Care to point out where Penn State was going to build Condos on the land? More BS from the two of you

Once again S-10 reads things into my posts that are not there.. I posted a article by Ms. Palone and colored a section that shows HER opinion of Hanna ...


Hanna is not neccisarily a hunter friendly guy..her opinion and mine...

BUT === I said nothing about building condos.. I simple stated that imho he is not a great supporter of hunters or the sport of hunting, being from Philly I find that very easy to understand... and he worked hard to keep any sportmen or recreational outfit from getting that land... he felt it should be given to PSU....

I am not alone in thinking Hanna wanting PSU to get the land was a BAD idea...

In a separate effort during mid July the Moshannon Group was
part of an effort to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and emails
opposing the land transfer, or some might say, the land giveaway.
That effort was successful in putting the brakes on the
rush by some lawmakers to get legislation passed that would
transfer this land to Penn State as soon as possible.
In late July a Centre Daily Times article reported that ClearWater
Conservancy met with our local state representatives. Penn State
and DCNR officials were also present. No one else was invited.
A conservation easement was discussed and supposedly all
agreed that a conservation easement would be attached to the
land transfer. The unspoken assumption is that Penn State and
Benner Township will get the land.
Earlier this summer the situation seemed clear, you either supported
Penn State or you supported the PGC getting the land.
That still seems to be the choice. Remaining neutral keeps the
process moving forward with an underlying assumption that Penn
State and Benner Township get the land. Everything about the
process that maintains the status quo clears the way for transferring
the land to Penn State and Benner Township.
Having said that, you should know this fight is far from over.
The Moshannon Group is not interested in supporting a status
quo that leads to less than the best protection for Spring Creek
Canyon. The Moshannon Group believes that the entire parcel of
land should remain in public ownership preserving it as a natural
area. By transferring this land to an entity that has the mandate,
expertise, and funds to hold and manage this land in its natural state in
perpetuity, and can never sell it or develop it, the land will be best preserved.
The legislature is on their summer recess and will return to Harrisburg
on September 17. There are quite a few things we can do
between now and then, but we will all need to weigh in on this to
make our numbers felt. We stopped Representative Mike Hanna
from moving to transfer the land to Penn State with the hundreds
of phone calls that were made to Harrisburg, so we have shown
we have the ability to influence our representatives.
Ordinarily, other representatives give great deference to a local
Representative's project. However, Spring Creek Canyon and
surrounding lands is not just "a local project." The Canyon and
the land that surrounds it are a National treasure. The World Fly
Fishing Championship is being held on Spring Creek and anglers
come from around the country to fish this stream. What happens
to the Canyon is not just of local concern, it should be of concern
to anglers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts everywhere.
In the next few weeks, we need to begin taking actions that will
make our representatives aware that the community does not support
the transfer of our State lands to Penn State. We do not want
to worry about what will happen to that land 50 years from now.
Unfortunately, Penn State has repeatedly shown what they do
with vacant land. Consider the golden opportunity they had to
demonstrate stewardship with the Circleville Farm property, and
how they opted for cashing in on the property.
We cannot see any circumstances under which Penn State should
get, or would be the best choice to get, the lands uplands surrounding
the canyon. And as the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy's report
says, the uplands are a crucial component of protecting the Canyon.
We support transferring the land to an entity that we can trust to
keep the land in its natural state, open the area up for appropriate
public use, and never sell it. Penn State would not be a good
choice. Benner Township, however well intentioned, would also
not be a good choice. The PA Game Commission, DCNR, Western
PA Conservancy, or Nature Conservancy would be good
choices.

Once again S-10 reads things into my posts that are not there.. I posted a article by Ms. Palone and colored a section that shows HER opinion of Hanna ...

YOUR the one who Red Lined the part you wanted us to read. YOUR the one who is trying to use the article to Discredit the OTHER leglislation he is proposing. Nice try Doc but "FAIL". You would be better off doing as the Admin said and stick to the topic rather than using other stuff to ty to discredit the man introducing the (ANTLERLESS DEER LEGISLATION) which is the topic.

