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."people do tend to support, and take ownership of, those programs which they are allowed to be part of."
Actually the only ones who could fire them by voting them out of office would be the voters within their legislative district.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.
What major land management changes would that have been? I don’t recall any major changes.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"!!
Well, it seems I may have totally overestimated the level of “enlightenment” of some people.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.
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?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.