The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Time for this group to become extinct...they no longer work for hunters in PA. Never heard anything crazier...instead of working to get hunters access they according to the Morning Call Newspaper are now pushing the use of birth control for deer. Very disappointing...as if the crossgun wasn't enough.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
Seeking Trad Dee said:
Time for this group to become extinct...they no longer work for hunters in PA. Never heard anything crazier...instead of working to get hunters access they according to the Morning Call Newspaper are now pushing the use of birth control for deer. Very disappointing...as if the crossgun wasn't enough.
Are you sure that it wasn't for areas like philly where the populations are very high? For the crossbow comment i think you need to get over it!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
I don't know where you read they were pushing for birth control, it appears you saw what you wanted to see instead of what was in the report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,171 Posts
i shoot deer in philly, why do i want to eat that stuff ?

do you want your family eating that ? DDT was cool to use at one time also......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
John S said:
I don't know where you read they were pushing for birth control, it appears you saw what you wanted to see instead of what was in the report.
Yea, I'd say give that article another look see. I'm betting that was about high population areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
For those that watched the live stream, this issue was covered in some detail.

The contraception needs to be administered manually. No sprays, no feed laced with it - manually.

The actual shot is cheap. The application is going to be very expensive.



Rosenberry was asked what happens if the GC takes a bye on this issue. His answer was farcically that the GC would be caught with it's pants down with no preordained guidance. Also, the measure being voted on insists that hunting be part of any contraception plan. That is used while the program is on going.

He also added, that the application costs of any contraception program, with it's ineffectiveness, re-dosing requirement. lack of mass inoculation capabilities, makes it unlikely to ever be approved or asked for.

This is being brought into the state. The GC is not doing that - they just have the authority to approve use. A rock and a hard place. Anyone watching the live stream will have heard the many concerns expressed on this issue by the commissioners.

Lacking any pre-approved language to deal with this, we might be giving up far more if the final decision was by a judge. We would lose the properly proposed, and publically published, and approved plan of action with hunting at it's core. A judge could just issue authorization with no regard for hunting.

I agree with hating this stuff and any potential use. Just direct any anger to the right department for authorizing it in PA = that is the PA Department of Ag. Not the GC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard.... Birth control for deer !!! PPL need to allow the game commision to do their job.. PA Department of Ag needs to stay the heck out of it. Shoot the deer if its a problem dont give them BIRTH CONTROL !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,171 Posts
Bluetick said:
For those that watched the live stream, this issue was covered in some detail.

The contraception needs to be administered manually. No sprays, no feed laced with it - manually.

The actual shot is cheap. The application is going to be very expensive.



Rosenberry was asked what happens if the GC takes a bye on this issue. His answer was farcically that the GC would be caught with it's pants down with no preordained guidance. Also, the measure being voted on insists that hunting be part of any contraception plan. That is used while the program is on going.

He also added, that the application costs of any contraception program, with it's ineffectiveness, re-dosing requirement. lack of mass inoculation capabilities, makes it unlikely to ever be approved or asked for.

This is being brought into the state. The GC is not doing that - they just have the authority to approve use. A rock and a hard place. Anyone watching the live stream will have heard the many concerns expressed on this issue by the commissioners.

Lacking any pre-approved language to deal with this, we might be giving up far more if the final decision was by a judge. We would lose the properly proposed, and publically published, and approved plan of action with hunting at it's core. A judge could just issue authorization with no regard for hunting.
I agree with hating this stuff and any potential use. Just direct any anger to the right department for authorizing it in PA = that is the PA Department of Ag. Not the GC.
gottcha.. true it would be better to hold the cards, but what if they are forced to use that hand at some point.

this is a very scary thought, and i dont think there is a sportsman anywhere that would ever want to see this used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,887 Posts
Directing the anger of this "push" of animal birth control to the right agency is the direction to go. (As BT has stated).

But just posting our\your\my anger on a forum board, or sending an angry email to the PGC or the Pa. Dept. of AG. probably isn't going to be enough.