   I hunt bear over dogs and am, and always will be, convinced that anyone out there claiming  hunting is OK and then trying to somehow limit some kinda hunting is an ANTI.
 The point here is that after they stop the dog thing they will certainly pick another 'hunting experience' to pick out and try and stop- its their ultimate agenda all the while being wolves in sheeps clothing.
  I work with too many public people who claim NOT to be against hunting and then present and support agendas against it-
  Generally the long term history of said organizations and people speaks for itself-dont get stuck on one thing or even the most recent objective- look at the history and long haul as well as those they have aligned themselves with over time to see the real photo.
  Audobon aint your pal - neither is Sierra.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

R.Palone was one of the worse enemies of sportsmen

What a joke... you could not find 100 people in the whole state that would agree with that statement... just maybe the handful of guys here that appear to share your conspiracy theories...

B.S. I can bring you the names of 100 people in a single sportsmens club in Lawrence County that agree with that.

Any one who disagrees with that statement is either severely dissillusioned, or severely undereducated on the subject.

I also have had many disscussions with PGC Biologists. As stated by others they are always either unprepared or unable to answer questions that are not on thier "talking points" list.

I still have not recieved satisfactory answers on many repeated questions.

Hi Doc-
NO that was NOT directed at you or anyone else for that matter- Just an observation.
"They" always seem to pick out a minority within a minority to go after when pursuing their ultimate goals of encroaching on hunting.
For example- How many guys hunt Bear and then how many use a dog?
  After that we can look at yote hunters who use dogs and then if the lisence sales go down some more perhaps they will go after guys hunting those cute little talking bunnies that deliver the chicken eggs at Easter. And then ,of course, there are guys who do that very nasty field trial thing where they release birds just to be shot over dogs- etc etc etc---
Wont even bring up those awful trappers---
They just keep pecking away---an some of us fall for it cause it does not affect 'our' style of hunting--
Anyone watching over the years will observe a constant badgering of any kind of Dog involved hunting experience by the antis and others of their ilk- its one of their constant targets.
Who knows?? when they rid us of those nasty doggies perhaps they will target something YOU like to do next. -Ultimate goals--

ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr

I also have had many disscussions with PGC Biologists. As stated by others they are always either unprepared or unable to answer questions that are not on thier "talking points" list.

I still have not recieved satisfactory answers on many repeated questions.

 
Just which Biologists have you talked with that were unprepared and not able to answer questions? Give us some names.
 
I highly suspect if you really did talk to any that they probably did answer the questions and you just didn’t like the answers they gave because they weren’t the answers you wanted to hear. We all run into that a good bit were we get a question, provide the correct answers and then have the person reject the answers because it either wasn’t what they wanted to hear or wanted to believe.
 
Just because answers aren’t what a person likes or expects to hear certainly doesn’t mean the answer they received wasn’t the correct answer.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

nothing against dogs.. I love them..

rabbit dogs, fox hounds, coyote dogs, bird dogs, love them all

I just think using a dog to break up a flock of turkeys isn't necessary but I also do not hunt turkeys so am not really sure just how necessary it is to use them to be successful...


Using them for bear .. I see more problems with that with other hunters shooting bear on the run off someone elses dogs... but would not have a problem with it if that's what the majority of Pa hunters would want, just like I ended up supporting turkey dogs even though I did not feel it was necessary after talking to folks who do and heve used them in other states...
----------------------

As for open houses.. one was a Sunday and one was during the week, Wallingford was at both of them and I sat near him and listened as others asked questions and he brought out charts and figures I had never seen before...
All questions were answered and there were both those that agreed and some changed their opinions after the answers and questions and some who thought it was all a bunch of BS, just like some here.

The surveys were filled out by just about everyone I saw... I am sort of disappointed I have not been able to find what the results of those were though...

One in St. Marys had foresters there and I was amazed at how many asked questions but it was so obvious they had no idea what a maple tree was or an oak...  but the guy took lots of time and tried hard to explain good habitat trees for deer and listed those that he thought were "junk".. Also mentioned about the invasive species showing up and the damage they were doing...


Another PGC guy worked his butt off trying to explain how the PGC figures the deer harvest and over half those listening did not think it was a good system, because it was pretty obvious they still did not understand the procedure.. all were AMAZED that hunters do not send it harvest report cards..

I will say I was not prepared for the relatively small turn out a couple, while other had good turn-outs...week-days I agree may not be the best..

I am 1000% in agreement with holding the PGC meetings on Sunday and the following day in HARRISBURG... . they should move them around some

In recent years I have attend 3 PFBC meeting and not one of those was in Harrisburg.. one in Brockway and two in DuBois...

