Possible Truce On Deer War

This was posted on another site(s) today.

If you agree with the proposal - contact your state senator and rep.

I support the proposal. Lets resolve this issue once and for all. For or against the deer program, this is what many have wanted to see. Let the chips fall where they may..



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Groups Urge House Committee to Look Before Leaping to Make Fundamental Changes at the Game Commission and in Wildlife Management Programs

Harrisburg, Pa. (May 8, 2007) – Hunting, agriculture, land management and environmental groups urged the House Game and Fisheries Committee to do an independent evaluation of Pennsylvania’s Deer Management Program before making wholesale changes in the structure of the Game Commission.

The groups made their comments in a letter to Committee Majority Chairman Edward G. Staback (D-Lackawanna) and Minority Chair Sam Rohrer (R-Berks). The Committee is set to meet Wednesday on legislation that would cut the terms of commissioners serving on the Game Commission board in half.

“We are asking the House Game and Fisheries Committee to resist the temptation to vote on bills that would change the fundamental structure of the Commission or the current deer management program without first doing an independent evaluation of Pennsylvania’s Deer Management Program,” said Melody Zullinger, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc., “At a March hearing, both the Majority and Minority Chairs of the Committee called for an independent evaluation of the methods and data used by the Game Commission to measure and make decisions that lead to setting hunting license limits. We think they should follow through on that recommendation before voting on any legislative changes.”

The Game Commission uses three factors to determine the number of hunting licenses and bag limits each season—habitat condition, deer health and deer-human conflicts.

“We agree the Game Commission is using the right factors, but good public policy requires the public have the opportunity to examine the methods and techniques which underlie their decisions,” said Timothy D. Schaeffer, PhD, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Audubon, a state office of the National Audubon Society. “Without an understanding of and faith in the process, skeptics will always be able to question the validity of certain decisions.”

The groups expressed support for an initiative by the Game Commission to hold a series of public meetings across the state in September to explain its methods of producing harvest data, determining habitat and deer herd health and setting doe license allocations.

“By examining the Game Commission information in public forums, along with following through on the suggestion for an independent review of the process and data used in the Deer Management Program by the General Assembly, we would all be in a much better position to suggest more effective solutions,” said Zullinger.

In addition to the letter, Dr. Schaeffer applauded the Game Commission for adhering to the recommendations of its biologists by approving their seasons and bag limits at the April Commission meeting.

“We also suggest the Game Commission and legislators go into the field to examine actual habitat conditions on Game Lands and other representative properties so both the public and House and Senate members have a first-hand view of habitat conditions,” said Dr. Schaeffer. “We also encourage the Committee to look at the recent study completed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources which shows widespread lack of forest regeneration due to deer over-browsing.”

The groups joining on the letter include: the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc., Pennsylvania Audubon, Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Ecosystem Management, Consol Energy, PA Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation, PA Rifle & Pistol Association, PA Sportsmen's Association, Allegheny County Sportsmen's League, Penn Future and United Bow Hunters of PA

The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council have sent separate letters raising similar concerns.

A complete copy of the letter sent to the chairmen of the House Game and Fisheries Committee is available at: www.pfsc.org.

Contact:
Melody Zullinger
Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs
717-232-3480
info@pfsc.org
or
Dr. Timothy Schaeffer
Pennsylvania Audubon
717-213-6880
717-919-1826 (cell)
tschaeffer@audubon.org


Letter:

Dear Chairmen Staback and Rohrer,

At this critical time in the history of wildlife management in Pennsylvania, our organizations join you in your desire to better understand how decisions are being made by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. While the different parties interested in this topic may disagree about the goals and direction of Pennsylvania’s deer management program, we can all agree that natural resource management decision-making should be made in the public eye and informed by science rather than emotion.

To that end, we are asking you and your colleagues on the House Game and Fisheries Committee to resist the temptation to vote on bills that would legislatively change the structure of the commission or the current deer management program, or legislate wildlife seasons and bag limits. Instead, we suggest that you call for a transparent examination of the methods and data used by the Game Commission to measure and make decisions on harvest reports and the three factors of habitat condition, deer health, and deer-human conflicts.

According to PGC Executive Director Roe, the PGC plans to roll out an educational program by early September that will be presented at public meetings to explain their methods of producing harvest data, determining habitat & deer health, and setting doe allocations. By examining this information in public forums, along with an independent review provided by the legislature, you would be able to be more informed as you decide whether to propose any legislative solutions.

We also suggest expanding this analysis to the field to examine actual habitat conditions on Game Lands and other representative properties within select Wildlife Management Units so that legislators and the public can better understand deer densities and habitat conditions. We strongly recommend that all members of the committee attend at least one habitat tour provided by the PGC or other habitat groups this summer to become better educated.

Good public policy requires that the public have the opportunity to examine the methods and techniques which underlie decisions. Without an understanding of and faith in the process, skeptics will always be able to question the validity of certain decisions. The sportsmen and conservationists among our memberships would welcome the chance to join you in an open analysis of the science behind the Game Commission’s decision-making.

Sincerely,

Melody Zullinger
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs

Timothy Schaeffer
Audubon Pennsylvania
Executive Director

PA Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation
Don Heckman, Exec. Officer

CNX Land Resources Don (Consol Energy)
Dennis Fredericks, Manager, Conservation Properties & Activities

United Bowhunters of PA
Wes Waldron, President

Ecosystem Management
Bryon Shissler

PA Rifle & Pistol Assoc.
Jack Lee, President

Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Matt Ehrhart

PA Sportsmen’s Assoc
Harry Schneider, Chairman

Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future
John Hanger, President & CEO

Allegheny Co. Sportsmen’s League
Mike Maranche, President

PA Landscape & Nursery Products
Chad Forcey, Director of Government Relations

Cc: All members of House & Senate
Carl Roe, PGC Executive Director
PGC Commissioners
Outdoor Media

I should know better but ok I got suckered into it.
The habitat has supported a large herd very well for a long time , the decline had nothing to do with the habitat , the decline didn't happen until we filled the habitat with alot of lead bullets.
Look at how many red tags there were just a few yrs ago compared to now, these same farmers who were being ate out of house and home now can barely manage to buy a deer. Much of the public is unaware of the killing spree that took place in the red tags .... and if you think those farmers only got the tags you heard about you would be wrong , it was nothing at all to get a new resupply , .... and then another and this still doesn't take into account the things they " the farmers" are allowed to do.
Lastly are these habitat tours the same ones where they show you the fenced in areas they have been maintaining and TREATING into lush veggie rich areas and then comment ....."look at the difference"? Well golly, someone just pick me up and put me back on my turnip truck

This story gets even more interesting, since one of my clients, a local Attourney who was up until recently the President of the game commission.


http://www.dailyitem.com/archivesear...125230006.html
Published May 05, 2007 11:00 pm -

Shooting the messenger
State game commission handles dissent by firing



Some people think democracy is about everybody finding a way for everyone to agree. In reality, democracy is about finding a way for everyone to disagree -- without pummeling one another in the process.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is a democratic institution, one in which, until recently, Sunbury resident Thomas Boop has held a position of prominence.

Mr. Boop has been president of the commission for a little more than a year, and was elected to his second one-year term in January.

By all appearances, his second term has been shortened considerably. Other members of the board voted last week to remove Boop as president.

The 4-0 vote came during a special meeting of the board, which oversees the setting of hunting seasons, policies and license fees in the state. Mr. Boop has since asked for another formal hearing to be heard on his "firing," giving him a chance to answer all the charges. The outcome of that "trial" probably will be the same: Boop will be demoted to a "regular" seat on the board.

But to date, the only publicly announced reason for the ouster vote is Boop's outspoken criticism of the commission's stringent deer-management policies. Over the last several years, the commission has been attempting to decrease the overall size of the herd while increasing the "trophy" buck many hunters desire. Many hunters, however, decry the policy because they think the herd has decreased to near invisible numbers in some areas -- including in the Central Susquehanna Valley.

Mr. Boop said at a recent commission meeting that the deer policy was "fatally flawed," and asked a state legislator to help reform it.

Other commission members apparently took offense to such "independent" thinking and voted to boot Boop out.

The upshot is not that the deer-management policy is right or wrong. Good and wise people can disagree on such policies. The issue is how a state-appointed board operating under the general rules of a democratic institution handles dissent.

In this case, the board members handled it poorly. The anti-Boop faction clearly has a majority on the board, and their votes will hold sway with or without Mr. Boop as president. There was no need to take an extraordinarily punitive step to get their point across or to guide policies in their preferred way.

