Buy a hunting license, donate to PGC, but not a hunter?

[Brownout]

Wondering if any of you buy a hunting license or donate to the PGC if you fish streams that run through land that is under PGC management.

 

[littlelehigh]

Is this a joke? It is pretty funny

 

[franklin]

Like the PFBC the PGC has been seeking ways to increase revenue. Some of the ideas floated over the last few years included requiring anyone who uses PGC property to purchase a license. Others advocated an idea of a use permit. Sort of like the launch permit now required for non-motorized boats using PFBC lakes.

 

[JackM]

I would buy one if needed, depending on the cost, but I won't voluntarily pay for a hunting license when I don't hunt.

 

[Brownout]

Not a joke, should have just said would you donate if you are not a hunter. My line of thought was that a non-hunter purchasing a hunting license at a PALS system is a form of donation that is pretty easy to do at most sporting goods stores. Should have been clearer.

 

[franklin]

Brownout wrote:
Wondering if any of you buy a hunting license or donate to the PGC if you fish streams that run through land that is under PGC management.

I do something similar. Every year i buy an Erie stamp even though I don't plan to go and have only been to Erie to fish once. I hunt so I buy a hunting license every year. I do buy a duck stamp every year even though I have never hunted ducks or geese. I know bird watchers who buy fishing licenses to support the PFBC because they often go to a PFBC property to spot birds.

 

[RyanR]

Interesting question, certainly didn't see it as a joke. In fact a few years ago at the LV Watershed Conference one of the speakers actually encouraged everyone that appreciates all the public open space in PA to buy a hunting or fishing license, even if they didn't do either activity. He made the point that a great deal of the public lands we all can enjoy for many activities are a result of these two organizations (PGC & PFBC) along with DCNR. A use permit seems like a real good deal on the surface, however I'd be at least a little concerned that the primary goal & managment of the state gamelands (public hunting) could become subject to the wishes of non-hunters or worse anti-hunters.

I also buy the Erie stamp and with my hunting license I get the migratory bird license and duck stamps, even though I've yet to go to Erie or hunt ducks & geese.

 

[Brownout]

RyanR wrote:
Interesting question, certainly didn't see it as a joke. In fact a few years ago at the LV Watershed Conference one of the speakers actually encouraged everyone that appreciates all the public open space in PA to buy a hunting or fishing license, even if they didn't do either activity. He made the point that a great deal of the public lands we all can enjoy for many activities are a result of these two organizations (PGC & PFBC) along with DCNR. A use permit seems like a real good deal on the surface, however I'd be at least a little concerned that the primary goal & managment of the state gamelands (public hunting) could become subject to the wishes of non-hunters or worse anti-hunters.

I also buy the Erie stamp and with my hunting license I get the migratory bird license and duck stamps, even though I've yet to go to Erie or hunt ducks & geese.

A use permit....yes, there is then always the concern that other stakeholders will interfere with hunting and fishing.

Most of the concern is from animal rights groups, as we know. They are very driven, and I believe most of their power comes form their ability to solicit revenue for a cause that has a much broader audience than hunting or fishing-namely, animal abuse.

For hunters and fisherman who value their rights, keeping these groups in check is a very serious problem. Perhaps the best way to ensure that they do not get the better of us is to ensure that legislation exists, and is maintained, to protect the legal right of an individual to pursue game for sustenance on a state and federal level.

Beyond that, exposing the funding gap for habitat conservation that would exist if hunting and fishing became illegal is a good place to start to expose their wild plans.

 

[RLeep2]

Eventually, its going to come to a point where the PGC is going to have to go outside their traditional revenue stream to be able to maintain sufficient operating revenues. While (as I understand it..) hunting license sales are up slightly in PA over the past couple years, the long term trend is almost certain to be a continuing decline. Indeed, IIRC, there was a 25%+ decline in PA license sales between about 1980 and 2005 or something like that (I'm too lazy to look it up).

