Pennsylvania Camo Coalition ?

JakesLeakyWaders

JakesLeakyWaders

Active member
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
1,545
Location
York County Pa
I've been seeing this add for some time now and finally clicked on it.

Any one else check out this sight or know anything more in depth about the organization?

Seems like a good cause, I just hadn't heard anything about it on here other than it keeps popping up at the top of the forum. Is anyone else seeing this add or is it just due to my browsing history and or habits that such adds keep occurring?

I'm intrigued.
 
There is another thread on it somewhere. Let me dig. They really need to work on their website imo. Hard to understand purpose/goals.

Edit: Here ya go . . . http://www.paflyfish.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16538&forum=2&post_id=223771#forumpost223771
 
Hard to understand their purpose/ goals? How exactly?
 
Hard to understand their purpose/ goals? How exactly?

Well seeing as how Jake came here to ask about it, I would say that it's goals and purposes are less than clear. I gather it is free. It is part of PennFuture (with no real distinction as to why there needs to be a faction of PennFuture and why they can't handle the environmental concerns). It appears to be pretty much a hunting site, though they attempt to include hiking, biking, camping (yet it's called PA CAMO coalition - conserve.educate.defend) and todays top news on the website is that a hunter shot and killed a guy and is being charged (David M. Manilla is charged with involuntary manslaughter for killing 52-year-old Barry Groh on the opening day of deer season.). That's right, the lead story on this conservation website is that a hunter shot and killed another guy and is being charged with manslaughter. Please help us preserve the right to do same.
 
jdaddy wrote:
Hard to understand their purpose/ goals? How exactly?

Well seeing as how Jake came here to ask about it, I would say that it's goals and purposes are less than clear. I gather it is free. It is part of PennFuture (with no real distinction as to why there needs to be a faction of PennFuture and why they can't handle the environmental concerns). It appears to be pretty much a hunting site, though they attempt to include hiking, biking, camping (yet it's called PA CAMO coalition - conserve.educate.defend) and todays top news on the website is that a hunter shot and killed a guy and is being charged (David M. Manilla is charged with involuntary manslaughter for killing 52-year-old Barry Groh on the opening day of deer season.). That's right, the lead story on this conservation website is that a hunter shot and killed another guy and is being charged with manslaughter. Please help us preserve the right to do same.

He asked if anyone else had checked it out. Again, I asked how their website makes it unclear what their goals were, not what news stories they might have running? I checked it out and it seemed pretty clear what they were about, but okay I mainly thought it was a group interested mostly in bringing hunters and anglers together under one umbrella to help conserve and protect our rights to hunt & fish, etc.

BTW, it's not a hunter that killed another hunter. A hunter has to be legal, anybody in the field acting illegaly is just a criminal out poaching game animals. This guy (an attorney mind you) is a convicted felon of a violent crime, specifically prohibited from owning or possessing a gun that was out poaching deer with a high-powered rifle in a special regs area where high powered rifles are specifically prohibited as legal hunting weapons.
 
RyanR wrote:
jdaddy wrote:
Hard to understand their purpose/ goals? How exactly?

Well seeing as how Jake came here to ask about it, I would say that it's goals and purposes are less than clear. I gather it is free. It is part of PennFuture (with no real distinction as to why there needs to be a faction of PennFuture and why they can't handle the environmental concerns). It appears to be pretty much a hunting site, though they attempt to include hiking, biking, camping (yet it's called PA CAMO coalition - conserve.educate.defend) and todays top news on the website is that a hunter shot and killed a guy and is being charged (David M. Manilla is charged with involuntary manslaughter for killing 52-year-old Barry Groh on the opening day of deer season.). That's right, the lead story on this conservation website is that a hunter shot and killed another guy and is being charged with manslaughter. Please help us preserve the right to do same.

He asked if anyone else had checked it out. Again, I asked how their website makes it unclear what their goals were, not what news stories they might have running? I checked it out and it seemed pretty clear what they were about, but okay I mainly thought it was a group interested mostly in bringing hunters and anglers together under one umbrella to help conserve and protect our rights to hunt & fish, etc.

BTW, it's not a hunter that killed another hunter. A hunter has to be legal, anybody in the field acting illegaly is just a criminal out poaching game animals. This guy (an attorney mind you) is a convicted felon of a violent crime, specifically prohibited from owning or possessing a gun that was out poaching deer with a high-powered rifle in a special regs area where high powered rifles are specifically prohibited as legal hunting weapons.

