucks saved. The same science indicates there would be a major change in the both the harvest and number of bucks saved if the brow tine were eliminated in the three point areas. So, actually this change, if it happens, has been scientifically evaluated.
     
    It is all about what works for good management and still trying to provide the maximum hunting opportunities without adversely affecting the management objectives. I believe this change, as proposed does meet that objective. I most certainly would not support a reduction in the brow tine for all of the three point areas because it would result in harvesting too many 1 ½ year old bucks in some units. There are some WMU in the three-point area where I could possibly support such a change though based on the more decent buck harvest studies.
     
    The objective of deer management is first to have the correct number of deer living on the landscape that correctly matches the available habitat and food supplies. Then the next objective, assuming no social need to carry fewer deer than the habitat will sustain, is to have those deer in a proper buck to doe ratio to have a good breeding ecology. Then finally to have as many hunting opportunities as reasonably possible to execute the correct harvest of each of those sex and age structure to keep that population within those correct natural bounds.
     
    I believe they now have sufficient scientific data that they can tweak some of the antler restrictions in various units that would result in an improvement in both the management and hunting opportunities. So, in my opinion it is the right thing to do. I would not benefit from this change but some other hunters would and without any adverse affect on the resource, so why not do it? It only makes sense to me since I see no harmful affects other that some hunters would be jealous because they don’t see how they get anything out of the change.
     
    R.S. Bodenhorn        
    #28
    dpms
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3521
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/05 09:55:09 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: RSB
    The science already indicates that relaxing the brow tine in the four point areas would have minimal affect on the harvests or the number of bucks saved. The same science indicates there would be a major change in the both the harvest and number of bucks saved if the brow tine were eliminated in the three point areas. So, actually this change, if it happens, has been scientifically evaluated.
     


    I think the biologists stated possibly a 12% increase in antlered harvest as this is the number of bucks that have three up and no brow that were protected under our current AR.

    How many of the 88% that were legal made it through becuase of the extra time it takes to find that fourth point?  We can add that to the 12%.  We can also add yearling bucks in this part of the state that have three up on a beam that are rather common in these parts.  We can add those to the total number of 1.5 that were shot under our current restricitons. 

    This proposal was hunter driven.  The case being made is that it would be easier to identify a legal buck.  The biologists did not introduce this proposal but inly responded to the inquiry with the 12% figure.  I will venture a guess and say thay the antlered harvest in 2A/B will increase by much more than 12%. 
     
    2A is still in HR mode because of the larger number of antlerless allocations.  At the least, maybe HS but I still think the numbers are dropping. Increasing our antlered kill by 15% or more the will result in a definite shift to much lower buck harvests for years to come after the intitial spike.
    post edited by dpms - 2011/02/05 10:03:22

    My rifle is a black rifle
    #29
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS === 2011/02/05 10:18:22 (permalink)
    You guys need to decide if the BOC should base their decisions on what the biologists agree to or just go their own way. Since this BOC took over all the pro HR crowd has been doing is bashing them because they are perceived as going against the biologists and doing things their own way. As the last meeting showed, that is nothing but BS as the biologists were on board with nearly everything the BOC did. Now it is that same pro HR crowd that is bashing the biologists for approving the 3 up. What happened to listening to the science? I guess it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
    #30
    Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
    Jump to: