Teeton's Link
The year is 2114 hunter numbers are 300000. Five nonhunting members sit on the GC board. Well you get my point on the last sentence. Also the year is 2015. I paid my use fee if I want to walk and ride my horse up and down and blow my horn on the GL food plot on the first day of rifle season I "CAN" I paid my user fee.. The hunter calls a warden,,, Officer this guy is harassing me, he's ride his horse and blowing a horn up and down this game lands food plot.. Sorry he paid his use fee, he has as much right to be here as you.
Remember we are hunting on lands that are over 100 years old now in this year 2014. There will be a year 2114.. See link...
"NO F'N WAY!!!!!
Respectfully Ed R
That response will come in the form of public comment at the next commissioners' meeting in September.
Well, i can;t take off that monday 9/22/14, but I can write the PGC BOC! ;-)
Do you really want the non-hunting public to have a say in how we use/manage our SGL????!!!! Can you imagine what would happen if PETA got involved with this????!!!
In this day and age with all the litigation, it would be easy for a non-hunting group to sue the PGC because they didn;t like the way the SGL were being used.
I say don;t let them have ANY say in how the SGL are used/managed!!!!! They are our game lands- I don;t want them to have ANY control over them!
Why would anyone want to let non-hunters have a stake in the future of OUR SGL????!!!! It can only mean trouble in the future!
Make your voices heard!
I just sent my lettter to the BOC!
I very much like BHA so far, but I'm new to them. Ed
????
the other ED :)
PGC tells us that the hunters/public are not making comments telling them that we (individual hunters) are telling them this.
Everyone should call, write and/or e-mail them.
Rut Nut's Link
I think there should be special doe licenses for game lands. Limited and $30 each.
PROPOSAL: REQUIRE PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL RIDING ON GAME LANDS Recommendation would have no impact on hikers or birdwatchers, and there are many ways to comment.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the possibility a permit soon might be required to use state game lands. And at meeting next month, the Pennsylvania Game Commission formally will consider adopting such a permit, which would not be required for anyone who holds a valid hunting or furtaker’s license. But there’s an important difference between the proposal on the table and what you might have heard about it. Namely, the permit being proposed would be required only for those riding bicycles, horses or snowmobiles on designated trails on game lands. Others, such as hikers or birdwatchers without a hunting or furtaker’s license, would continue to be able to use game lands in the same manner they do now. A study into the need for a game-lands use permit concluded that low-impact users like hikers and birdwatchers typically don’t cause the types of damage to game lands – and associated repair costs – that the permit fee would help offset. That’s why the recommendation from the Game Commission’s Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management was narrowed to apply only to specific uses on designated trails. The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners will consider the recommendation at its regular meeting to be held Sept. 22 and 23 in Delmont, Pa. The board is scheduled to hear public comment at the meeting, limited to five minutes per person, beginning at 8:30 a.m. If a vote is taken, it would occur on Sept. 23.
Hunters fund game lands Many uses of game lands take a toll that requires upkeep. Driving on game lands roads, parking in lots there and using designated trails – even in the best conditions – results in some wear and tear. Historically, the state’s hunters and trappers have shouldered those maintenance costs, as well as other costs associated with game lands. Unlike state or county parks, the state game lands system was created and is maintained almost entirely with sportsmen’s dollars, derived in large part from the sale of hunting and furtakers’ licenses. Game lands are managed to improve wildlife habitat, and create hunting and trapping opportunities. The use of game lands by other outdoor enthusiasts long has been permitted, though activities not related to hunting and trapping are restricted during hunting and trapping seasons, and certain uses might be prohibited on some sections of game lands. Recreational horseback riding, bicycling and snowmobiling are permitted only on designated trails on game lands. However, there often are other trails on game lands that, even though they are not designated, are used frequently for recreational riding. In some cases, it might be difficult for a rider to distinguish a designated from a non-designated trail. Signs posting trails as being off limits often are torn down, or just ignored. And the damage to wildlife habitat from undesignated trails, and the upkeep costs of designated trails, both can mount very quickly.
Money spent on trails There are more than 1,328 miles of designated trails on game lands to accommodate horseback riding, bicycling and snowmobiles. That’s about the same distance you’d cover if you walked the Pennsylvania Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia and back – twice. Or, if you’d rather, you could walk from Harrisburg to Florida and cover roughly the same distance. In reviewing recent spending records, the Game Commission identified about $230,000 in known costs over the past three years associated with trail maintenance and signage. Other projects to build or maintain game lands roads, parking lots or other infrastructure – all of which benefits trail users – topped $4 million in less than three years. Trails also serve as rights of way, meaning they create areas that must be excluded from revenue generators like timber sales, accounting for the potential loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Damage to trails due to horses, bicycles and snowmobiles can be considerable. When the ground is saturated, horses can leave hoof prints 6 inches deep. And in areas with heavy traffic, or that stay wet most of the time, the damage is even worse. It’s no different with bicycles and snowmobiles, which also can damage habitat and infrastructure and create the same type of erosion and sedimentation concerns, at ford crossings and elsewhere. In the worst cases, damage associated with trails threatens the very purpose of the game lands, and conflicts with the concept that recreational opportunities on game lands should come at no compromise to wildlife habitat or hunting or trapping opportunities. The permit being considered would seek to better regulate riding on designated trails, thereby mitigating that impact as well as raising revenue for associated maintenance costs. Given the Game Commission’s duty to mitigate damage caused by uses not related to hunting or trapping, a lack of action might also jeopardize the receipt of future Pittman-Robertson funds, which are derived from a federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition, then doled out to the states for habitat restoration and other uses.