Meanwhile, judging by the number and tone of hunter comments on the deer policy, the commission has more pressing issues to address than who is -- or who is not -- its board president.

The commission lives off the licensing fees hunters provide. Yet many of those same hunters seem extremely upset about the deer-hunting policies.

While the commission must balance long-term health of the ecosystem with short-term wishes of hunters, it also must show that hunting remains a viable, enjoyable sport -- or it risks putting itself out of business.

Mr. Boop is a hunter, and is listening to fellow sportsmen as well. He is voicing a commonly heard concern. Shooting the messenger is never a good way to handle dissenting opinion. In fact, hearing the dissent is essential to careful consideration of the issues. Silencing dissent does not create harmony, it only creates alienation.

Mr. Boop says he will remain on the board no matter the outcome of his "trial." Something tells us that "silence" will not be on his agenda.

The Drew -

I sat in the audience on 17 April. Dead center of the room while Commissioner Boop made his remarks. I posted what I heard, not just then, but for the entire day in a post on this forum. The thread is April 17 Meeting Notes.

From that thread - posted on the evening of the 17th.... not days or weeks later, but within hours of thse actual event:

Rep Roher was next for a protracted amount of time. Then the time was expanded by Comm Boop. Boop, IMO, was out of line, and showed total disrespect for those he serves with on the board. Basically trying to negotiate the details of a survey during an open public meeting.

Comm Boop, a sad commentary on your professional demeanor today. You are part of a committee. Abandoning all common courtesy and the democratic procedures to advance your personal agenda is just sad.

I feel you owe all in attendance an apology. Surely you owe those you serve with an apology. Setting up a meeting to discuss this issue is one thing. But to try to place the wheels in motion without consultation with the other members of the committee is outrageous.


This removal from the presidents chair is just. He went against the majority vote of the committee. I might add without their consent or particopation.

This is not about his views on the deer management program. Boop made several recommendations on the 18th. Some were seconded and voted on by committee. All failed.

Geesh - the guy is a lawyer. You'd think he'd understand majority rule. He has his say. He made his points repeatedly on the 17th and the 18th. His line of reason failed to convience the majority of the board.

He was out of line to negoiate with Rohrer, plain and simple. His removeal from the Presidental seat will not affect his ability to continue to speak out against the deer program. It will rein in his preceived right to conduct business according to his personal wants rather than the BOC concensus.

I generally disagree with the proposal, sounds like bringing in more bueracracy to me. I'm not a fan of Melody Zullinger or Fed. of sportsman since they spin actuall facts to turn Sportsman against the legislature. Ie-They use scare and bullying tactics from what I've seen.

I'm not trying to start an arguement, just comminicating my observations.
I still stand behind the Game Commision and believe they are still doing a great job in the deer programs.

As for the removal of the president- sounds approprieate.

This program may have worked well in some areas but not heavily hunted public land in mountain areas. I hunt in 3D and there are very few deer left on public land. We bought into the plan the first two years and killed a couple truck loads of doe. We all were killing a buck and at least one doe per year. After the second year of this we noticed a BIG decline in the number of deer. Now we are lucky to see any. When they try to blame the lack of deer on the state of the forest it really makes me angry that they think I'm a total idiot. We killed the deer, they didn't starve! I agree that it shouldn't be like it was 20-30 yrs ago when you seen 40 deer a day and they were starving in the winter, but killing all of them isn't the answer either. I really wish they would go back to the seperate doe season and keep the AR's. When I seen the doe tag allocations for this year I really laughed. They don't care about the deer herd or the hunters, they just want the $5/ doe tag.

WELL SAID DREW..!!!!!

The deer herds are hurting bad.

The norther tier with it's past abundance of hunting land was the first to suffer. Now the counties closer to residential areas are seeing pressure and people are taking notice.

Over the past few years many areas a posted and deer and holing up in these "safe areas" HARD. It causes some areas to be very abundant and others to be barren.

Fifteen years agao I could see at least 5 bucks before noon. I'd see 50-100 deer the first day alone. The past few years I've seen no more than 15.

Lycanwhatcanyoudothrope

Look the audit has been asked for by the USP and those speaking for them for years. Support it. Someone is going to come out on top - the winner.

Let it happen. Nothing to fear here.