It will be interesting to see if anyone is truthful enough to name the biologists they talked too...  I have talked to Rosenberry and Wallingford and have never not received an answer.. did not agree with all of them but that's the right we all have to disagree...

The main thing they both agreed on is the deer situation is different in different areas of Pa...  different WMUs... not only that but different in many smaller areas in each WMU...


My favorite answer === when I ask about Dr. Alt's estimate on the number of deer in Pa back in 2002....

So you're saying that a large portion of hunters are "law breakers" ( not reporting )? Seems RSB was roundly criticized by a few here, for making such an insinuation

Dars went out of his way to question me also on my commment of "a high percentage" of slobs/lawbreakers...

Guess he does not consider law breakers as "slobs"

all the stories here and other boards about trespassers... guys sitting up too close, littering, walking into the woods while someone is in their tree stand.. wounded deer, etc etc

nope they aren't "slobs" either

in Dars mind = no one is a slob if they have a hunting license and don't bother him while he is hunting...

as I have said before out of every 10 hunters I know or meet on average 3-4 of them are what I consider "slobs" or lawbreakers

On the right of way to here and past to the last camp there are 12 camps... I know of NO violations, no slobs at 7 of them.. the others = yep lawbreaking and "slobs" when it comes to deer hunting...

example.. already this year... Dad at camp drinking beer...his junior hunter takes out a mentored youth hunting on the SGL...

If the law were enforced across the board like all the other game code violations then I would agree with you...


But I have to put the ownus on the PGC for being complacent in their enforcement and have given the hunters a pass on this law for some reason..

And yes I have reported every deer I have ever killed.

The few that there are...

Are the PGC employees not lawbreakers/slobs for failing to enforce laws they swore to uphold.

As for saying who the biologists were why should we embarrass them on this forum for following orders and sticking to the script. If they acted like idiots I would bust on them in a second but they didn't. They came to put on their show and interact with the attendees and not get involved in controversial discussions and that's what they did. Even the BOC member would change the subject when the facts didn't support some of the talking points.

I will say I have never been to one where there was what I would consider a real good turnout even before AR/HR.

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

If the law were enforced across the board like all the other game code violations then I would agree with you...


But I have to put the ownus on the PGC for being complacent in their enforcement and have given the hunters a pass on this law for some reason..

And yes I have reported every deer I have ever killed.

The few that there are...

 
We most certainly will and do enforce the reporting law when we have enough evidence to support the charges. I issued two citations for failure to report following last season when I had the evidence of the kills and also the evidence that they hadn’t mailed the report cards or reported on line.
 
We have tried in the past to prosecute them when we could prove they hadn’t reported but couldn’t prove they had never mailed the report card. The courts will not find a person guilty of the charge unless we can prove they didn’t send the report card so it is futile for an Officer to file the charge unless they have enough evidence to prove their case.
 
They are working on a reporting system that don’t include mail in report cards. Once that is a reality everyone we can prove killed and for whom we don’t get a report they will be charged.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

With the new POS system, could there not be a barcode on the tags? Then all the hunter need do is go to any licensing agent, have his tag scanned, provide/key in harvest data, and bingo report done.

 
It is a possibility that the issuing agents will be part of the reporting method. I know a couple of the Commissioners are looking at and talking about a system that does away with using mail in reports and everyone harvesting a deer having a short period of time (perhaps 24 or 48 hours) to call in, go to an agent, etc. to report their kill and get a reporting confirmation number that has to be included on the kill tag.
 
Then if an Officer finds a tag without the confirmation number on it that would be a violation. Failure to report within the allotted time would also be a charge that could possibly even result in an illegal deer charge.
 
I don’t know how far down the road it is, since some things in the law would need to be changed, but it is in the works at least as far as the planning stages.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

ORIGINAL: S-10

Funny the difference a year makes------A year ago it was too expensive, wasn't necessary and wouldn't work anyway.

 
Nope you are incorrect with your misleading information and accusations, as usual.
 
It is too expense and will not work to have mandatory check stations where hunters have to take their deer in to be checked, as some of you have been suggesting we needed in this state. That is what we have debated by to expense and not working but this is something all together different than check stations.
 
It has always been mandatory to report your kill, but most hunters didn’t and used the Postal Service as their defense if charged in the past. This would simply be a method to shorten the reporting period, eliminate the mail in report option (and thus the lost in the mail defense when charged) and put some serious teeth in failing or refusing to report your kill within a relatively short period of time.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn