interesting position

Have to love the positive position towards hunting that some of the folks the PGC is pardnering with on wildlife issues have.

The National Audubon Society
950 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 546-9100
N "…has never been opposed to the hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations design to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource…we will advocate restrictions on hunting, include the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species involved requires it…we do not advocate hunting. This is no contradiction, though some people seem to think it is. Our objective is wildlife and environmental conservation, not the promotion of hunting. We think lots of the justifications for hunting are weak ones, and too often exaggerated for commercial reasons, and we do not hesitate to say so when the ocassion calls for it. But this does not make us anti-hunting…"

I have never considered them a friend of hunters.  Thier consistant position of non support for hunting has them on my anti radar.

These environuts are the #1 problem facing sportsmen today. Ive read several pieces in the past, from idiots like Ted Williams of Audubon, etc... Where they go into detail about "partnering" with sportsmen to greatly increase their own political clout. In other pieces its been said to join hunter organizations etc. etc. just to gain more voice in matters. They have been doing exactly that here in Pa, and are more than "close" with Pgc even more importantly. Cant recall all the articles Ive read, but Know one enlightening one was "guns and greens" by Ted Williams. His call to fellow environemtalists to take advantage of the large numbers of sportsmen and women, to partner up with them to further their own agendas. Also mentions often how gullible WE hunters are, and we are easily taken advantage of by "other" special interest groups, so they should as well since it would be doing "the right thing", as opposed to letting "other" special interest lead us to doing the "wrong" things. lol.

On smaller more direct to us scale, I happen to know for fact environmentalists from audubon, conservancies etc. have taken that general advice, and joined sportsmen groups in pa, from the "Pa qdma" that sorely needed officers, to a very problematic group, Pa Federation of Sportsmen Clubs (& conservationists). Very conflicted between their environmentalist and sportsmen beliefs due to membership with many of both. Though in recent years many of the "sportsmen" who arent extreme minded enviros have jumped ship due to recognizing they werent being "heard" on the issues by extreme envirominded officers. This has put a significant dent in their membership, and made the enviro voice there stronger than ever. Yet some, including some environmentally supportive legislators & pgc still try to portray them as a "sportsman" group when it comes to "say" in our important sportsmen issues. A perfect example of enviromentalists "plan" at work. Theyve mutliplied their voice in matters significantly, while further lessening that of the sportsmen. And thats the exact reason why you'll see Penn Fed and now also pa qdma, STRONGLY support eveything pgc does as far as the deer reduction.

Alot of these folks want to pretend to be "just like us", act sympathetic to our concerns and meet us with smiles, but all the while are doing nothing but stabbing us in the backs, along with a few actual "hunters" unknowingly supporting their garbage agenda...guys that were naive enough to be buffaloed by slick talk and friendly smiles....The "gullible" types Ted spoke of.

Those that are afraid of and choose to stand against people with some opposing views though still working toward what should be the common goal, such balanced wildlife/habitat relationships, in my opinion don’t have a very strong constitution toward their own beliefs and convictions.
 
If a position is worthy of merit no one with an opposing view is going to have the ability to destroy that position. I believe hunting is a strong position with valid management method direction and can stand on its own merits. So, I have no fear or sitting down at the table with those who are non-hunters or even anti-hunters to work on ways of obtaining common goals that benefit species or issues we commonly care about.
 
Failure or refusing to work with people we don’t walk in lock step with in my opinion is nothing but foolishness that will ultimately make our position weaker instead of stronger at some point in the future.
 R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Those that are afraid of and choose to stand against people with some opposing views though still working toward what should be the common goal,

The goals ARENT the same. Those sought by the extremists spoken of go far ABOVE AND BEYOND in such as manner, as to be COUNTER to our own.

It is also NOT good to have that type speaking on "OUR" behalf period.

Failure or refusing to work with people we don’t walk in lock step with in my opinion is nothing but foolishness that will ultimately make our position weaker instead of stronger at some point in the future..

On the contrary. The only reason we are as "weak" as we are now, is because some choose to walk in lockstep with those environmental extremists. Others with much influence threw in with them because they have "other" interests like timber.. (dcnr). Thats also why our voice was MUCH stronger 20 years ago and for most of our history over the course of several decades until the late 90's.

And no, this that is going on isnt "sitting down at the table". Those jokers are DICTATING to us currently, and we're lucky if we're even invited to sit in the same room as the table, merely to listen. Permitting them so incredibly much say over matters was one of the biggest blunders to ever occur in GAME management in the nation.

That needs to change. Those obtuse thinkers are not at all important to our deer management, whereas hunters are, directly. They need to be on the outside looking in, just as they were previously, and just as we are the ones doing so currently.

You are full of bologna.
 
The people that sat down and developed the current deer/habitat management goals and direction were very much tilted toward hunter interests.
 
The follow groups each got to have a representative at the table and no one had anymore voice than any other.
 
Sportsmen Interests:
        Penna. Federation of Sportsmen Clubs
        Unified Sportsmen of Penna.
        Penna. Deer Association
        United Bowhunters of Penna.
        Quality Deer Management Association
        National Wild Turkey Federation
 
Agriculture Interests:
            Penna. Farm Bureau
            Penna. Vegetable Growers Association
 
Commercial Forestry Interests:
            Keith Horn and Associates
            Forest Investment Associates
            Kane Hardwoods
 
Environmental Conservation Interests:
            Audubon
            Western Penna. Conservancy
            The Nature Conservancy
 
Federal and State Agencies:
            USDA – Forest Service
            Penna. Department of Agriculture
            Penna. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR)
 
Urban-Suburban Municipalities:
            Montgomery County Parks
            Lorimer Park
 
Legislature:
            House Game and Fisheries Committee Chairman
            Senate Game and Fisheries Committee Chairman
 
Game Commission:
            Commissioner
            Representative from bureaus and regions

How about using some facts instead of just more fairy-tails about what has and is influencing deer management direction and decisions.
 
The fact is that all of those organizations had an equal say in where deer management has gone and where it will go in the future. If any of those groups can present a valid argument that influences the others then I guess that would be because they have a more valid argument that leads others to believe that is what would be the best direction.
 
If you think you have a strong enough position or have sufficient leadership qualities to provide a better direction then I would suggest that you not only get involved but take the leadership reins of one of those groups so your voice and opinions can become more clearly expressed.
 
Those others had a voice that was heard because they had put themselves in leadership positions by being able to stand up for their convictions not only among their peers but also among their detractors. That is what America is REALLY all about remember.
 
R.S Bodenhorn 

THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE DEER REDUCTION PROGRAM

In 1996, the deer reduction process was begun in Pennsylvania by Bryon Shissler (an
independent natural resources consultant) and Dan Devlin and James Grace of DCNR. As
described previously in this website, by the year 2000 DCNR had enrolled in Shissler's Green
Certification program (a process that demanded deer reduction), and Gary Alt had been assigned
to implement deer reduction.

Witnessing the imminent decline of the deer herd in 1999, Audubon Pennsylvania (Cindy Dunn
and Timothy Schaeffer, each successive Executive Directors of Audubon who now are employed
as executives in DCNR and the Fish and Boat Commission, respectively) assumed an
opportunistic role and began a series of aggressive actions to exacerbate herd reduction and
advance Audubon's biodiversity agenda. By 2000, Audubon was joined by the few individuals
in PGC and DCNR who were the original designers and who remain active proponents of the
deer reduction program.
Following are those few original designers of DCNR's Green Certification process and the
associated deer reduction program.
Bryon P. Shissler
On or about 1995, Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. (SCS) of Oakland, California was
approved to represent the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) of Bonn, Germany toward
advancing FSC's "Green Certification" program. By 1996, Bryon Shissler had been certified to
represent SCS in the Green Certification process as its Appalachian regional auditor. As such,
Mr. Shissler proposed a pilot-year study to DCNR's Bureau of Forestry to determine if DCNR
should become America's first enrollee in FSC's Green Certification program. At a 1996
workshop in Harrisburg, although other states chose not to participate in the Green Certification
program because they claimed that it was a subjective process that was not based on sound forest
ecology, DCNR chose to enroll. At that time, Mr. Shissler selected deer reduction as the
criterion for which DCNR would be judged in achieving Green Certification, and assumed the role
of auditor. Thus, Mr. Shissler was the original designer and founder of the deer reduction
program. To date, Bryon Shissler has continued to be a dominant proponent of the deer
reduction program.
Dan Devlin
In 1996, DCNR's James Grace and Dan Devlin approved of DCNR's enrollment into the Green
Certification program, and worked with Bryon Shissler in adapting the program to meet DCNR's
needs. Along with Bryon Shissler, Dan Devlin has continued to date to be a dominant proponent
of the deer reduction program as well as Audubon's ecosystem management philosophy.
Calvin DuBrock
Ultimate approval for the deer reduction program was granted in 1998 by Calvin DuBrock and
Vernon Ross of the PGC. At that time, Calvin DuBrock created the Deer Management Section
and assigned Gary Alt as the Section's supervisor. In 1998, he was instrumental in creating the
Deer Management Working Group, and in selecting Scot Williamson of the Wildlife Management
Institute as its chairman. Scot Williamson and other members of the Group (including Bryon
Shissler, Susan Stout, Cindy Dunn, and Ben Moyer) worked with DuBrock and Gary Alt from
1998-2000 in designing the new deer reduction program. In 1999, Mr. DuBrock was a main
speaker at the Audubon-sponsored reduce-the-deer-herd conference in Harrisburg.
Gary Alt
By 1999, Gary Alt had become the PGC's voice for their new deer-reduction program. He was
the principal PGC implementer of the program, and along with Bryon Shissler and Timothy
Schaeffer, remains as a dominant proponent of the deer reduction program.
Scot Williamson
As previously described, in 1998 Scot Williamson was selected to serve as Chairman of the Deer
Management Working Group, and as such, was the responsible party who designed the deer
reduction components of PGC's new deer management program. He recommended deer reduction
through increased antlerless allocations, the concurrent buck/doe season, DMAP, and the change
from the county-based management system to Wildlife Management Units. In 1999, Williamson
was a main speaker at the Audubon-sponsored reduce-the-deer-herd conference where he
advocated deer reduction. In 1999, former PA Representative David Levdansky awarded Scot
Williamson $95,000 to conduct an audit of the PGC's deer reduction program. In so doing, Rep
Levdansky had selected the designer of the deer reduction program as its auditor – a blatant
conflict of interest and possible violation of state ethics law. This audit has proven to be a
fraudulent, and therefore irrelevant, process, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Including the above founders of the deer reduction program, key participants, as acknowledged
by Audubon and DCNR, who were instrumental in accomplishing the statewide reduction of the
deer herd toward achieving DCNR's Green Certification and Audubon's ecosystem management
plan are listed in the following table. In addition, a second table lists those 13 individuals who are
considered to be the principal architects of the plan according to the degree of their involvement
in the Audubon/DCNR/PGC deer-reduction process.
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT / DEER REDUCTION TEAM
KEY PARTICIPANTS
AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY AUDUBON AND DCNR
AUDUBON-RELATED PRINCIPALS
• Roger Earl Latham, Project Leader • Mary Ann Fajvan
• Bryon P. Shissler, Co-Leader • Ronald R. Freed
• Marrett D. Grund, Co-Leader • Jan Beyea
• Timothy D. Schaeffer, Co-Leader (Now PFBC) • Stephen B. Horsley
• Cindy Adams Dunn (Now DCNR) • Ann Fowler Rhoads
• Scot Williamson (WMI) • Ben Moyer
FROM DCNR
• Dan Devlin, Forum Sponsor • James Bailey
• Roy Brubaker, Forum Organizer • E. Michael Blumenthal
• Sara Nicholas, Forum Co-Organizer • Mark W. Diebler
• Merlin Benner • James R. Grace
• Paul Troutman • Thomas J. Hall
PGC STAFF ACKNOWLEDGED BY AUDUBON
• Gary Alt • Vernon R. Ross
• Calvin W. DuBrock • Robert C. Boyd
• Christopher S. Rosenberry • Benjamin C. Jones
LEGISLATIVE AGENT
• PA State Rep. David K. Levdansky, D-39, Elizabeth
OTHER SELECT AUDUBON FORUM PARTICIPANTS
• Susan L. Stout (USFS) • Patrick H. Brose (USFS)
• Kip P. Adams (QDMA) • Todd Ristau (USFS)
PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTS OF THE ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEMENT / DEER REDUCTION PROGRAM
From the previous table which lists the key participants of the ecosystem management/deer
reduction program (as acknowledged by Audubon, DCNR, and related documents), only thirteen
(13) people emerge as the principal architects of this agenda – those people whose names have
been repeatedly documented as promoting a reduction in the state's deer herd. According to
documentation, therefore, it is these 13 people who have been the principal architects in the
design and orchestration of the PGC's deer management program, and who, along with other key
participants, are responsible for the demise of Pennsylvania's deer herd during the past decade.
Again, based on Audubon-related documentation, the names of the principal architects include:
(1) Audubon-Related Principal Architects
• Roger Earl Latham: principal author of Audubon's 2005 362-page ecosystem
management/reduce-the-deer master plan; and co-organizer and report editor of DCNR's
2009 49-page ecosystem management/deer reduction plan.
• Bryon P. Shissler: member of the pre-2000 Deer Management Working Group; a main
speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to reduce the deer herd; member of
Audubon's 2005 Deer Management Forum and co-author of Audubon's 362-page
ecosystem management/deer reduction master plan; co-organizer of DCNR's
2009ecosystem management/deer reduction forum; and co-author of the Pinchot
Institute's2009 report toward certifying the PGC's deer management program.
• Marrett D. Grund: member of Audubon's 2005 Deer Management Forum and co-author of
Audubon's 362-page ecosystem management/deer reduction master plan; reviewer and
conferee of DCNR's 2009 ecosystem management/deer reduction plan and forum; and
co-author (with Bryon Shissler) of the Pinchot Institute's 2009 report toward certifying
the PGC's deer management program.
• Timothy D. Schaeffer: former Audubon Pennsylvania Executive Director who, along with
Rep. David Levdansky, proposed the perceived-to-be-fraudulent 2007 deer audit to Rep.
Ed Staback; reviewer of Audubon's 2005 362-page ecosystem management/deer
reduction master plan. He is now an executive in the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission.
• Cindy Adams Dunn: member of the pre-2000 Deer Management Working Group; a main
speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to reduce the deer herd; former
Audubon Pennsylvania Executive Director; member of Audubon's 2005 Deer
Management Forum and co-author of Audubon's 362-page ecosystem management/deer
reduction master plan. She is now an executive in DCNR.
• Scot Williamson, Wildlife Management Institute: member of the pre-2000 Deer
Management Working Group and 1998 speaker to the PGC's BOC regarding deer herd
reduction; a key speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to reduce the deer
herd whose speech was entitled What can be Done? What is being Done?; 2009 WMI
auditor of the Levdansky deer audit.
• Susan L. Stout, U.S. Forest Service: member of the pre-2000 Deer Management Working
Group; key speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to reduce the deer herd;
member of Audubon's 2005 Deer Management Forum and reviewer of Audubon's 362-
page ecosystem management/deer reduction master plan; participant in 2-hour television
panel discussion promoting PGC's deer reduction program.
• Ben Moyer, Outdoor Writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: member of the pre-2000 Deer
Management Working Group; key speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to
reduce the deer herd; member of Audubon's 2005 Deer Management Forum and
reviewer of Audubon's 362-page ecosystem management/deer reduction master plan;
frequent newspaper columnist supporting PGC's deer reduction program.
(2) DCNR Principal Architect
• Dan Devlin: co-author (along with three employees of The Nature Conservancy) 2004
publication entitled "System Design and Management for Restoring Penn's Woods" – a
state master plan for creating a centuries-long-old-growth forest on over 500,000 acres of
Pennsylvania state forests through the drastic and permanent reduction of the deer herd;
the sponsor of DCNR's 2009 ecosystem management/DMAP deer reduction forum and
corresponding 49-page report.
(3) PGC Principal Architects
• Calvin W. DuBrock: key speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to reduce the
deer herd; acknowledged by Audubon as a participant of Audubon's 2005 Deer
Management Forum and in Audubon's 362-page ecosystem management/deer reduction
master plan; Gary Alt's direct supervisor; Christopher Rosenberry's direct supervisor;
Chief of the Game Commission's Wildlife Research and Management Division who is
responsible for the PGC's deer reduction program.
• Gary Alt: keynote (dinner) speaker at Audubon's 1999 Harrisburg conference to reduce the
deer herd; principal designer and public promoter of the PGC's deer reduction program;
acknowledged in Audubon's 2005 362-page ecosystem management/deer reduction
strategic plan as key to the success of their deer reduction agenda.
• Christopher S. Rosenberry: acknowledged as a participant of Audubon's 2005 Deer
Management Forum and acknowledged as a participant in Audubon's 362-page
ecosystem management/deer reduction master plan; principal member of DCNR's 2009
ecosystem management/deer reduction forum and co-author of the associated 49-page
report; current director of the PGC deer reduction program.
(4) Legislative Facilitator/Audubon Agent
• Rep. David K. Levdansky (D-39), Elizabeth: co-sponsor with Timothy Schaeffer, former
Audubon Pennsylvania Executive Director, of the perceived-fraudulent 2007 deer audit;
responsible for awarding this predesigned audit to Scot Williamson of WMI; advocate of
the elimination of the PGC's Board of Commissioners.

All of what you just posted is just more opinion

Although there are opinions interjected here and there, the majority of the article is not opinion at all. The majority of it is documented FACT. Facts that he compiled, and it doesnt make a single bit of difference who compiled them, whether it was Me, You, Eveland, Alt etc.. Its all documented fact. He didnt make them up. Its just like if any of us said c-a-t spells cat. Its just as much fact regardless of whether it was you or I that stated it. The facts are what they are. And in this instance, they tell the true story of exactly who was behind Pa deer management.

based on a biased view from one with a lot of sour grapes because he got passed over when he didnt qualify to do the Deer Audit.
.

So you're saying those "facts" that he documented would have been any different, had he landed the audit? If you are saying that, then Im saying you are full of beans. These things which he documented were in no way due to any 'audit'. They occurred long long before "the audit". And the facts wouldve been exactly the same regardless.

I also dont believe he would have "left out" these facts if he did get the bid for audit. I think to say otherwise is decietful and nothing more than an attempt to discredit the facts without actually doing anything. lol.

Btw, Many of us who have dug deeper into this stuff, including me, knew alot of this to be the case LONG before eveland compiled this stuff.

It seems that all of the logic-oriented people have already dismissed those rants as the pure nonsense they are.

Thats funny, I have yet to see one. Hell, I havent even seen ONE try. Though I have seen a couple of the "usual folks" try to shrug it off by attempts at deflecting the attention. Ive also seen a few of the same enviros on a coupla site attempting unwarranted personal attacks on the guy because of his attempting to undermine "the agenda"....But no. No logical retorts to the findings at all.

Anyone with a little bit of time, and wishing to break that article down bit by bit, and see who alot of those folks in that article are, and what theyre all about on internet searches can easily confirm for themselves whats going on here.


....Yep... Hunters had a say! Indeed! We have ZERO say. We didnt have a clue what was going on until the issue was long since decided by extreme borderline antihunter type folks who should NOT have been dictating GAME MANAGEMENT.
--------------
From audubon in 05: "Then, six years ago, with a healthy shove from Audubon Pennsylvania and its partners, the commission suddenly acquired a spine. It turned the deer program over to Gary Alt, its veteran bear biologist, instructing him to reduce the deer herd until it was no longer a threat to itself and native ecosystems. "

And:


"No state had managed its deer more abominably than Pennsylvania, but now it's leading the way. Backed by the Pennsylvania Habitat Alliance-- a coalition of conservation, sportsmen's, and land trust groups put together by Pennsylvania Audubon and its partners--the state game commission is allowing and urging hunters to shoot more deer, especially does. If the herd is reduced to carrying capacity, deer will be bigger and healthier. Ruined range that can't support deer now will be able to do so, and there will be far more habitat for other wildlife, including other game species. "The commission has finally seen the light," comments Pennsylvania Audubon's director, Cindy Dunn. "This is precedent-setting. We think Pennsylvania can become a national model, where the hunter's role changes from resource taker to provider of an environmental and ecological service."

This started with the DEER Management Forum conviened by the Pa Audubon and the PA Habitat Alliance to determine how to manage the state from an ECO-System Management Perspective. They did have some token representives from the PGC who refused to sign of on the findings because the greens were critical of the way the PGC was managing the wildlife. at the time. It(the forum) was loaded in favor of ECO-System Management because that is what the Greens wanted and is what the PGC is now giving them. The whole issue is on the net for anyone who wants to read it for themselves.

It seems that all of the logic-oriented people have already dismissed those rants as the pure nonsense they are.
R.S. Bodenhorn

I just read an article that discussed what the radical enviros do when they can't make a honest legitment argument on a wildlife topic. They resort to name calling, attacking the messenger because they can't find fault with the message, attacking the honesty of the people, and attacking their intellect.

Do you happen to know anyone this all fits.--- We sure do.--- I may have to find the article again and post it.


BTY---I'am STILL waiting for those examples of the NEW SCIENCE or those QUOTE: NEW IMPROVED METHODS you claimed the PGC is using.

love to be in on the conference call---oops thats privileged tween them and their atty.-gotta be a jacka** involved somewhere -after all they have rights too.

ORIGINAL: retired guy

Didnt know the Nature Conservatory was down there too. Sad- Went fishin a coupla places this year after a long absence from those streams -Posted with new  signs- NO Fishing -hikers only- Guess whos signs they were.---

  No agenda to see here folks--move on move on---

 
I do not know how the Conservancy’s function up your way, but here they have been a tremendous asset to hunters. Here the Conservancy’s primary function has been to buy prime large land tracts that were priced higher that a state agency, such as the Game Commission, DCNR, Parks, ect. could legally pay for the land. Then after they bought he land they sold it at a loss to one of the state agencies at the price they were legally permitted to pay.
 
Hunters in this state enjoy hunting and other recreational pursuits on hundreds of thousands of acres that would not be open to them if it were not for the work of the various Conservancies. Just in my district alone I have seen about 1000 acres along the Clarion River corridor that was once private with much of it closed to hunting now all open to the hunters as part of the game lands system, and all because the Conservancy bought it and turned it over the Game Commission.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn      

The real facts are not as you and Eveland want them to be portrayed.

Its not a matter of what I want. The facts are the facts.

If they where then all anyone would have to do is go to the Attorney General and have all of these involved in this grand conspiracy up on criminal corruption charges.

Over what?? Pgc ignoring hunters and managing for environuts? Yeah, Im sure the Attorney General has that as number 1 concern on his priorities list. ha ha. And its just so easy to fight a powerhouse, state agency.. Requires alot of resources and alot of money, to most likely fail wether the complain is valid or not anyway. Politically is the way to go to fix this. Though there arent enough intellectual, organized hunter factions out there to figure out the best way to accomplish it.

That refusal to be part of the solution toward sound resource management has been and probably will continue to be one of the remaining but final nails to be driven in the use of hunter’s as apart of wildlife management coffin.

I agree 100%. Pgcs refusal to be part of the solution towards sound resource management WILL be one of those nails, unless something is done about it in the not too distant future.