The permit Under the recommendation proposed, the privileges to ride horses, bicycles or snowmobiles on designated trails on game lands would be included within the existing State Game Lands Shooting Range Permit, commonly called a range permit. Range permits cost $30 and are available for purchase online through the Outdoor Shop at the Game Commission’s website. Range permits are effective from June 30 to July 1, mirroring the timetable for hunting and furtakers’ licenses. Of course, those who hold a valid hunting or furtaker’s license will not be required to obtain a permit to ride horses, bicycles or snowmobiles on designated game lands trails. They receive those privileges when they purchase their licenses. If the recommendation is adopted, and a permit becomes required for others to use designated trails on state game lands, the name of the dual-purpose permit will be changed to “State Game Lands Permit.” The permits would only be required for those 16 years of age or older.
Opportunity to comment Those wishing to comment about the proposal can do so at the Board of Game Commissioners meeting on Monday, Sept. 22 in Westmoreland County. The meeting is to be held at the Lamplighter Inn, 6566 William Penn Highway, Delmont, Pa. 15626. Doors open at 7:45 a.m. the day of the meeting and public comment begins at 8:30 a.m. The commissioners may vote on the proposal during the meeting’s second day Sept. 23. The Sept. 23 meeting is scheduled for the same location and also will start at 8:30. Comments also may be submitted in writing. The easiest way to submit a comment is by email sent to [email protected]. Comments also can be mailed to the Game Commission. Address the envelope ATTN: Game Lands Permit, Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797. Comments received will be shared with the commissioners.
# # #
What makes them think they would read a lengthy rule booklet when they don't read a simple sign posted at the parking areas now???!!!
Also, they say they are spending so much on trail maintenance and bridge and road construction and can't afford to take money from habitat.
Well, why don't they take some of the money they are getting from gas and oil leases and designate it for that???!!! It's not like the PGC is hurting for money! With all the money they are making from the Marcellas Shale industry, they can afford to designate some of this money for trails.
I just haven't heard a good excuse yet to give non-hunters a stake in OUR gamelands! Please keep them out of it and find another way.
So if you guys don't want to see this happen, you better send some e-mails and make your voices heard!(and spread the word) You have about a month to do so, then it may be too late!
You can send me your suggestions. I have free room for 2 at Camp UBP and it is an hour and a half drive if anyone wants to travel.
Muldoon will also be there representing the UBP.
Thanks for representing us, though!
These are GAME LANDS. Not recreation lands.
now I'll go back to lurking
Nut,, you got a email address best to send to??
Ed
Ryan
Huntinggal2009's Link
Here is the link to the last BOC meeting. Take a look at it.
Not all the horse people are the farm girl or boy down the road, some horse people have lots of money and legislative connections. That spells pressure and expanded use, not for hunting, trapping, or even wildlife propagation.
I asked Jay and the BOC if there has been any talk about alternative funding(marcellas shale $$) instead of a user fee. And if they insist on a permit, how about a free permit like the DCNR issues for camping on the S.F. That would seem to address their problems without giving non-hunters a say in our SGL.
I am still waiting for an answer.
Reminds me of all the bitchin' that went on AFTER the c-gun revolution, by the guys who sat back idol, and did nothing.
BE HEARD, write your Commissioners!
One local organization said SGL users should have a hunting license instead of a user permit so more Pittman-Roberts money would kick in.
Muldoon was great. You could hear a pin drop and there were no questions or comments.
I merely echoed what Muldoon had to say and suggested they use a survey on PALS to ask hunters when the buy their license. I told them the consensus was that more of us would buy bear licenses if the archery deer and bear season overlapped.
On another note there was some Falconry stuff on the agenda and a guy came (with a bird). Seems the PGC had some items that he told them were already covered by federal regulations and they were not in sync with them making things more restrictive when it was not necessary. They were willing to talk with him privately on the subject to learn more.
The proposed user fee was tabled even though the majority of the Commissioners seemed to be ready to vote it in. There were 16 people who testified on the user fee and thirteen were in opposition, as was the UBP, PANWTF, PFSC, Governors Sportsmen Advisory Council, and, the PGC Executive Director, Senior Staff, Office Staff, and most of the Regional and Bureau Directors. Everyone acknowledges that problems such as erosion, stolen signs, and illegal trails exist on some game lands; and that they are due to mountain bikes, horses, and to some degree snowmobiles. That being said, most do not feel that a user fee permit should be the starting point. Several of the Commissioners, as well as most PGC Staff feel, that a program of identifying the illegal trails, closing them, re-signing the legal trails, and increased enforcement, and possibly increased fines, should be tried prior to the creation of a user fee. There is also the problem of requested exemptions, which, it turns out, are piling up with a list that includes hikers, bird watchers, photographers, dog-mushers, anywhere that Rail-Trails exist on the Game Lands and an agreement is in place with the Game Commission. Although the proposal has been tabled, the Commissioners have requested that Staff provide them with another, so the issue is certainly not dead. A letter or email to the PGC Executive Director showing your support for increased enforcement in regard to illegal trails on the Game Lands is suggested. In addition, it was discussed that hunters who see illegal trail activities taking place and do not report them is definitely part of the problem.
