The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Today, the Pennsylvania Senate Game and Fish Committee went on record stating that the size of the deer herd is robust and able to withstand a potential additional 100K+ harvest of antlered deer. Those deer will not be subject to the current AR restrictions.


SB 547 Amends Title 34 re special provisions

SB 547 would remove antler restrictions for seniors.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/bill...e=B&BN=0547

Senior license sales posted last month top 100K and has increased over the last few years. These retired or soon to be retired hunters will be able to take any antlered deer in any lawful deer season if this bill passes.

The law will apply to all with any senior license.

Those deer in addition to the non-AR restricted youth hunter deer.


In any event, the senate is on record with this vote that they feel the Pennsylvania deer herds is healthy enough to sustain this additional harvest. This vote replaces regulation by the GC and replaces it with law, that only the legislature can repeal or change.

We now have the end of the "deer are decimated" threads and thought. The senate has decided the issue once and for all.


The vote:


BAKER voted no

The following voted in the affirmative:

BOSCOLA
BREWSTER
BRUBAKER
CORMAN
KASUNIC
MCILHINNEY
ROBBINS
SMITH
ALLOWAY, Chair
SCARNATI , ex-officio


AYES: 10
NAYS: 1
NV: 0


I look for this to be fast tracked.

Two more votes in the senate then off to the house!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
In other events of the day in the senate meeting:

The F&G Committee started the process to remove exotic wildlife from public ownership.

Then they passed another bill to allow feral hogs to return to PA Department of Ag control.

????? so much for the private ownership bill. Seems to me that feral hogs are... exotic wildlife?????

They also passed and allowed the bill for adult mentored hunting to go forward for consideration by the full senate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Not happy they seek to usurp the GC and regulation (that can be changed per law yearly or immeadiatley in emergency) by implementing law that can only be changes with a full legisltive process.


I am happy they are on record supporting the notion the deer herd is very healthey and robust enough to handle the additional harvests.

So tired of the "no deer" threads. now we all have something to prove there is nothing wrong with the GC management.

No way the senate would vote this way if it were any different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
<span style="font-style: italic">Alloway spoke about antler restrictions. These restrictions vary by area, but they require a buck to have a minimum number of points on its antlers to be legal to shoot. The restrictions are there to prevent hunters from killing young deer. Alloway is concerned that the Game Commission is issuing too many doe licenses and that the population is too low.

"People buy hunting licenses to hunt deer," he said. "People go out hunting for a few days, and they only see a few deer." This is a problem to him because the fewer deer there are, the less people want to hunt.

</span>

http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/local/article_153f10c3-9b24-540e-88d9-20c99bad5285.html


Wow, the evidence must have been overwhelming for the Chairman of the Senate F&G to reverse his position with this vote to further reduce the deer herd.

In five days he went from "This is a problem to him because the fewer deer there are, the less people want to hunt" to casting a affirmative vote to kill a potential 100k additional deer each year by law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
There using there head, you go where the deer are. Once the big woods numbers are down hunters will hit the SRAs. Or thee trying to get more land posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,811 Posts
Lots of contradictions coming from our esteemed politicians. Before, believe we have too few deer, now, believe we should potentially remove substantially more.

All accounts are that the PGC's biologists were never asked for thoughts on the potential impact of legislating regulation in this manner.

Our aging hunter population is growing and they have the most time to hunt. If this passes full vote, I am not sure the purpose of any AR is valid as there is no way to control the age of the antlered harvest at that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,811 Posts
I used to think Solobay was a friend of sportsmen. No longer. In my email communications with him, no apparent understanding of the role of the PGC and the role of the legislature. Regulations versus laws. ARs are a regulation. When I suggested he testify on Elmerten Ave to change regulation, just as the rest of us do, the emails stopped.

Alloway, he lost me a long time ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,496 Posts
Why are you fellas skeert that a couple handful of 75 year olds will decimate "the herd" ? Gosh, most seniors can't take the cold all that long. Probably >50% STILL won't take a "smallish" Buck if replies from this site are any indication. This will benefit a small minority of VERY late stage hunters, with a couple of not so good years left in the woods. It's much made about nuttin. This is meaningless when it comes to antlered impact of the herd. Crossbows had the potential to be far more impactful when it comes to taking out antlered Deer, and I believe we saw that "sky will fall" potential go by the wayside.

Relax, a few handful of old fogies ain't gonna wipe out all of "our" buck. I APPLAUD the legislature for the move..... just wish the PGC would have proposed it first as a reg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,811 Posts
My main concern is ar's are a regulation, not a law. Our elected officials should follow the same process as the citizens they represent. Contacting or petitioning the PGC to change the regulation.

