The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
TO: Members of the House of Representatives FROM: Rep. Michael T. Peifer SUBJECT: Proposed Legislation DATE: June 20, 2017


In the near future, I plan to introduce legislation amending the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code to add members of the House and Senate to the agency’s Board of Commissioners.

Currently, the Governor nominates individuals for service on each agency’s Board of Commissioners and they must be approved by a majority of the elected members of the Senate. The House of Representatives has no official role in this process, and the Senate merely approves the Governor’s selections.

Under the legislation, two members of the Senate, one appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and one appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate and two members of the House of Representatives, one appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives will serve on the board.

This legislation will allow for greater input and involvement with each agency by the General Assembly on sportsmen’s issues, and by sportsmen in general across the Commonwealth via their elected officials.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
TO: Members of the House of Representatives FROM: Rep. Michael T. Peifer SUBJECT: Proposed Legislation DATE: June 20, 2017


In the near future, I plan to introduce legislation amending the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Code to add members of the House and Senate to the agency’s Board of Commissioners.

Currently, the Governor nominates individuals for service on each agency’s Board of Commissioners and they must be approved by a majority of the elected members of the Senate. The House of Representatives has no official role in this process, and the Senate merely approves the Governor’s selections.

Under the legislation, two members of the Senate, one appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and one appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate and two members of the House of Representatives, one appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives will serve on the board.

This legislation will allow for greater input and involvement with each agency by the General Assembly on sportsmen’s issues, and by sportsmen in general across the Commonwealth via their elected officials.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,144 Posts
You have a bunch of shiny butt clerks who are professional moochers trying to run an agency that they don't have a clue as to what's going on and commissioners that don't get it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hon. Michael Peifer
2523 Route 6, Suite 2
Hawley, PA 18428
(570) 226-5959
Fax: (570) 226-5955

Capitol
Hon. Michael Peifer
157 East Wing
PO Box 202139
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2139
(717) 783-2037
Fax: (717) 782-2910


[email protected]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,656 Posts
I have very mixed thoughts on this.

My first reaction was that they should keep their noses out of wildlife management but then upon more thought this legislation could have merit. It depends on whether they want to be part of better wildlife management or just be obstructionists.

If they were added to the Commission and actually worked toward the goals of good wildlife management this could be a very positive step. The reason I say that is because it would allow them to see that the Game Commission is working very hard to do what is right for both wildlife and the future of hunting, instead of blindly believing the nonsense they hear from some of their constituents. It could result in them see that the Game Commission is not the enemy and really does need to be adequately funded.

I kind of goes back to my old argument when I was working that we needed to allow the sportsmen to get involved in the things the Game Commission was doing. That is why I always not only allowed but encouraged people to come out and watch bears being processes, helping with trapping and handling turkeys and other non-law enforcement functions. I always advocated that people cannot and will not support a program if we don’t allow them to have enough knowledge about it understand it. Allow them to be part of it though and they get ownership of the programs. Once they have ownership they will not only support the programs but also help explain and defend them to their friends.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,656 Posts
Observing and learning about a process are still far different than actually being part of the process.

I am not yet convinced if this is a bad or a good piece of legislation. It could be either depending on the attitude of those that would end up being appointed to the Board of Commissioners.

I have seen both outstanding and outrageously poor Commissioners coming from the current selection and appointment process as well.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
86 Posts
Dick,

I sincerely commend you on the adoption of your new, "enlightened" approach. You are correct - people do tend to support, and take ownership of, those programs which they are allowed to be part of.

However, where was this "enlightened" approach back in 2012 when the PGC made major land management changes to our SGL's in total secrecy - with NO notice, communication, explanation, or involvement of us hunters whatsoever beforehand?

Nonetheless, extremely glad to see anyone at the PGC become "enlightened"!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,541 Posts
reading what Dick posted has some merit and common sense to this approach, and Mrlongbeard said

"people do tend to support, and take ownership of, those programs which they are allowed to be part of."
lets say we do have some legiscritters appointed to the BOC. they have to take personal responsibility for what they do. if we dont like what they do, we can fire them.

there are almost one million of us and even more if you count family members that vote. all we have to do is GO VOTE and they are gone :)

might not be bad at all. if we actually get off this site once in awhile and get politically motivated inside this sport, it could be a win-win.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,656 Posts
reading what Dick posted has some merit and common sense to this approach, and Mrlongbeard said



lets say we do have some legiscritters appointed to the BOC. they have to take personal responsibility for what they do. if we dont like what they do, we can fire them.

there are almost one million of us and even more if you count family members that vote. all we have to do is GO VOTE and they are gone :)

might not be bad at all. if we actually get off this site once in awhile and get politically motivated inside this sport, it could be a win-win.
Actually the only ones who could fire them by voting them out of office would be the voters within their legislative district.

That would be interesting. What would happen if they were voted out while sitting on the Board of Commissioners is a good question?

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,656 Posts
Dick,

I sincerely commend you on the adoption of your new, "enlightened" approach. You are correct - people do tend to support, and take ownership of, those programs which they are allowed to be part of.

