Possible Hiking Ban on Game Lands

i think its a good idea..hikers can go hike in state forest during hunting season..leave the game lands that the hunters pay for to the hunters. i get mad enough when another hunter tramples into my area disturbing the woods around me that i have been sitting dead still, quiet for hours on end, let alone a hiker that shouldn't even be there in the first place.
 
The proposal does seem kind of knee jerk to me.

A good compromise would be ban hiking on state game lands only during the rifle and muzzle loader seasons. I don't think it is necessary during small game or turkey seasons.

If you don't like to see hikers, don't hunt along the trails.

So, lets say it goes through.

The way around this would be for hikers who want to hike during hunting season to simply buy a hunting license. If stopped, just say you are participating in a hunt. This fit the state's description of hunting.

For example after you have limited out, it is legal to still participate in a hunt as long as you don't carry a gun. But you still MUST wear the license. But there is no law that says you can't do this without limiting out. Oh yea, and wear the required orange.

It is game lands, so I don't find that unreasonable.
 
raftman wrote:
Are the game lands open to drilling/fracking?
Click to expand...

Not without a license.
 
Here's an easy solution, make the trail areas a safety zone, dump the idea of a free access permit, really what's the point of a free permit anyway? If you don't have a hunting license, then you have to pay for a permit even if it's only a buck or 2, that makes more sense then free permit. What does that stupid idea accomplish?
Make the permit available online then it doesn't cost the PGC anything for printing.
To me people using SGL's should be required to have a hunting license, it should have always been that way.
 
tomitrout wrote:
Hmm, the Appalachian and Horseshoe Trails run right through SGL 211. This ought to be fun. *grabs lawn chair and popcorn*
Click to expand...

Those are exempted, see Troutbert's snip of the actual proposals.
Click to expand...

Yes the AT is exempt but the local hikers are asking the question: How do I get to the AT that cuts through a SGL if I can't use a SGL trail?

A lot of local hiking clubs section hike the AT, they also maintain the trail and the shelters and they use SGL trails to gain access to the AT.

The other question would be, what about the AT through hikers, how do they get from the trail off the trail to resupply if they have to stay on the trail and can't walk through the SGL.

 
There seems to be some confusion in here. SGL's are not managed for fishing, unless there is a lake then the lake is run by the PFBC. It just is a lake on an SGL. Now the PGC has allowed, and worked on, some reclamation work on streams from AMD. But that is not the primary goal for SGL's.

SGL's are managed for game and non-game species of mammals and birds. Hunting is a way to manage populations, and the hunters pay for licenses, so it's encouraged.

Jack, your proposal of the notion of banning hunting on SF's proves your ignorance on the subject of silviculture. DCNR (owns and manages SF's) was responsible for pushing the PGC to knock down the deer population.
 
Hmmm, this can get sticky. One thing, there are many gamelands on the western side of the state that are the result of the western PA conservancy, lands that were sold and/or donated to the PGC to prevent development and allow future PUBLIC access.
BUT, I can see the hunters point of view, and while I don't hunt, I also DO NOT hike in game lands during hunting seasons, I let the hunters have the woods. If I do hike, or fish on game lands, I do it on sundays.
I think this issue stems from game lands near urban population centers where people think of them as parks and swarm to them for outdoor recreation, perhaps not realizing there may be hunting going on at the time, or maybe the don't give a damn.
instead of actually banning hiking, at least educate people that it's unwise to hike there during hunting season, and in fact it can be dangerous.
of course, in certain neighborhoods, stray bullets flying around is no big deal!!LOL!
I ALSO know many hunters that enjoy HIKING in the gamelands without actually hunting in them, so what do we do about that?? many love to follow tracks, scout out game trails, etc.
 
I heard my name from across the room, but don't have the energy to laugh out loud.
 
wait, so are we allowed now to hunt hikers on SGL land in season or not ????
 
A couple of thoughts from a Pennsylvanian living in North Carolina; whether it is relevant or not is up to you.

Hiking and Fishing is allowed in NC gamelands. A buddy who lives down here and originally from PA went fishing with me in a gameland this weekend. I personally would not do it when hunters are active. I would guess that hunters are a bit more dangerous here than back home. I hunt and I am regularly amazed (or scared) by the stuff I see. I have also fished in PA gamelands without incident but I must admit I was concerned during turkey season. I quit hunting in gamelands in 93 when a guy on the other side of a hedgerow shot at a woodcock and almost blew my face off this was in Mercer Co.

I am Army and stationed on Fort Bragg. We have a hiking/mountain bike trail that runs several miles along the back of the base. It is closed during hunting season as a guy was shot about three years ago while running on the trail.

Maybe the right answer is partial closings during peak seasons, like deer rifle and turkey seasons? I'd like to think all hunters are safe and ethical, but I know better.