Not only that but the accused's uncle, a former DA, appears to have participated in the cover up. The accused has an aggravated assault conviction and it happened on his land. I'm going to speculate he got mad at someone killing a deer on his property and shot him. I don't buy that he mistook a guy with an orange hat as a deer.

The Camo Coalition is just a marketing arm of PennFuture targeting outdoors people.
 
"Why Conservation is Conservative"

http://www.rep.org/quotes.html
 
franklin wrote:
RyanR wrote:
jdaddy wrote:
Hard to understand their purpose/ goals? How exactly?

Well seeing as how Jake came here to ask about it, I would say that it's goals and purposes are less than clear. I gather it is free. It is part of PennFuture (with no real distinction as to why there needs to be a faction of PennFuture and why they can't handle the environmental concerns). It appears to be pretty much a hunting site, though they attempt to include hiking, biking, camping (yet it's called PA CAMO coalition - conserve.educate.defend) and todays top news on the website is that a hunter shot and killed a guy and is being charged (David M. Manilla is charged with involuntary manslaughter for killing 52-year-old Barry Groh on the opening day of deer season.). That's right, the lead story on this conservation website is that a hunter shot and killed another guy and is being charged with manslaughter. Please help us preserve the right to do same.

He asked if anyone else had checked it out. Again, I asked how their website makes it unclear what their goals were, not what news stories they might have running? I checked it out and it seemed pretty clear what they were about, but okay I mainly thought it was a group interested mostly in bringing hunters and anglers together under one umbrella to help conserve and protect our rights to hunt & fish, etc.

BTW, it's not a hunter that killed another hunter. A hunter has to be legal, anybody in the field acting illegaly is just a criminal out poaching game animals. This guy (an attorney mind you) is a convicted felon of a violent crime, specifically prohibited from owning or possessing a gun that was out poaching deer with a high-powered rifle in a special regs area where high powered rifles are specifically prohibited as legal hunting weapons.

Not only that but the accused's uncle, a former DA, appears to have participated in the cover up. The accused has an aggravated assault conviction and it happened on his land. I'm going to speculate he got mad at someone killing a deer on his property and shot him. I don't buy that he mistook a guy with an orange hat as a deer.

The Camo Coalition is just a marketing arm of PennFuture targeting outdoors people.

This guy is a world class reckless ******. I've been follwoing this whol sad story as its been breaking in the news. He says he took a quick shot at a deer while riding on his four wheeler. The hunter he killed was not on his property and he supposedly didn't see him until they (he, the uncle, and the uncle's friend) found the body in the creek and he got scared and said "Uncle Mike, did I shoot him?" He could've somehow only seen the deer the guy was about to field dress and shot but missed and hit the guy. (Who knows this could all be a lie and your theory might end up being true.)

By all accounts he's got a history of being a very reckless, regulation-violating "hunter" who shoots first and thinks about the target and consequences later. Several years ago he shot another pheasant hunter in the head & back on a game preserve- and he actually saw that guy and still took a shot at the pheasant that went up directly behind the man. He apparently believes he's above the law because his uncle was a DA and has always got him out of things throughout his life. his aggravated assault conviction was pleaded down from Attempted Murder only after his uncle introduced evidence that suggested the victim started the fight or argument. This jerk beat the man almost to death, causing permanent brain damage. Because of the evidence suggesting the man may have been the instigator and the fact he lived the judge said "is the only reason you are not spending time in Graterford State Penitentiary." I hope that changes now and they make room for him in the state pen.

Initially the paramedic commented it might've been a heart attack so the shooter, uncle, and friend kept quiet and didn't mention this guy shot his rifle just before. Apparently when they left the property after the initial interview at the scene and the uncle was home, he thought more and told police that his nephew had fired his rifle in that direction just prior to finding the body.
 
troutbert wrote:
"Why Conservation is Conservative"

http://www.rep.org/quotes.html

Interesting site even though a number of those quoted were actually not conservatives and some even progressives.
 
Not only that but the accused's uncle, a former DA, appears to have participated in the cover up. The accused has an aggravated assault conviction and it happened on his land. I'm going to speculate he got mad at someone killing a deer on his property and shot him. I don't buy that he mistook a guy with an orange hat as a deer.

On top of that he beat a guy near to death with a weight lifting bar outside of a gym a few years back. I thought people got disbarred for stuff like that.

As far as the website goes, they have added items to the site that were not there initially. It just seems like a "not quite ready for prime time" group, which is fine and what is certainly a legitimate business model if a lot of mistakes are not made along the way.