I can feel pretty safe in saying the supporters of Animal Birth Control (ABC) are certainly arranging their science papers and getting their ducks in a row, and they are not yelling at anyone. Calmness and a business like approach to this is their best Allie.

So.....like the "Lead in the meat" scare that the "protect the wolves and the coyotes" people did out west (so those same wolves and 'yotes would come back and eat their children) hunters need to remain calm and ask those "scare tactic" questions about the introduction of birth control into the entire ecosystem.

The deer gets killed by a car and the crow, hawk, buzzard, fox, raccoon, possum eat the deer. How does this effect their population? Are we indirectly affecting a Federally protected bird (Hawk?) Do we have any long term studies to tell us this? (Like a 10 or 15 year study?). Who had performed this study? Who funded it? Was their a conflict of interest possibility here?

These are the questions that would need to be raised to the decision makers......and so they would know.....down the road to the court should it not go "our" way.

Hey.....no screamin here.....I'm just sayin.

Dave
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,775 Posts
Seeking Trad Dee said:
Time for this group to become extinct...they no longer work for hunters in PA. Never heard anything crazier...instead of working to get hunters access they according to the Morning Call Newspaper are now pushing the use of birth control for deer. Very disappointing...as if the crossgun wasn't enough.
The Game Commission certainly doesn’t want deer contraception being used any more then the deer hunters do. But, the Game Commission simply can’t control EVERYTHING in our lives, as some hunters seem to believe they do. This whole thing could end up getting jammed to both hunters and the Game Commission if hunters aren’t willing and smart enough to allow hunters to be the solution to having deer both in balance with the habitat and the tolerance of the non-hunting public.

Even in some of the state’s highest deer density areas we still hear hunters screaming to stop harvesting so many deer. What kind of message does that send concerning hunters being the solution to high deer density problems and concerns, whether real or just perceived?

I seem to remember a short, bald guy doing programs for the Game Commission telling people almost decade ago that if hunters weren’t willing to be the solution society would find another solution. Hunters laughed about him saying such a thing. Well, by darn it looks like society might be in the early stages of doing just want he said would happen.

I think hunters should take this a sign of what is to come if they continue to be part of the deer management problem instead of the solution.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
650 Posts
R. S. B. said:
Seeking Trad Dee said:
Time for this group to become extinct...they no longer work for hunters in PA. Never heard anything crazier...instead of working to get hunters access they according to the Morning Call Newspaper are now pushing the use of birth control for deer. Very disappointing...as if the crossgun wasn't enough.
The Game Commission certainly doesn’t want deer contraception being used any more then the deer hunters do. But, the Game Commission simply can’t control EVERYTHING in our lives, as some hunters seem to believe they do. This whole thing could end up getting jammed to both hunters and the Game Commission if hunters aren’t willing and smart enough to allow hunters to be the solution to having deer both in balance with the habitat and the tolerance of the non-hunting public.

Even in some of the state’s highest deer density areas we still hear hunters screaming to stop harvesting so many deer. What kind of message does that send concerning hunters being the solution to high deer density problems and concerns, whether real or just perceived?

I seem to remember a short, bald guy doing programs for the Game Commission telling people almost decade ago that if hunters weren’t willing to be the solution society would find another solution. Hunters laughed about him saying such a thing. Well, by darn it looks like society might be in the early stages of doing just want he said would happen.

I think hunters should take this a sign of what is to come if they continue to be part of the deer management problem instead of the solution.

Dick Bodenhorn
WOW DICK! that last sentence seems like threat! Are you connected to the pgc somehow?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
What a Joke! Deer management at its best. Next they'll be encouraging poaching! I'm surprised there is still even a penalty for poaching.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,775 Posts
There are already a number of places across this state where sharp shooters are being paid to kill large numbers of deer. They are killing more deer in a couple of nights then the hunters do in an entire season.

If you don’t think that combined with even the idea of deer contraception being used is an indication of the way a large part of our society would take deer population control you are being VERY naïve.

