wayne c
And as for the purpose of the game commission, sorry, but as long as they have so many envirowhackos internally and also have people like they do running the deer management section, frankly I don't see any use for them as it pertains to deer management.   With payoff attempts to ex exec director, antihunter sentiment within the agency on more than one occaission.   Antideer envirocrazy sentiment over the last decade and a half.  etc.   They have proven beyond all shadow of doubt why they need more political oversight, not less.

It is not you that is obsessed with deer. Right? LOL. 
 
Funny you brought up political oversight. That is their role. We are talking about politicians directly regulating hunting. Are we not? 
 
BTW. You said having the PGC regulating autoloading firearms was "stupidity".  I asked if  it was also sheer "stupidity" for them to be regulating your compound bow, bolt guns, shotguns etc.... I assume you have issues with the PGC regulating which shotgun can be used for turkeys, right? 

Funny you brought up political oversight. That is their role. We are talking about politicians directly regulating hunting. Are we not? 

 
Well evidently it falls within their job description, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. lol.   And yes, having oversight with no power of regulation doesn't make sense.  lol
 

BTW. You said having the PGC regulating autoloading firearms was "stupidity".  I asked if  it was also sheer "stupidity" for them to be regulating your compound bow, bolt guns, shotguns etc.... I assume you have issues with the PGC regulating which shotgun can be used for turkeys, right? 

 
But the legislature does have ultimate say over all of those things.   They can make them illegal at any time they so choose whether pgc likes or or not.   They also do not permit cannons, flame throwers or full automatic rifles just to name a few.   By your logic, they should all be legalized for hunting.   But anyone looking at it realistically understands the line has to be drawn somewhere although where that should be is certainly open to debate.   So I see no real validity in your disingenuous "all or nothing" gross generalization of a question.
 
And just to be clear, there is no more conservative, gun rights supporter on this board than me! lol.  And the funniest part of it all is, the large amount of support among mostly democrat legislators.    Some who are from urban areas and often environmentalist sympathizers.    As for me,   I don't care what or how many guns a man owns, but reasonable limits should be in place for what we are permitted to hunt with.  For some its semis.  For others its not.    And I feel its a debate worth having.     I would feel more comfortable if sportsmen were polled on issues such as this, instead of having it crammed down our throats.    Personally, I don't believe that the majority of sportsmen support it, and certainly not for big game.   And I think those opinions should matter in decision making on issues such as this.  

wayne c
 I also know yours quite well not to mention who your friends are and what they are all about chief.

 
Who are my friends again? Thats right, you have no idea.  Just a reminder. Not a PFSC member and have not donated to HUSH or been involved with them. 
 

My being obsessed with deer is a poorly disguised deflection.  lol    

Actually those that are familiar with your dozens of screen names and long history of personal venom, hate, lies, and attacks, know quite well you are obsessed with deer. 

Sure. Those politicians are doing a slam banging job with bear, mountain lions,  doves. If you recall, they are the ones that want to stop or curtail the hunting of them which just happens to be the agenda of the anti hunters.

 
Sorry, but last I checked, none of those were issues in our state.    And there is just as much chance of decision makers in wildlife management being "antihunters" as there is in them being politicians.   In fact, its probably harder for legislature to be antihunters overall here (or environmental extremists etc.) than management agency personell simply because the legislature is so large and a majority of them being against hunting when a huge percent of the public supports it, isn't reality.   On the other hand, many wildlife agencies want independent status....free of legislative interference to do as they please.   hmmm. 
 

The anti hunting groups cannot makes inroads into our sport without direct political management of game. 

 
Nor would hunters.    It would be very easy to put science first, with goal of environmental extremism and have 5 dpsm which would be just fine if the only goal was a healty forest and hunting was not a consideration.     And to insinuate that management should be insulated from all interest groups including us, as some definitely do believe, is pure lunacy.  
 
 
  

wayne c
Nor would hunters.    It would be very easy to put science first, with goal of environmental extremism and have 5 dpsm which would be just fine if the only goal was a healty forest and hunting was not a consideration.     And to insinuate that management should be insulated from all interest groups including us, as some definitely do believe, is pure lunacy.  

I never said it should in insulated. That is the role of our general assembly. Overseeing the agency. That is what elected officials are for. We are talking about Pa, and its continued direct regulation of hunting by the general assembly, in case you forgot. You keep ending around all of the questions directed at your contradictory and hypocritical statements.  Of course, I understand why you often do that.  
 
I am still waiting for you to clarify why it is "stupidity" to have a game agency regulate firearms and bows for hunting. 
 
 

But the legislature does have ultimate say over all of those things.   They can make them illegal at any time they so choose whether pgc likes or or not.   They also do not permit cannons, flame throwers or full automatic rifles just to name a few.   By your logic, they should all be legalized for hunting.   But anyone looking at it realistically understands the line has to be drawn somewhere although where that should be is certainly open to debate.   So I see no real validity in your disingenuous "all or nothing" gross generalization of a question.

wayne c
 
My dozens of screen names?  

 
Yes, dozens created and terminated while you waged your personal war against certain folks and issues.  
 

Only reason I am obsessed with deer as you state it is because I oppose all the deer whacking implements ya'all keep pushing for.

 
Don't forgot the MY issue. No deer whacking implements there, yet you have issues with it. SH. No deer whacking issues there, yet you have issues with it. Yes, Obsessed with any proposal or anything that may result in a dead deer.  
 

Perhaps instead of crusading alongside your friends with the envirocrew and their save the forest agenda all these years

 
I asked before. Which "friends are those? Not a PFSC member, not affiliated or donated to HUSH. Not part of any group or meetings discussing issues with the PGC or legislators. Most of my friends don't even hunt, lol. And the ones that do, could care less about what we are haggling about. 
 

maybe you should take up something more relaxing like golf.

 
I like golf. I like fishing on Sundays too. 
 
 
 

wayne c
But the legislature does have ultimate say over all of those things.   They can make them illegal at any time they so choose whether pgc likes or or not.   They also do not permit cannons, flame throwers or full automatic rifles just to name a few.   By your logic, they should all be legalized for hunting.   But anyone looking at it realistically understands the line has to be drawn somewhere although where that should be is certainly open to debate.   So I see no real validity in your disingenuous "all or nothing" gross generalization of a question.

 
Nice dodge. If it is "stupidity" to have the PGC regulate firearms for hunting, why have they been doing it with your bows and guns for decades without any issues from you? It is only "stupidity" because you don't favor autoloading rifles for hunting because someone might kill a deer. 
 
Same old contradictory and hypocritical positions. 

Same old contradictory and hypocritical positions. 

 
Says the same gentleman that screeches about the evil legislature staying out of thing... but only after they give you what you want. lol.

No amount of apologizing diminishes the fact that when politicians attempt to manage game, it is the game and the hunters that lose.

 

You wish to see more political control of game management

 
Nope.    I don't wish to see more.   They have plenty of power as is, just a matter of how they decide to use it.   I just realize the level that is there and accept it as reality and understand that all branches of government and state agencies must have oversight.  

wayne c
 
Nope.    I don't wish to see more.   They have plenty of power as is, just a matter of how they decide to use it.   

Add another to the list of contradictory statements. You don't wish to see more political management of game and regulation in this state? That is laughable. I could not even venture a guess how many times I have seen you support precisely that. 
 

I just realize the level that is there and accept it as reality and understand that all branches of government and state agencies must have oversight.

 
Oversight and direct day to day regulating and management are polar opposites. You get it yet?  If you are so inclined to accept "reality", why is it that when someone suggests going through the processes in place to try to make change to our existing regulations you scoff at the idea and suggest the end around through politicians? 
 