The Commission administrates one of the largest lands program of its type in the country and it costs money, a lot of money, to do it.

What the Commission needs to do is reach out to other users from birders to hikers to anglers, etc. etc. and begin a program of (perhaps at first) voluntary non-hunter user fees for State Game Lands. Later, these fees could become standardized and mandatory. Because without serious fee increases that PA hunters will never abide, the track that hunting is on is not going to sustain the Commission that much longer. And then the choice will be between divestiture of some of the properties or expansion of the Commission's definition/mandate to be more inclusive of all users and collect fees appropriate to same.

Part of the problem is, to be frank, the Commissioners themselves and the sort of folks who are willing to take on the position of Commissioner. Between the recent deer wars and the 2nd Amendment Nutcases (I support the 2nd, I just don't foam at the mouth about it) who think the deer mgmt. changes were a back door assault on the 2nd Amendment, its hard to get good, forward looking people to serve. Who needs that sort of grief?

But one way or the other, the change is coming..

As an addendum, the notion that public hunting lands are in danger of falling under the control of animal rights activists is more plausible than finding sweet corn on Neptune but less plausible than seeing a Yeti.

It could happen, if we really stretch the definition of "could", I suppose.

To that end, I would certainly support anti-harassment laws for hunters and anglers in PA. Actually, I don't know that they aren't already in place in PA. They are in a lot of states.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

Those laws are in place in Pennsylvania!

 

[Brownout]

As an addendum, the notion that public hunting lands are in danger of falling under the control of animal rights activists is more plausible than finding sweet corn on Neptune but less plausible than seeing a Yeti.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't New Jersey bear hunting get put on hold, since 2005, as a result of antis lobbying for a non-lethal bear control policy. I think this year it is moving forward as a new governor has stepped into office, the bear population is large, and the local hunters have stepped-up.

 

[JackM]

I love the term "antis."

 

[franklin]

RLeep2 wrote:
Eventually, its going to come to a point where the PGC is going to have to go outside their traditional revenue stream to be able to maintain sufficient operating revenues. While (as I understand it..) hunting license sales are up slightly in PA over the past couple years, the long term trend is almost certain to be a continuing decline. Indeed, IIRC, there was a 25%+ decline in PA license sales between about 1980 and 2005 or something like that (I'm too lazy to look it up).

The Commission administrates one of the largest lands program of its type in the country and it costs money, a lot of money, to do it.

What the Commission needs to do is reach out to other users from birders to hikers to anglers, etc. etc. and begin a program of (perhaps at first) voluntary non-hunter user fees for State Game Lands. Later, these fees could become standardized and mandatory. Because without serious fee increases that PA hunters will never abide, the track that hunting is on is not going to sustain the Commission that much longer. And then the choice will be between divestiture of some of the properties or expansion of the Commission's definition/mandate to be more inclusive of all users and collect fees appropriate to same.

Part of the problem is, to be frank, the Commissioners themselves and the sort of folks who are willing to take on the position of Commissioner. Between the recent deer wars and the 2nd Amendment Nutcases (I support the 2nd, I just don't foam at the mouth about it) who think the deer mgmt. changes were a back door assault on the 2nd Amendment, its hard to get good, forward looking people to serve. Who needs that sort of grief?

But one way or the other, the change is coming..

As an addendum, the notion that public hunting lands are in danger of falling under the control of animal rights activists is more plausible than finding sweet corn on Neptune but less plausible than seeing a Yeti.

It could happen, if we really stretch the definition of "could", I suppose.

To that end, I would certainly support anti-harassment laws for hunters and anglers in PA. Actually, I don't know that they aren't already in place in PA. They are in a lot of states.