My issue/fear is the all the new groups popping up and competing for limited grant funding, particularly when some of those groups have such astronomical overheads. There is a conservation group in Berks county that can burn 50% of a grant on administrative and overhead expenses. I am not sure about PA Camo Coalition, as it is new and does not appear to have published their financials, however if they are an arm of PennFuture, take a look at the overhead and expense of that group, then decide where you want your grant money going!
 
jdaddy wrote:
Not only that but the accused's uncle, a former DA, appears to have participated in the cover up. The accused has an aggravated assault conviction and it happened on his land. I'm going to speculate he got mad at someone killing a deer on his property and shot him. I don't buy that he mistook a guy with an orange hat as a deer.

On top of that he beat a guy near to death with a weight lifting bar outside of a gym a few years back. I thought people got disbarred for stuff like that.

As far as the website goes, they have added items to the site that were not there initially. It just seems like a "not quite ready for prime time" group, which is fine and what is certainly a legitimate business model if a lot of mistakes are not made along the way.

My issue/fear is the all the new groups popping up and competing for limited grant funding, particularly when some of those groups have such astronomical overheads. There is a conservation group in Berks county that can burn 50% of a grant on administrative and overhead expenses. I am not sure about PA Camo Coalition, as it is new and does not appear to have published their financials, however if they are an arm of PennFuture, take a look at the overhead and expense of that group, then decide where you want your grant money going!

I got a good idea what they are about but I'll wait until I get a few more facts before I comment fully.
 
On top of that he beat a guy near to death with a weight lifting bar outside of a gym a few years back. I thought people got disbarred for stuff like that.

In bucks county ? you got to be kidding, corrupt as can be..
 
jdaddy wrote:
Not only that but the accused's uncle, a former DA, appears to have participated in the cover up. The accused has an aggravated assault conviction and it happened on his land. I'm going to speculate he got mad at someone killing a deer on his property and shot him. I don't buy that he mistook a guy with an orange hat as a deer.

On top of that he beat a guy near to death with a weight lifting bar outside of a gym a few years back. I thought people got disbarred for stuff like that.

As far as the website goes, they have added items to the site that were not there initially. It just seems like a "not quite ready for prime time" group, which is fine and what is certainly a legitimate business model if a lot of mistakes are not made along the way.

My issue/fear is the all the new groups popping up and competing for limited grant funding, particularly when some of those groups have such astronomical overheads. There is a conservation group in Berks county that can burn 50% of a grant on administrative and overhead expenses. I am not sure about PA Camo Coalition, as it is new and does not appear to have published their financials, however if they are an arm of PennFuture, take a look at the overhead and expense of that group, then decide where you want your grant money going!

I don't know that PA Camo Coalition is going to be competing for grant money. My impression is that the Coalition's purpose is to keep hunters and anglers, etc. informed of threats (ie. campaigns, proposed bills, etc.) detrimental to their way of life and to use the strength in numbers of the Coalition members to fight back against those threats (rallies, action alerts, letter campaigns, etc.) I don't know that this is a group looking to do field projects. I see them similar in scope to groups like the NJ Outdoor Alliance. Kind of like an umbrella group for people with different specific outdoor interests that likely belong to more intimate and specific conservation groups (ie. TU chapters, watershed groups, rod & gun clubs, hiking clubs, etc.) but come together under the Coalition to combat common enemies that threaten what they all enjoy (albeit in different forms.)
 
Will the Pa Camo Coalition be endorsing political candidates?
 
Good afternoon guys,

Just wanted to get back to some of your questions and clear up some things I've read on this topic.

The PA Camo Coalition is not a sister organization of PennFuture, it is just one of the campaigns that PennFuture organizes. We currently have approx 6 or 7 campaigns going on at any given time. When we became the state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, we heard about the Camo Coalitions that other state affiliates created, and the successes they had. We felt that, given the assaults on our natural resources, primarily the Marcellus play, it is necessary to try to organize hunters, anglers, and other users of our great outdoors into a unifed political voice that could push back on important issues.

We named it the Camo Coalition for two reasons; first, the term immediately brings to mind sportsmen, and 2nd, to somewhat tie into what the other states are doing. We are not just a hunting organizaiton. Ryanr brought up the point that he thought, "it was a group interested mostly in bringing hunters and anglers together under one umbrella to help conserve and protect our rights to hunt & fish, etc." You hit the nail right on the head.

The problem is this, if we don't band together as sportsmen, the big money is going to purchase the best legislature money can buy.

