Possible Hiking Ban on Game Lands

[poopdeck]

It's interesting to read some of the hunters side of this. Basically it goes like this ~ I am a hunter do not infringe upon my right to hunt. Instead, go infringe upon the rights of courtesy lacking hikers who walk through my mountian scaring the deer I am hunting. Don't those hikers know how dangerous it is to be in the woods during hunting season. Somebody needs to protect them from their own ignorance.

 

[Aducker]

FarmerDave wrote:

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*

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

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.

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.

FD I agree there's not many but there are some, (I'm one of them, and I've seen them when fishing too parading past me heading for a mini mart to re supply) and like you say this concern should be addressed with the local hiking communities comments if the proposal goes through. It's just a question that the hikers are asking and want addressed was what I was stating.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

It's not about protecting hikers from their own incidence. It's about safety for everyone and a productive hunting experience for hunters. Really, simply requiring the wearing of orange while hiking through game lands pretty much solves all the problems, along with a little pamphlet about courtesy to hunters and sticking to trails during season, that could be distributed with the "hiking permit" they are requiring or whatever. A fair and safe compromise, I think.

 

[Bamboozle]

Since when are hikers or any one else not hunting, NOT required to meet the blaze orange requirements in SGL's?

I have asked and been told REPEATEDLY by the PA Game Commission that ANYONE using an SGL during hunting season has to meet those requirements including fisherman.

Whether or not they would cite you if you didn't, I can't answer but I know I wear orange when required.

 

[FarmerDave]

poopdeck wrote:
It's interesting to read some of the hunters side of this. Basically it goes like this ~ I am a hunter do not infringe upon my right to hunt. Instead, go infringe upon the rights of courtesy lacking hikers who walk through my mountian scaring the deer I am hunting. Don't those hikers know how dangerous it is to be in the woods during hunting season. Somebody needs to protect them from their own ignorance.

I'm guessing you don't hunt. :lol:

It seems to me that there were several reasonable responses from hunters and non-hunters alike.

Yea, there might have been a few responses towards to one extreme, a few of those were likely in jest. I see your response as just the opposite extreme.

You are just detracting from an otherwise reasonable discussion.

 

[FarmerDave]

I think bikerfish had it about right and I don't know if he hunts or not.

In addition to what he said, this could be a reaction to deliberate harassment of hunters which is also more common on state land near larger population areas.

Apparently it has become common enough that PA and 40 other states already have laws against harassing hunters. Trust me, I looked it up.

But in order for someone to be cited in PA, it has to be proven that it was deliberate. I looked that up, too. Can you prove it was deliberate if someone is just walking around? I don't think so. But proving that someone was "hiking" where they were not supposed to be in the first place is a whole lot easier.

It seems to me that this would be the next logical step of the hunter harassment laws are not working.

It's speculation, but I bet the non-hunting "hikers" can blame their potential loss of areas to "hike" on deliberate acts as well as lack of courtesy.

I do not hunt on game lands.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

Bamboozle wrote:
Since when are hikers or any one else not hunting, NOT required to meet the blaze orange requirements in SGL's?

I have asked and been told REPEATEDLY by the PA Game Commission that ANYONE using an SGL during hunting season has to meet those requirements including fisherman.

Whether or not they would cite you if you didn't, I can't answer but I know I wear orange when required.

Bamboozle, see how many hikers know that. Also, just because they told you that doesn't mean it's law, sadly. I agree, wear it when required by law, however that law isn't overly clear, and I doubt many people know it.

I'm talking year round hunting seasons including bow, small game, turkey, whatever else. There is almost always something in season. Not just rifle and muzzle loader/deer. Seems like the goal of this is to keep hikers safe, and enhance the hunting experience at the same time, right? So why not make it year round for hikers in game lands.

Also according to one article, the orange requirement is only about a month (Nov 15-Dec 15). I found a few saying the same thing now actually, and it seems accurate.