Long term the concern is with the antis. But there is a legitimate nearer term concern relating to non-hunting use of SGLs. One in particular is the riding of horses on SGL property. When the idea of use permits was raised in the past some of the riding groups argued that if they were charged use permits then they would not support closing SGLs to riding during hunting seasons. Of course they PGC would have to at least close off areas ajacent to open trails during hunting seasons to avoid potential conflicts and injuries. (This isn't just about getting shot, ever been on a horse that has been spooked by loud noises or dogs?) So the hunting organizations rejected the use permit idea over concerns about loosing access to all the gamelands during hunting season.

 

[RLeep2]

Well, I don't really have an interest in a protracted discussion of all this. I don't live in PA right now and I haven't hunted in over 30 years. I support hunting, but I'm not about to let it cut into my fishing time. And we're off to the UP Friday morning for R&R, fishing, hiking and mid-day snoring, so I have packing to do, maps to run and flies to sort.

But just a couple short thoughts:



>>Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't New Jersey bear hunting get put on hold, since 2005, as a result of antis lobbying for a non-lethal bear control policy. I think this year it is moving forward as a new governor has stepped into office, the bear population is large, and the local hunters have stepped-up.>>

All this is true and I understand both your position and your concerns. They are not without some validity. At the same time, PA is not NJ, even if the eastern quarter or so of the Commonwealth is somewhat influenced attitudinally and culturally by the Eastern Megablob, which is the primary base for the animal rights loonies. More to the point, the hunting tradition (and not incidentally) hunting opportunities are much stronger/greater in PA than NJ.. The sport is in slow decline, but I really think PA will be one of the last places in the East, at any rate, where it will be in serious trouble. Vigilance is warranted. A call to the barricades to fend off an imminent threat seems premature to me. There is the risk of being perceived as loonies locked in a High Noon struggle with other loonies and that isn't good for the sport's image in the longer view. All IMO, of course..

>>Long term the concern is with the antis. But there is a legitimate nearer term concern relating to non-hunting use of SGLs. One in particular is the riding of horses on SGL property. When the idea of use permits was raised in the past some of the riding groups argued that if they were charged use permits then they would not support closing SGLs to riding during hunting seasons. Of course they PGC would have to at least close off areas ajacent to open trails during hunting seasons to avoid potential conflicts and injuries. (This isn't just about getting shot, ever been on a horse that has been spooked by loud noises or dogs?) So the hunting organizations rejected the use permit idea over concerns about loosing access to all the gamelands during hunting season.>>

These are good points, IMO. My view is pretty simple. I think the change is coming, albeit incrementally. There will be bumps and jolts along the way. The horse people will refuse to buy a permit to ride SGL's if the trails are seasonally closed. The birders and hikers may join them. And the hunters may pressure the Commission not to give in, for fear of "losing" the use of the lands. Other similar conflicts could be resolved the same way. And that's how it will be. For now.

10, 15, 20 years from now though, there may be a completely different calculus at work. The Commission's fiscal situation may worsen markedly. The aggregated numbers of people who want to use these lands for non-hunting recreational purposes may grow considerably while the number of hunters may (at best) remain about static or perhaps decline significantly. The way things work in the public arena, this may mean that ultimate control of the situation may slip out of the Commission's hands. If and when it does, I think the Commission and PA hunters need to be ready to be receptive to ways to share these lands with non-hunters, even if it means that the groups alternate weekends as primary user. Or whatever. Because this may be the best way to ensure long term that these lands remain in the public trust, a situation that will be in the interest of *all* user groups, from hunters to Zen Buddhists looking for the right rocky outcropping to sit and meditate on.

 

[FarmerDave]

I didn't read all the responses, but I feel it is a fair question and certainly not a joke.

In the past, at least one person on regular on here said he buys or used to buy a hunting license even though he gave up hunting.

I don't do that, but I have hunted in PA without a license. :-D

Seriously. As a member of Ducks Unlimited for several years who has never hunted waterfowl in his live, I can certainly understand the idea. Now if I could only get them to stop sending me the magazine and all that other literature. It's a waste of money and I rarely read any of it.;-)