Back in Nov, I had a 1/10th of a second glance at a large buck while on a veteran's hunt. I caught a lot of flack for not taking a shot through the brush... I'd rather go deerless than risk killing somebody.
 
BrookieChaser wrote:
There seems to be some confusion in here. SGL's are not managed for fishing, unless there is a lake then the lake is run by the PFBC. It just is a lake on an SGL. Now the PGC has allowed, and worked on, some reclamation work on streams from AMD. But that is not the primary goal for SGL's.

SGL's are managed for game and non-game species of mammals and birds. Hunting is a way to manage populations, and the hunters pay for licenses, so it's encouraged.

Jack, your proposal of the notion of banning hunting on SF's proves your ignorance on the subject of silviculture. DCNR (owns and manages SF's) was responsible for pushing the PGC to knock down the deer population.
Click to expand...

SGL may not be managed for fishing, but fishing is one of the three activities that allows you to access a SGL year round.

 
I'm not arguing the fact fishing gives you access to SGL's. I'm pointing out that fishing is not the purpose of SGL's as the posts read. Fishing is a by-product of the true purpose of SGL's. A happy accident, if you will.

I agree with Chaz, if you want to use SGL's, buy a hunting license and help support the cause.
 
Isn't most of Clark's Creek and all of the Fly Fishing Only area in SGL 211?
 
PENZZZ,
I was thinking the same thing. There are non-hunters like me who have seen the value of the Game Commission acquiring land for present and future generations of outdoorsmen and wildlife, including hikers, and have contributed to conservancies with the specific intent of helping them help the PGC acquire land when the price per acre exceeded that which the PGC was permitted to spend.
 
Open up a season on hikers in sgl's, open bag limit. I have a feeling few will hike there.
 
One of my favorite streams is in state game lands, and I fish it pretty much year round.

I have both my hunting license and fishing license, so I'm using whatever land I can for whatever purpose I want.

I think a better solution would be to require hikers to wear orange during hunting season while hiking in state game lands, along with the "free hiking license". Hiking without orange = fines.

Anyways, I realize you are asserting that the game lands are only for hunting and trapping, and I agree those are the main purposes. However it says right on the PAGC web page that the land is for "wildlife and recreation" and on several pages about what the Game Lands are, that they are for "hunting, trapping, and fishing." Obviously fishing is under a different jurisdiction than hunting, but that doesn't mean the PAGC can't facilitate access for fishing as part of their goals, cooperatively with the PAFBC. I don't think it's an accident that they allow fishing. They say right on the page that you can fish there. Also, they obviously support fishing and make exceptions to the hiking rule for fishing in addition to hunting and trapping. Including it in a category with the other two things you mention as "purpose", but leaving every other recreational activity out makes me think they want to support fishing/it is also a purpose. Maybe it is a "happy accident". Maybe not. Honestly not worth debating over, because it is what it is. Definition isn't gona change that.
 
Chaz wrote:
Here's an easy solution, make the trail areas a safety zone, dump the idea of a free access permit, really what's the point of a free permit anyway? If you don't have a hunting license, then you have to pay for a permit even if it's only a buck or 2, that makes more sense then free permit. What does that stupid idea accomplish?
Make the permit available online then it doesn't cost the PGC anything for printing.
To me people using SGL's should be required to have a hunting license, it should have always been that way.
Click to expand...

Chaz, about the safety zone part. I think that would be problematic for a few reasons. Here are a couple of them.

Define trail. Major long distance trails are already exempt. Not everyone sticks to well established trails. I don't.

Wouldn't establishment of these types of safety zones require extensive signage? We have too many signs in the woods as it is. Signs suck, and would also cost a lot of money.

Other than that, we likely agree on the rest.
 
Aducker wrote:
tomitrout wrote:
Hmm, the Appalachian and Horseshoe Trails run right through SGL 211. This ought to be fun. *grabs lawn chair and popcorn*
Click to expand...

Those are exempted, see Troutbert's snip of the actual proposals.
Click to expand...

Yes the AT is exempt but the local hikers are asking the question: How do I get to the AT that cuts through a SGL if I can't use a SGL trail?

A lot of local hiking clubs section hike the AT, they also maintain the trail and the shelters and they use SGL trails to gain access to the AT.

The other question would be, what about the AT through hikers, how do they get from the trail off the trail to resupply if they have to stay on the trail and can't walk through the SGL.
Click to expand...

The last paragraph is a "mostly" non-issue in my opinion. How many through hikers really egress and ingress through state game lands? I'd imagine this type of thing happens more at road access points. However, I have never hiked the AT except on park land.

IMO, the locals have valid points which could (should) be dealt with if the concept goes through which would resolve any remaining issue with your last paragraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top