However, where was this "enlightened" approach back in 2012 when the PGC made major land management changes to our SGL's in total secrecy - with NO notice, communication, explanation, or involvement of us hunters whatsoever beforehand?

Nonetheless, extremely glad to see anyone at the PGC become "enlightened"!!
What major land management changes would that have been? I don’t recall any major changes.

But, that aside you surely don’t think every management decision needs to be taken before the public before implementation. There are management decisions and changes made nearly every day.

Making those types of decisions is why we have a Board of Commissioners and Bureau Directors within the agency.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
86 Posts
What major land management changes would that have been? I don’t recall any major changes.

But, that aside you surely don’t think every management decision needs to be taken before the public before implementation. There are management decisions and changes made nearly every day.

Making those types of decisions is why we have a Board of Commissioners and Bureau Directors within the agency.

Dick Bodenhorn
Well, it seems I may have totally overestimated the level of “enlightenment” of some people.


Dick, do you really think you’re going to get buy-in, involvement, and ownership of PGC programs from anyone, let alone us hunters – after you’ve independently, beforehand made the critical decisions about those programs – what they will entail, when they will start, and what they will accomplish?


Dick, that’s not how buy-in and ownership works. And doing it that way only implies that the people you want involved are just too stupid to understand and contribute to what you’re trying to do. True buy-in and ownership must start at the beginning of any project.


Now yes, Dick, I don’t believe every PGC management decision needs to be taken public before implementation, but surely, major land management to our local SGL’s do. When you have spent over 20 years hunting and scouting that land – when it’s the only land on which you still have left to hunt – and when you have taken personal responsibility for what happens on that land – yes Dick, I do think we hunters deserve, at a minimum, the courtesy to be notified beforehand about those planned major changes.


The major land management changes I am referring to are those made back in 2012 on SGL #252 in Union/Lycoming Counties. For details, please contact the former President of your Board of Commissioners, Mr. Ralph Martone, or the former Land Manager, Mr. Thomas Smith.


I must add this though – this level of “enlightenment” by the PGC is very disappointing, and will only reinforce the death spiral the PGC is now firmly locked into. Without the trust and support of the average hunter, the PGC will someday become just another historical relic like canal boats, black and white TV’s, and buggy whips.


And you will have nobody to blame but yourselves.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,656 Posts
Well, it seems I may have totally overestimated the level of “enlightenment” of some people.


Dick, do you really think you’re going to get buy-in, involvement, and ownership of PGC programs from anyone, let alone us hunters – after you’ve independently, beforehand made the critical decisions about those programs – what they will entail, when they will start, and what they will accomplish?


Dick, that’s not how buy-in and ownership works. And doing it that way only implies that the people you want involved are just too stupid to understand and contribute to what you’re trying to do. True buy-in and ownership must start at the beginning of any project.


Now yes, Dick, I don’t believe every PGC management decision needs to be taken public before implementation, but surely, major land management to our local SGL’s do. When you have spent over 20 years hunting and scouting that land – when it’s the only land on which you still have left to hunt – and when you have taken personal responsibility for what happens on that land – yes Dick, I do think we hunters deserve, at a minimum, the courtesy to be notified beforehand about those planned major changes.


The major land management changes I am referring to are those made back in 2012 on SGL #252 in Union/Lycoming Counties. For details, please contact the former President of your Board of Commissioners, Mr. Ralph Martone, or the former Land Manager, Mr. Thomas Smith.


I must add this though – this level of “enlightenment” by the PGC is very disappointing, and will only reinforce the death spiral the PGC is now firmly locked into. Without the trust and support of the average hunter, the PGC will someday become just another historical relic like canal boats, black and white TV’s, and buggy whips.


And you will have nobody to blame but yourselves.
I take it they timbered or put a gas well or something on your favorite deer watch or section of game lands without asked your opinion and getting your approval first?

From what you are saying it sounds like something that might have effected one game lands instead of a major change to how game lands are managed. I don’t really have a clue what you are referring to, and it seems you don’t want to tell us what it is, so I can’t really address your opinion on what has or hasn’t transpired.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
86 Posts
Dick,


Thank-you. Your response to my posting just confirms my decision not to take the time to detail those major land management changes implemented on SGL 252 for you. It would have been just a total waste of my time – your response clearly proves you’ve already predetermined that anything I had to say about that situation was wrong, because in your mind, the PGC is always right, incapable of making any mistake – much like the PGC’s Board of Commissioners.

Your response also clearly tried to minimize my concerns about this problem, and the totally secret process involved. Dick, you really don’t care anything about us hunters, our concerns, or our willingness to buy into PGC programs. And you especially don’t want any process implemented wherein we might have the opportunity to question beforehand just exactly what the PGC is doing to our SGL’s and why. You didn’t even want to spend one minute of your time to contact those PGC employees I mentioned to get the PGC’s side of this situation.


And that approach guarantees the PGC will someday become a dinosaur. The future deals very harshly with people and organizations that refuse to acknowledge any need for change. Dick, you’re a poster-boy for that dysfunctional approach.


In the words of Mr. Trump – SAD!!
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top