As an example, at this website, http://www.marcellusmoney.org/ you can see which companies "donated" campaign contributions to whom. If you don't think money buys policy, I got a bridge over the Yellow Breeches I can sell you.

As for the news stories, we subscribe to a news service that gleans stories from newspapers all over the state. Everyday, I select the ones that I feel sportsmen would be interested in reading. Unfortunately, I do not get to choose the order in which I want them to appear, and I can understand why jdaddy questioned why I had a lead story of the guy getting shot in Quakertown. Just the way the software works. I just felt that a twice convicted felon, who is not even permitted to touch a gun, who shot a fellow hunter in mistake for a deer, would be of interest to the members of the outdoor community. Peolpe like him give us all a bad name.

Lately, the outdoor-related news offerings are a little sparse, given the holiday season. However, once the legislature gets back in January, that section, as well as the legislation to watch link on our website will be full of stories and legislation

As for grant money, we get none. We use our own resources to fund the Camo Coaltion. The costs are very minimal, really just my time. The website costs just a few dollars to maintain, and we have no other real expenses. Again, Ryanr hit the nail on the head when he posted this:

"I don't know that PA Camo Coalition is going to be competing for grant money. My impression is that the Coalition's purpose is to keep hunters and anglers, etc. informed of threats (ie. campaigns, proposed bills, etc.) detrimental to their way of life and to use the strength in numbers of the Coalition members to fight back against those threats (rallies, action alerts, letter campaigns, etc.) I don't know that this is a group looking to do field projects. I see them similar in scope to groups like the NJ Outdoor Alliance. Kind of like an umbrella group for people with different specific outdoor interests that likely belong to more intimate and specific conservation groups (ie. TU chapters, watershed groups, rod & gun clubs, hiking clubs, etc.) but come together under the Coalition to combat common enemies that threaten what they all enjoy (albeit in different forms.)"

Finally, we will not be endorsing any political candidates,. our tax status prevents us from doing so.

To bikerfish: We will be creating a facebook page to get the word out. Just need to find the time to do that.

To franklin: Here is the link to the DCNR assessment: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/naturalgasexploration/leasingmore/index.htm

And to jdaddy: Love the SYF avatar! and to, our website is only 3 months old, and we are trying to make changes to it to make it more informative. Any suggestions for improvement you have would be greatly appreciated!

As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Ed Boito
boito@pacamocoalition.org
 
Sorry for the 2nd post, but I had a problem with the scrolling.

A few other things I wanted to address is this:

If you do not want to be a member of the Camo Coalition (which is free), you can still use the site to contact your legislator on the issues we have posted. Just click on the Take Action tab. I would encourage you to join, as this helps us with our legislative advocacy. It sounds good when we can walk into a legislator's office and say, "we represent 10,000 sportsmen and women from around the state". We don't have that many now, but that would be my goal over the next two years.

Second, Please send our link to your family and friends, and ask them to join. Again, we can be much more effective when we can send thousands of e-mails to their offices. If you belong to a sportsmen's club, tell your fellow members about what we are trying to do.

We will be trying to get volunteers from around the state to act as our evangelists to spread the word with rod and gun clubs, community events, etc. If you would like to volunteer just a few hours per year, please contact me.

Enough of the rambling. I hope all of you have a very Merry Christmas and a great New Year.

Ed Boito
boito@pacamocoalition.org
 
Ed, thanks for the DCNR link. There is a wealth of information on that part of their site that I wasn't able to find with their search tool. The DCNR appears to have done a good job setting requirements for leases and identifying those areas of state land that would be excluded from leasing due to a number of high value criteria.

One question. The DCNR says that all land which meets their standard for lease has been auctioned. If so why is an additional but temporary ban needed from the Governor? The ban gives the impression that some of the remaining land could be leased in the future. If the DCNR position is that what remains is too high of a value to lease then why doesn't Pennfuture simply support the DCNR assessment that no more land should be subject to leasing?
 
franklin,

Truth be told, it took me a while to find it on the website too. Make sure you click on the map in the center of the page (the one with the blue dots) to read their most recent scientific assessment. Warning: it takes a while to load.

Below is the text from the Executive Order signed by Governor Rendell. It is not a temporary ban, it is a permanent ban. However, the next governor can, through his own Executive Order, lift the ban. My thinking is that the Governor issued the ban to bring to light the value of the remaining acerage, followed the sage advice of his Secretary of DCNR and the findings of the DCNR staff, as well as to put the next governor in a tight spot should he lift that ban. If the Governor-elect removes the ban, there will be a political price to pay for that action.