 

Till tomorrow if I have the time for it. I have to return a call to the project manager in charge of the Mt Lebanon deer issue tomorrow. Should be an interesting discussion. 
 

 If you are so inclined to accept "reality", why is it that when someone suggests going through the processes in place to try to make change to our existing regulations you scoff at the idea and suggest the end around through politicians? 

 
Whoever is willing to do the right thing for the resource and the sport of hunting as I see it, is alright in my book.  If on a particular issue that is pgc, great.  If not, great.   Whomever can address the issue effectively and has the power to do so is fine with me.
 
Envirocrazies and timber interests and others have used legislators to their benefit for years.   Hunters being less politically active as a rule have been slower to catch on, but that too has changed quite a bit in recent years.   That is for the better imo.    Can't ever have too many people in power on our side.
 

You and I agree that the general assembly has and should have the final say.

 
We do? lol   Since when?  To this point, their "final say" has been no semis because they know they aren't needed and majority of those they hear from do not want them and its basically nothing more than a social issue, not a management biological necessity which would be the only excuse that if valid would make input from constituents take a back seat.  For some reason though, that's not good enough for you in this instance and somehow they are overstepping their bounds by not just telling pgc they can just go ahead and legalize them anyway, as you have inexplicably argued on umpteen posts now. lol.  
 
I think we've made our points, and Im fine with how things stand. lol.    G'night.

 
Your comprehension or intent to deceive is downright comical. lol. 
 
 

Since you are obsessed with deer,

    As opposed to your crews environmental hard-liner  antideer stance? lol  I'll take that.
 

 A 3-4 statewide rifle season would take care of everything.

 
I think your emotions are getting the best of you again.   3 or 4 what?  Days?   Weeks?  Months? lol.      But if your point is, it could be done in ways other than how its being done currently.   I would absolutely agree.   And if this comes up for change, Im sure there will be vigorous debate about the details.   And unlike you, I think hunter satisfaction matters and is important in the overall scheme of things.  Satisfaction keeps the tool of management strong and intact.   Putting seasons in place solely to keep deer numbers in check with no other considerations might be fine short term.  But treating hunters as emotionless, uncaring robotic tools is not exactly the way for hunter recruitment and retention.
 

Most of our small game seasons are not needed. Pistols and muzzleloaders are not needed. Do ya need more examples of what is not needed?

 
Exactly what part of my statement in my last post; 

 its basically nothing more than a social issue, not a management biological necessity which would be the only excuse that if valid would make input from constituents take a back seat. 

 
...did you not understand? lol.  
 
Perhaps your understanding is a little loose this fine morning.  Im hoping that's the case and your deception isn't intentional.  I'll give you the benefit of doubt and chalk it up as lack of understanding or reading too quickly in an emotional state.  
 
I never said anything had to be "needed" to be implemented.   I said 'being needed' would be a legit reason to bring up if they were to go against the will of the hunters majority.    Imo there is no other reasonable reason to do so.  If hunters don't want it...don't do it.   If they do want it.   Do it.  *Unless there is a dam good reason to go against our wishes, which only would leave the biology/management "need"   Now, did I say it slow enough and break it down far enough for you to comprehend this time? lol
 
I bolded the above statement for my own benefit since you misunderstood the first time and so I can easily find it when I copy and paste it again when your emotions get the best of you and the repetition starts again, with you citing the same statement Ive already addressed...And knowing your antics all too well, lol, you will even when there has been zero meat left on that bone for you to chew. lol. 

Most of our existing seasons and regulations are there to provide a variety of opportunities to the sportsman of this state.

 
And I believe they are more or less accepted/supported by the majority of hunters with few exceptions.    I happen to believe strongly semis especially for big game in particular is not.   However I am open to legislators seeking input from constituents to support or not support them making the move to show if there is valid reason for implementation.    Otherwise, why should they?  If its not "needed" or wanted.