As for the harvest. Not sure, I would like to deer section to weigh in but by all accounts they have not been asked. The DMP includes controlling the age of sour antlered harvest. Will exempting a growing number of hunters from AR compromise the plan and jeopardize AR in totality of the age of our antlered havest cannot be controlled. This is only due diligence which it appears our esteemed politicians have not considered as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Fleroo, this is about the senators thinking they have a better handle on wildlife issues than the agencies. Replacing regulation that can be adapted and modified rather quickly for law that may not have support enough to be changed.

It is about pandering for a few votes on what I am sure these politicians think is a small rather unimportant issue that has a decent return in votes.


Like Alloway, five days prior to yesterdays vote he was saying there are not enough deer. five days later, he is voting to change the law adding a potential 100k+ harvest.

We have to look at the high side of any possible harvest. The total number of licensees that could take advantage of the law. That is over 100k.

That number has been growing consistently over the last several years. As the Boomer's age into the incense, expect a continued rise in that number.


Once passed, this law applies to all with a senior license until it is repealed or amended at some point in the future.

As far as i can assess, none of the senators consulted the GC, or GC staff on impacts of this law. They decided to do it, and so it was done.

In other words - this is a political.

But it does provide insight into how much care, or lack thereof, the senators have. They have issues with the GC on deer and other issues, but have no issue passing bills that do exactly what they criticize the GC for.

A bit two faced. Or, a unprincipled self serving crass political move.

Wildlife management by the legislature will be the down fall of every tradition and our hunting future as we know it. Allowing the legislature to control what happens on this micro level and above will not turn out well. It will also set the stage for a consolidation of the game agencies under DCNR.

Remember, this is only one of several bills that seeks to usurp the GC and PFBC authority under current law.

Then we must remember Sen Corman's question to the DCNR head during this years budget hearing, 'is DCNR agreeable to a merger of PFBC into DCNR? ( answer) basically.. 'yes'.

Note single quotations..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,716 Posts
I was thinking the same thing, decimating the herd is kindof harsh I would think. Thought HR was done by doe being killed? Herd shouldn't be affected by shooting young bucks, unless guys are worried a SR may shoot "your" trophy in the next couple years. The law isn't saying that the SR's have to shoot a young buck, just gives them the opportunity if they want it. I think the only thing this hurts is the AR proponants who want huge bucks, so there will be a few less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,811 Posts
The core of the issue is whether this change would affect the DMP as it relates to protecting a certain numbers of our antlered deer. If this potential change results in the current ARs being compromised as the age of harvested bucks could not be controlled, the AR aspect of the DMP could be in jeopardy.

Some will wish that to be the case and others won't. But either way, it will be politics being responsible and not our game agency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,496 Posts
Fleroo, this is about the senators thinking they have a better handle on wildlife issues than the agencies.
Well if it's ONLY about senators muddling in wildlife management, then:

- A. I'm with you that they souldn't do that
- B. There's a gazillion other wildlife issues they've
meddled with.
- C. This particular issue is trivial compared to others
they've meddled with.


As I said. My preference would have been the PGC suggest such a change years ago. Should have been this way from the onset of AR's. My opinion, and I was really pushing more for it when my mentor and Uncle was alive... not so much now as it's not as personal to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,496 Posts
We have to look at the high side of any possible harvest. The total number of licensees that could take advantage of the law. That is over 100k.

That number has been growing consistently over the last several years. As the Boomer's age into the incense, expect a continued rise in that number.
If you were to poll the Seniors on this site, you will find the vast majority DO NOT want to be exempt from current AR's. If you translate that to the rest of PA's senior hunting population, you will find this change to be fairly moot..... providing our resident seniors are not fibbers.


That translates to a big helping of NO BIG DEAL. Like about all other changes that have been implemented to date.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,496 Posts
If this potential change results in the current ARs being compromised as the age of harvested bucks could not be controlled, the AR aspect of the DMP could be in jeopardy.
If the PGC were REALLY concerned about Buck/Doe ratio, and eliminating Doe prior to breeding, they would have the MY taking DOE prior to the rut, and not starting them out on racked buck. I don't think it's a huge concern to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,811 Posts
Fleroo said:
If this potential change results in the current ARs being compromised as the age of harvested bucks could not be controlled, the AR aspect of the DMP could be in jeopardy.
If the PGC were REALLY concerned about Buck/Doe ratio, and eliminating Doe prior to breeding, they would have the MY taking DOE prior to the rut, and not starting them out on racked buck. I don't think it's a huge concern to them.
Buck to doe ratio is one aspect of the DMP. The age of our bucks is another. If this potential change results in the inability to control the age of our harvested antlered deer, the AR portion is in jeopardy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
This stinks, what is the purpose of having professional biologists if the legislature is going to mettle in business they don't have a clue of
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top