In many cases it has been the fact that some hunters refused to harvest antlerless deer when they could that has lead to the need for ulternative population control.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change the threats that surround you all it does is prevent you from seeing the reality of the threats.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,775 Posts
cope said:
What a Joke! Deer management at its best. Next they'll be encouraging poaching! I'm surprised there is still even a penalty for poaching.
What?

Where do you get ideas like that?

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,171 Posts
R. S. B. said:
There are already a number of places across this state where sharp shooters are being paid to kill large numbers of deer. They are killing more deer in a couple of nights then the hunters do in an entire season.

why cant the GC step up to bat with the hunters. hunters go to township meetings to ask for hunting, but the GC just lets them go about shooting everything.

im not saying that hunting will out number nightly baitpile kill's short term. BUT, for long term lasting effects the GC needs to step up and tell these townships' if you want the deer gone, open the township property that could safely support hunting, PERIOD !

i live in lower bucks and we have deer wandering in our streets. but every open woods belongs to the townships.

pretty bad when i have more hunting spots in the city of philly than i do in lower bucks county.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,617 Posts
While I respect the efforts of those put in a position to make decisions that affect the actions of the many, I must say that contraception for deer is a mistake. Why not use the funds necessary to promote hunting and hunting access in areas that are over run? Why not fund public service announcements showing responsible hunters, say a father and his son or daughter, hunting in a way so as to prevent over population of deer and its subsequent results? Use public forums(TV, radio, internet) to change the perception of hunters, from one that has little regard for animals to one that has the utmost concern for the environment, both for humans and for animals. It can be done if the effort is made. Hire a PR firm and let them go at it.

Why not use the funds to gain access to property that has previously been refused? A bonus, kickback, whatever you want to call it, to the landowner that allows access to thin the herd responsibly with approved archery or shotgun hunters. Point is, explore all of the options before taking the easy way out and alienating a group of hunters that would gladly do what needs to be accomplished.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
hunter4095 said:
Bluetick said:
For those that watched the live stream, this issue was covered in some detail.

The contraception needs to be administered manually. No sprays, no feed laced with it - manually.

The actual shot is cheap. The application is going to be very expensive.



Rosenberry was asked what happens if the GC takes a bye on this issue. His answer was farcically that the GC would be caught with it's pants down with no preordained guidance. Also, the measure being voted on insists that hunting be part of any contraception plan. That is used while the program is on going.

He also added, that the application costs of any contraception program, with it's ineffectiveness, re-dosing requirement. lack of mass inoculation capabilities, makes it unlikely to ever be approved or asked for.

This is being brought into the state. The GC is not doing that - they just have the authority to approve use. A rock and a hard place. Anyone watching the live stream will have heard the many concerns expressed on this issue by the commissioners.

Lacking any pre-approved language to deal with this, we might be giving up far more if the final decision was by a judge. We would lose the properly proposed, and publically published, and approved plan of action with hunting at it's core. A judge could just issue authorization with no regard for hunting.
I agree with hating this stuff and any potential use. Just direct any anger to the right department for authorizing it in PA = that is the PA Department of Ag. Not the GC.
gottcha.. true it would be better to hold the cards, but what if they are forced to use that hand at some point.

this is a very scary thought, and i dont think there is a sportsman anywhere that would ever want to see this used.
Those were the sediments of the commissioners today as well. They took great issue with the drug being labeled as a pesticide as well - they lamented that it cheapened deer as a mere pest - and they are not (there thoughts).

It was discussed as to pass on this and deny the use, but as explained, the repercussions to hunters and the deer could be worse if they pass.

Once again, this is a reaction by the GC to events placed in motion by others. The GC is trying to put hunters in the best solution to the problem by making any use of the drug contingent on having an active hunting program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
The reality is, that there are municipalities and landowners that are never going to allow hunting as a means of deer population control. No amount of common sense appeals, begging or cajoling is going to change their minds.

If they've decided too many deer are causing them problems, they'll do whatever else is necessary to solve that problem and hunters will not be part of their solution.
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top