I think what you and others may be doing is confusing a ban with a moratorium. Many news reports have called it a moratorium, which, by definition, means that it is a short term ban that could be lifted after further consideration and study, much like NY has done. PA's is a true ban, until the next governor acts, whether to keep it in place or overturn it with his own Executive Order.

PennFuture does support the ban, as well as supports the findings of the DCNR, that no more state forest land should be leased. The Camo Coalition has an action alert on our site, asking the Governor elect to maintain the ban. He has publicly stated he will overturn the ban, but it was clear by his statement, he thought the ban would stop drilling on existing leases. That is not the case.


The Executive Order:

By Direction of: Edward G. Rendell, Governor

WHEREAS, the commonwealth owns more than 2.4 million acres of state forest and state park land containing some of Pennsylvania's most precious and rare natural resources, including wild and natural areas, old growth forests, pristine streams, scenic vistas, and river gorges; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has a duty pursuant to the Conservation and Natural Resources Act (Act of June 28, 1995, P.L. 89, No. 18) to conserve and maintain state forests and state parks for the use and benefit of all its citizens as guaranteed by Section 27 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania; and

WHEREAS, Pennsylvania’s state forest system has been certified through an independent scientific review to be compliant with the gold standard for environmentally and socially responsible forestry established by the international Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and this certification is vital to the economic viability of the forest products industry in Pennsylvania; and

WHEREAS, more than 700,000 acres of the state forest and state park land are currently subject to oil and gas development, including development in the Marcellus shale formation, either through leases executed with the commonwealth or through private ownership or leasing where the commonwealth does not own the subsurface oil and gas; and

WHEREAS, the approximately 800,000 acres of state forest land that are currently not available for development of gas in the Marcellus shale formation contain significant environmental, eco-tourism, and recreational values, sometimes overlapping, including:
• 180,000 acres of high-value ecosystems designated as wild and natural areas;
• 200,000 acres of old growth forests;
• 128,000 acres with sensitive environmental resources (e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, threatened and endangered species, steep slopes, unique habitats) and valuable recreational resources (e.g., scenic vistas and viewsheds, trails, leased camps);
• 299,000 acres in remote areas generally inaccessible by motorized vehicles and offering wilderness experiences paralleling those in the Western United States;
• 88,000 acres of highly valued recreational and water resources in the Poconos in close proximity to many residents;
• 20,000 acres important to ecotourism in the Laurel Highlands region; and

WHEREAS, the advances in technology that have made development of gas in the Marcellus shale formation possible and profitable have led to a rapid and significant increase in the level of development activity on state forest and state park land; and

WHEREAS, in the next 10 to 20 years, full development of the gas in the Marcellus shale formation on state forest and state park land currently subject to drilling will result in the use of more than 30,000 acres for an estimated 1,100 well pads and associated infrastructure, access roads and pipelines; and

WHEREAS, the impact of the five-fold increase in the acreage of state forest and state park land that will be used for gas development as a result of activity in the Marcellus shale formation cannot be fully understood or predicted at this early stage of development; and

WHEREAS, additional gas development in the Marcellus shale formation on state forest and state park land will significantly increase openings in large blocks of currently contiguous forest canopies resulting in fragmentation and stress from invasive species and disease—the cumulative effect of which could fundamentally alter these forest ecosystems; and

WHEREAS, changes to surface and groundwater hydrology resulting from the increased drilling activity and the fracturing process required to develop gas in the Marcellus shale formation will need to be carefully monitored as drilling progresses to evaluate potential impacts; and

WHEREAS, additional leasing of state forest and state park land for oil and gas development will jeopardize DCNR’s ability to fulfill its duty to conserve and maintain this public natural resource and sustain its FSC forest certification.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Edward G. Rendell, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other laws, do hereby direct the following:

1. DCNR Oil and Gas Leasing. As of the date of this Executive Order, to protect the lands of the commonwealth, no lands owned and managed by DCNR shall be leased for oil and gas development.

2. Effective Date. This Executive Order shall be effective immediately.
 
Thanks Ed, count me as a member. I'm all signed up now.
 
Thanks again Ed. That clears up a common miss-conception. At the time of the executive order I did not read the order itself but I did read a number of news reports. I went back and looked over some news articles from that time. Many used the term moratorium and I couldn't find any in my admittedly quick check that detailed the fact that the DCNR concluded all land fitting "lease able" criteria was leased. It came across as a response to the debate over a severance tax which several reports seemed to imply.
 
Back
Top