Hunting "has always been" and continues to be a welcomed recreation on State Forest lands.
Nothing has changed about that --- not one thing.

Where the confusion comes in for some is that they don't comprehend what the PA Wilds Initiative is about and they tie it into, or relate it to, the long-standing tradition of hunting.

You are right Doc, the "Wilds" is tax payer money being used to "advertise, enhance and create" additional activities that will attract tourists to spend their money here.

The DCNR found itself in a public relations situation simply because people didn't have the ability to recognize "what already exists" from "what additional is planned."

Pretty sad when it has to be explained in such simplistic terms.  

--Last edited by bowbum on 2009-02-09 15:37:42 --

You know what who cares this is just wasted complaining.  

--Last edited by Flyfisher on 2009-02-11 09:04:19 --

You would be surprised how many folks have never heard of or even know what the Pa wilds program is.. or what it is about.. living here in the area that will be effected makes it very important for some of us...

understanding DCNR and anti-hunting groups is the same way.. to many of us... and we do not find it to be wasted complaining  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-02-10 18:02:48 --

I'm surprised at how many people believe in, "The great conspiracy."

They say that, on one hand the DCNR and those other "California and Germany/Hollywood" orgs want hunters to shoot the deer, but on the other hand they want to eliminate hunting!

It seems those subscribers really think the anti-hunting powers can put aside their love of protecting animals long enough to have them all killed off so they can bring in more predators to ---- keep their numbers killed down to acceptable levels!

Sometimes it just makes sense to take them to task.

Some don't want any animals killed. Many don't care if they get killed as long as it's not by sport or recreation hunters. here is one example:

Island animals: Should we stay or should we go
Submitted by administrator on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 11:20. National News News
By MICHAEL COLLINS
With its sandy white beaches, grass-covered hills and steep sandstone canyons, Santa Rosa Island is a natural wonder, an oasis of tranquility in the Pacific Ocean.

But lately, the 53,000-acre island off the coast of Southern California has been the focus of a severe political storm blowing out of Washington.

The fight involves the island's non-native deer and elk, and whether they should be allowed to remain on the land they have inhabited for nearly a century or whether they should be removed.

The National Park Service, which owns Santa Rosa, and various environmental groups say the animals must go by 2011 under a court settlement reached eight years ago.

But Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., is pushing legislation that would allow them to stay.

The debate has brought up other issues, such as whether game hunting should be allowed in a national park, whether the deer and elk are a serious threat to the plant and other animal life on Santa Rosa and what will become of them if they are forced off the island.

"We do not want to see these animals destroyed," said Tim Vail, whose family sold Santa Rosa to the federal government for $30 million in 1986.

The Vails ran a cattle-ranching operation on Santa Rosa for years and transported the Kaibab mule deer and Roosevelt elk there in the 1920s to add species diversity to the island.

The remaining animals are the property of the family's company, Vail & Vickers. After the family sold the land to the government, Vail & Vickers was allowed to continue running a commercial hunting operation on the island. Interested parties pay as much as $17,000 to travel to the island and hunt the animals, which are considered trophy game.

A conservation group sued over the hunts in 1996. Under the court settlement, the deer and elk are to be removed from the island in phases, with the entire herds to be gone by the end of 2011.

The Vails fear they will be forced to kill the animals en mass when it is time to take them off Santa Rosa, which is part of Channel Islands National Park. For now, some 400 deer and 700 elk are still on the island.

Whatever happens to the deer and elk is up to Vail & Vickers, said Yvonne Menard of the National Park Service. But the animals must go, she said, because the settlement agreement dictates so and because of their impact on the island's ecosystem and cultural resources.

Santa Rosa, which sits off the coast of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, is home to a number of rare plants and animals. Eight plant species on the island are endangered or threatened and are protected by federal law.

The deer and elk feed on rare plants or bed down on them, attract predators that devour smaller animals like the island fox and dig into important archaeological sites that are thousands of years old, said Kate Faulkner, chief of natural-resources management for Channel Islands.

"We're not going to see recovery of many of the species as long as we have the deer and elk out there," Faulkner said.

The Vails, however, say their ranching experience has demonstrated that a carefully managed wildlife program could enable the deer and elk to remain without becoming a serious threat to the other plants and animals.

The family dismissed concerns about damage to archaeological sites as "nothing more than self-serving fabrication."

The political fight started last year when Hunter introduced legislation that would allow the animals to stay permanently and the hunts to continue indefinitely.

Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said his proposal would protect the deer and elk from chronic wasting disease and other conditions that have afflicted mainland animals.

He also argues that his plan would provide a hunting enclave for military veterans and their guests. But the Paralyzed Veterans of America, one of the groups Hunter says he is trying to help, said recently that Santa Rosa is not a viable location for hunting and recreation.

Others point out that most of the island must be closed for safety reasons during the hunts and that allowing them to continue would in effect make a national park off-limits to the public for months at a time.

