The following is an editoral about Rep. Moul's proposal to allow hunters to decide how many deer they want to have in their area..

I would like to allow our members and especially our Harrisburg visitors to see what folks here think about this idea ...

Fell free to reply knowing you have every right to your opinion just as we all do ... and your opinion will be treated with just as much respect as the others persons....THANKS

[quote]
Why not try deer decisions at local level?      
HANOVER EVENING SUN Editorial
April 23, 2007
        
You screw up, you're done.
For all the lessons on forgiveness we learn as children, we grow up to realize the world doesn't give many second chances. Those who fail often are finished.      
And a new piece of legislation by Rep. Dan Moul suggests the Pennsylvania Game Commission shouldn't be treated any differently.      
Hunters in recent years have targeted the commission for mismanaging the state's deer herd to the point where whitetail sightings - particularly in the state's northern woodlands - have become rare occurrences.      
The commission has admitted its efforts to trim doe numbers and make the herd more gender-balanced went too far in some parts of the state.       And those places that saw the biggest drop in deer numbers subsequently saw the biggest drop in the number of doe licenses issued by the commission.     Little the commission has done has satisfied hunters so far.
And Moul is proposing the Game Commission be stripped of the power to decide how many doe licenses should be allocated in a given region.       That responsibility would go instead to groups of appointed citizens, most of them hunters or landowners.       It's hard to tell which entity ultimately would make a better decision.
But with all the controversy and criticism that has plagued the past few hunting seasons, why not let hunters take a crack at deer management?      
It's hard to argue they could do any worse.
And they might have a better sense of just how many deer are out there for the taking.      
Who other than a hunter or landowner has a more intimate knowledge of the ground they hunt, live or work?       While the commission has said its consideration of scientific deer research in making decisions is a reason the allocation process shouldn't change, the herd's shrinking size makes you wonder how good the information they're getting really is.
We realize the Game Commission has dedicated representatives working full-time in each county, and they spend their share of hours in the field. Still, some of what feeds their perspective is what they learn at a distance. Hunters are on ground level, or 15 feet up a tree as the case may be.      
We trust their judgment.
And we wonder if the prospect of doe license allocations that are based on in-season sightings is what really worries the Game Commission.      
The idea that the best way to bring back deer numbers is to stop hunting them for a season or two seems to be gaining momentum. And if you leave the decision up to hunters, they might decide to allocate no doe permits in a particular region.      
At $6 a tag for residents, let's see that's $0 in license revenue for that particular area. This at a time when the commission is raising general hunting-license fees to try to keep itself afloat.      
You have to wonder, too, if hunters would call for any loss in doe-license revenue to be made up for with cuts to Game Commission staff since citizens would now be doing some of the commission's work.      
Given the potential outcomes, it's natural for the commission to fight Moul's proposal. But maybe the agency should support it.       It could be that hunters would find getting deer populations back on track isn't as easy as conversations around the camp stove make it out to be.      
In that case, at least some of the blame for the state's deer debacle might be lifted off the agency. And we don't have to tell you what would happen if the hunters screw up their chance to manage the herd.      
But a still better reason for the commission to support the switch is that hunters simply might do a better job than the commission has recently in doling out doe tags.      
And whoever is best qualified to restore deer hunting in Pennsylvania to its glory should be allowed to do it.
[quote]

Ahhh hell, I'll bite !!

First, anyone have a link to this ... "The commission has admitted its efforts to trim doe numbers and make the herd more gender-balanced went too far in some parts of the state."

Not that I fully support the PGC efforts nor really have any say in the say of the going's on in PA (although I still pay propertery taxes there), but IMHO,   ... it probably makes a hell of a lot more sense to let the hunters take over for the "useless as teats on a boar hog" PA Legislator's who voted in a pay raise for themselves for the obvious piss poor job that they continually do !!  
 


99er  

--Last edited by model99er on 2007-04-25 20:57:28 --