    They dont just have a 'say' =if you check out their putor site they buy properties and then establish deeded rights to conservation issues on those properties. Not dissimilar to timber or mineral rights found on deeds for evermore. Whatever they have established on those deeds is  legally binding  to  ANY future owner of the actual land itself .
  In other words the new owners -be it the State or you- do not 'own ' the conservation rights spelled out in whatever deed that they purchased or were given for the land. They buy rights from existing owners too. Something to really watch out for when buying property. Like that guy looking in Ohio.
    I have tried without sucess to find a copy of an agreement but could  not-perhaps they are all the same but some of the signage I have seen round here compared to what you folks are experiencing makes me wonder if they vary from place to place depending on what they may be trying to accomplish in that area.
   Heck I cant even fish in places the State stocked for decades- but I can hike there.
    Would love to know if their deeded Conservation rights allow them to change the direction of or control future  conservation issues  at any given future time or if it is a case of only whats initially locked  into the deed-betcha they kept active control so they can change direction.
     If it was me I woulda.That would explain the States need to partner with them and not you to ensure mutual agreement on conservation orientated issues.
They claim to have done this on many millions of acres in the US.

ORIGINAL: retired guy

    They dont just have a 'say' =if you check out their putor site they buy properties and then establish deeded rights to conservation issues on those properties. Not dissimilar to timber or mineral rights found on deeds for evermore. Whatever they have established on those deeds is  legally binding  to  ANY future owner of the actual land itself .
  In other words the new owners -be it the State or you- do not 'own ' the conservation rights spelled out in whatever deed that they purchased or were given for the land. They buy rights from existing owners too. Something to really watch out for when buying property. Like that guy looking in Ohio.
   I have tried without sucess to find a copy of an agreement but could  not-perhaps they are all the same but some of the signage I have seen round here compared to what you folks are experiencing makes me wonder if they vary from place to place depending on what they may be trying to accomplish in that area.
  Heck I cant even fish in places the State stocked for decades- but I can hike there.
   Would love to know if their deeded Conservation rights allow them to change the direction of or control future  conservation issues  at any given future time or if it is a case of only whats initially locked  into the deed-betcha they kept active control so they can change direction.
     If it was me I woulda.That would explain the States need to partner with them and not you to ensure mutual agreement on conservation orientated issues.
They claim to have done this on many millions of acres in the US.

Here is the Western PA Conservancy news feed.
http://www.paconserve.org/news/categories/view/2

They have added A LOT of land to the gamelands and state forests on this side of the state. Also, many of their conservation easements purchased on private land include hunting, fishing, bird watching and other passive, low impact outdoor activities. One of the recent ones adjacent to French Creek even includes sustainable forestry practices so it doesn't fully limit the landowner's rights for the property. But that is the point of the easements, to limit the use of these lands so they are conserved for the future.

I definitely have no ill-will towards the Western PA Conservancy.

At the present I am not aware of any land in this area they were involved in purchasing and transfering that is off limits to hunting.

I dont think it likely that anyone will ever transfer lands to the "game" commission where its off limits to hunting. That would be a hard-sell to approve. lol.


The conservancy was right on board with audubon and alot of membership overlaps. They also were one of the proponents right along with audubon in the "deer decimation" deal. They are just another enviro group. And remember even Audubon Pa hasnt been "against" us hunting...they want us to hunt and kill the deer...then kill some more....then even more. lol. That sure as hell doesnt make them our friend.

At any rate, the GAME lands are supposed to be for GAME management. Bought with sportsmen dollars. Yet these fringe group idiots have a say in pretty much every aspect of the usage of those lands. And they also use them for their own nongame agendas. Stateforests that might be acceptable since they belong to allof us. the GAME lands DO NOT! But the game commission doesnt mind "sharing" our lands with their anal partners these days.

LINK
Link


Wether there is any ill will or not towards the conservancies, they ARE just another group that should be kept at an arms length from GAME MANAGEMENT, especially as it applies to our own gamelands, regardless of where a particular tract has come from.