The House approved Hunter's plan in May, but the Senate has gone on record in favor of removing the deer and elk by 2011 as scheduled. Unless both chambers agree to let them stay, the animals will have to go.

(E-mail collinsm(at)shns.com.)

There's them left wing secular progressives again...

I'm amazed anyone takes them seriously

S-10, are you finding it difficult to stick with Pennsylvania and our forests-deer relationships?
You know --- all that stuff about hunting not being part of the picture, but at the same time --- wanting all the deer killed off so predators can be introduced to keep populations levels down.............

What I do find difficult to understand is why you can't see outside your own backyard and understand what is going on around the rest of the country and it's potential to affect us. It would seem that You would be interested because the same groups of people are now involved in the decion making process in this state. If your happy that way, so be it. I prefer to research who they really are and what other people have to say about them.  You seem to be content reading what they claim to stand for. I'll stick to my way, you do as you will.

It's not so difficult to understand S-10!
All that stuff "you claimed" was happening has been proven to "not be happening" and therefore I am not looking for a place to hide from the falling sky.
I rationalize, document, investigate what is real and what is phobic.
Because some clown says they want wolves or cheetahs stocked does not make it happen anymore than another clown saying they want all wildlife killed.


Why are you here?
Why aren't you out west or in Germany fighting the evil conspriacy?

an island elk problem?  this thread gets wierder?  I am confused and staying out of.  News Flash this it PA not Southern California.  

Kind of makes you wonder why we spent a lot of money and hired the folks from Calif to tell us how to run our Pa. state forests doesn't it?

You said you did the research!

If you "honestly" did the research you "would know" why our forests products, from the best hardwood forests in the world, needed to be certified by the accredited certification company, in order to be sold in most markets.

Yes this is way toooooo funny now!

How often do you suggest we replace our tinfoil hats?

It sure doesn’t sound like we should be out there without one in top condition.

Dick Bodenhorn

You got that right Dick.  Bowbum--If you did your research you would know that they were just getting started in the U.S. when we hired them and we were their biggest customer. You would also know that they are not the only certifier in the business and If you actually read anything I had posted You would know they are having their own internal problems compromising their intergity as was exposed in a major article I posted and discussed in some of the other items I posted. Since you don't seem to read or at least comprehend them I am done with this topic so you can have your last rant if you want. I doubt Dick had this in mind when he started the topic. Sorry RSB--I'am out.

I simply don’t see any boogyman in forest certification. I have done some studying on the subject, including what you have posted and simply don’t see any conspiracy at all.

It appears to me to be nothing more then having a sustainable forest plan that protects the resources for both today and the future in order to assure that the forests aren’t just being raped by taking anything of value and then running off from any future responsibly. I don’t want the forests resources, whether pubic or private, raped with no thoughts toward the future and certification appears to be one way of assuring that.

In fact, the way I see it that is all forest certification is. I further understand that some countries will not even allow wood products to enter their county if it didn’t come from a certified forest. They do that because they don’t want to be a part of third world countries destroying their forest resources just to make a lot of money now that we all might have to fix with financial aid sometime in the future. Some of the problems that can result from a lack of forest management in some countries truly could result in worldwide environmental problems.

Just because some people refuse to act responsibly or to deal with environmental issues in a responsible manner doesn’t mean those that do want to be responsible, to the future, are eco nut cases either.

I will agree that we do in general have good environmental practices throughout our forests in this Country and that forest certification probably isn’t needed for good forest stewardship or management. But, the fact still remains that Pennsylvania is one of the largest exporters of hardwoods in the world. Much of that hardwood comes from the state forest. Should we just tell those countries, that import our timber, to pound salt and then not be able to sell that timber as a result? You do realize that the cutting of that timber is also one of the best ways to manage for wildlife don’t you? What should they have done, instead of getting our state forests certified? Should they have just left it stand there and not be able to move it within the timber market until it died of old age. Or, perhaps one the many forest diseases or pest infestations, we are becoming more and more plagued with, killed it, it had no value, just died and fell over on its own?

Personally I think this is just one more example of people that think they know a lot more then do trying to make it seem as though the professionals in that field don’t know what they are doing. I will put my faith in the professionals in the forest industry knowing more about the best and more effective ways of managing a forest then I do people who want to believe that everything with a Government title or connection is just some grand conspiracy. I don’t see the conspiracy in forest certification any more then I see one in deer management or any number of the other fears some people seem to frightened of, guided by and even fighting. I see it as being close to the same principle and heading out to fight none existent dragons.

Don’t take that the wrong way though, I do think it is good that some people dig up all they can on these subjects. It helps us all in becoming more educated on the subjects and staying alert toward anything that might be harmful to our future. Show me the boogyman or conspiracy in it and I’ll help you fight it, but presently I don’t see the problems you are claiming exist.

Dick Bodenhorn  

--Last edited by RSB on 2009-02-14 19:46:31 --

 

Ditto to Dick's reply!

I'll add that S-10 questioned "why" but when he got the answer --- he walked away with comments about other conspiracies or internal strife which had nothing to do with his question in the first place!