Bowsite.com

Survey on PA State Gameland Tourism

Take a Survey on PA State Gameland Tourism

FYI – I saw this linked on another site. Some might be interested in taking the survey

Article by Bob Frye below

Link to survey:

http://surveys.calu.edu/Tourism/Wildlife/Wildlife_Tourist_March_26_HTML.asp?P1=c2j6-kh3c-gdn

Wildlife tourists and state game lands

http://blog.triblive.com/wild-outdoors/2016/05/04/wildlife-tourists-and-state-game-lands/

BOB FRYE , MAY 4, 2016

Should everyone who uses Pennsylvania’s state game lands – to hunt, trap, fish, hike, bike, take nature photos or more – pay for the privilege?

We’re about to find out what people think.

California University of Pennsylvania professor Susan Ryan is using a grant from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania to conduct a “wildlife tourist survey.” It’s an online questionnaire that seeks “to understand wildlife enthusiasts in Pennsylvania, especially with respect to their use of Pennsylvania state game lands.” That’s been a hot button topic over the last year-plus.

Pennsylvania’s 1.5 million acres of state game lands are owned by the state’s Game Commission. They were purchased with two chief goals in mind: to provide wildlife habitat and to give space for hunters and trappers to pursue their sports.

They are, however, used quite heavily by “non-consumptive” users like hikers, bikers, birders, horseback riders and the like, too.

At one point in the past 12 months, Game Commissioners explored the idea of requiring those people to buy an annual permit to access the lands, to help pay for the maintenance of roads, trails, gates and such.

It sparked a lot of debate. Some sportsmen suggested the commission move forward, so that all who use the game lands pay to play. Others argued against the move, saying taking money from others would entitle them to a say in how game lands are managed.

It was all contentious enough that commissioners and agency staff themselves could come to no agreement. No permit has been created.

Instead, the agency has been meeting with representatives of those other non-sportsmen groups to find other ways to address its concerns.

Now comes Ryan’s survey.

It asks participants – who remain anonymous – to identify where they live by zip code, their age, and what outdoor activities they participate in. There are also questions about how often they go outside and what motivates them. That’s all followed by questions about game lands use and funding.

She’s trying to get as many responses as possible.

“The more participation in the survey then the more informative Dr. Ryan’s eventual reporting will be to all users of Pennsylvania’s publicly administered and managed lands,” reads a press release.

I took the survey, but some of the questions seemed misleading or that the answers would be misleading. It wasn't put together very well.

such as. it asks if I'm a primary user (one who pays for a hunting license) or a secondary user ( a bird watcher), or both!

Then it asks if I think secondary users should pay a fee.

Then it asks if they should have the same rights as a primary user who pays for a license and tags. Would the user fee be the same price as a hunting license?

Then it asks how much I would pay for a secondary user fee. But, why would I pay anything for secondary fee if I'm already a primary?

I agree that some of the questions were misleading. I made sure my answers reflected how I felt the SGLs should be managed.

I agree Spider1.. I put that nonhunters should not pay. If they start to pay, then they will have a say in how the gamelands are used. Gamelands are meant for hunters and hunting only!! Nonhunters are our guests. Guests can be asked/told to leave (no I don't mean by a guy thats hunting. I mean by the game commisson) tenants nonhunters paying will not be that easy to ask to leave..

I hope this survey is not a survery for nonhunters to get their foot in the door of "OUR" Hunting lands..

My 2 cents.

Ed

At first I thought an annual permit for secondary use would be fine. Maybe $10/yr. That doesn't give them a say in anything but it does give them trespass rights.

The big problem I see with that is enforcement. You can't hire more people. Confrontations are very likely and it would leave a bad taste with some, if not most, folks.

Confused and done.

the thing that worries me about a permit of secondary users is that during the hunting seasons you could get non hunters hiking around in the woods disrupting hunts. And they would be allowed to since they have a permit to trespass. Not good. I think they should be looking more toward a rule that says "hunting license needed to trespass". None of this special birdwatcher permits. They didn't pay into establishing the gamelands like hunters did, they shouldn't be allowed to just walk in after hunters did all the footwork.

In my area, we have had multiple issues with horse people and bikers. They all think the game lands are "public" lands and "parks".

When the PGC was considering a fee, they went nuts...

Truthfully, I don't want them having ANY say in the SGL's.

Game Lands are for hunting and so. They we're never intended to be a multi use areas.. "KEEP" the nonhunter as our guests or 25 years from now.. We don't want to see signs like this,,, EVER !!!!

Welcome to the "Pennsylvania Games Lands Multi Use Area"

ED

We need to keep the hunters use of the SGL's, a top priority. I've been hunting Illinois for the past 20 years,and have seen what can and did happen to their "game lands". Special interests groups,lobbied and succeeded in gaining "rights" to the properties,equal to the hunters. Now your just as likely to see a hiker,birdwatcher,people riding horses and the general flower sniffer on the properties,anywhere and anytime. With that much pressure, one does not need to be a brain surgeon, to know what that does to deer movement.

After all, as hunters, aren't we the ones who paid for the SGL's?

I could see making a hunting license mandatory to trespass but I don't want them to have "rights" as a group to be there.

Most of our State Parks allow hunting, as do pretty much all of the State Forest areas. Those weren't purchased with hunting license money but we still have open access. I think we are fine the way we are; once you start saying who pays and who doesn't, then other areas may well be scrutinized as well. We could end up paying a "fee" to use those other public lands that are already free to use.

As far as I'm concerned it's public land, and rights are for the public as long as it isn't abused. We already have enough noses trying to regulate everything else we do in life. As dad used to say, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

Register here to reply to this topic