Then there is this article... http://lancasteronline.com/news/hunters-wear-orange-hikers-don-t-have-to/article_541c7072-b0a1-5d20-a777-7ef2a22a2d1c.html

Telling people the contrary...

Regardless, I actually know of a guy who was shot in the head, apparently his hair looked like a ground hawg. I have also heard a lot of stories about people being shot in spring turkey season, probably more than deer/rifle.

 

[troutbert]

Apparently they have dropped the proposal:

http://touch.mcall.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82602003/

 

[kbobb]

A ban on hiking, etc seems a little extreme. I think users of gamelands or PFBC properties should pay fee for a "use permit" if they don't have a fishing or hunting license. this could generate significant revenue for agencies that are already financially strapped. I have to purchase a state park permit or boat registration to use boat ramps, either in state park or PFBC (boaters are already paying for use of waters/registrations even if they don't fish -PFBC personnel have to regulate these folks same as fishermen and that costs money). I have to pay a fee to camp overnight in state parks and they were acquired with public monies.

I have to buy a fishing or hunting license to engage in those activities and the money goes toward the management, regulation and acquisition af additional properties for fishing and hunting AND use by non-fishers and non-hunters.

If you want to use game lands or fish commision waters for activities other than fishing or hunting either buy a fishing or hunting license, or require a user permit with the monies to be distributed between the appropriate regulatory/managemnt agencies.
Frankly hikers can inadvertently put on some of the best deer drives!

 

[somersetian]

God forbid people can just go walk around in the woods without a permit or regulation about it.

 

[Bamboozle]

BrooksAndHooks wrote: Bamboozle, see how many hikers know that. Also, just because they told you that doesn't mean it's law, sadly. I agree, wear it when required by law, however that law isn't overly clear, and I doubt many people know it.

I only mentioned it because I got the impression from other posts, (either because it was implied or I am stupid), that requiring hikers to wear blaze orange was going to be a NEW regulation.

I doubt many hikers or other casual users know or care to know what the regulations are on SGL's, and of course there is the moron or the militant faction that just don't care. I don't hunt but I know the rules because I'm one of those weird people who calls the appropriate agency when I have a question regarding regulations...

...instead of posting a question on the Internet.

Unfortunately, PA Game Commission signage can be a vague as the PFBC's. When you read the blaze orange signage at a SGL, it really doesn't specify that ALL persons need to follow the regulations so you aren't sure, which is why I called the Game Commission many years ago to make sure.

I fish a lot in SGL's because many times it is the only available public access to streams. I avoid most during deer season because quite frankly, it isn't worth taking the chance for me, even with my blaze orange hat, vest & bandanna. Because of the law and because I don't want to get shot, I play by the rules on SGL's, especially when I consider myself a guest which I do as a non-hunter.

In regards to paying a "use" fee: if people are going to apply the logic that a non-hunter should pay something because they don't contribute by buying a hunting license, then I will apply the same logic to PFBC property.

When ALL non-fishing license holding watercraft users, swimmers, picnickers, dog walkers, Frisbee tossers, sunbathers, etc. pay a fee on PFBC property...

...I'll gladly pay a SGL "use" fee. ;-)

 

[Chaz]

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.

Easy, buy a hunting license.

 

[Chaz]

There are signs now in all the SGL's that suggest blaze orange during hunting season. Shame on those that don't head the message.

 

[troutfanatic]

FarmerDave wrote:
I think bikerfish had it about right and I don't know if he hunts or not.

In addition to what he said, this could be a reaction to deliberate harassment of hunters which is also more common on state land near larger population areas.

Apparently it has become common enough that PA and 40 other states already have laws against harassing hunters. Trust me, I looked it up.

But in order for someone to be cited in PA, it has to be proven that it was deliberate. I looked that up, too. Can you prove it was deliberate if someone is just walking around? I don't think so. But proving that someone was "hiking" where they were not supposed to be in the first place is a whole lot easier.

It seems to me that this would be the next logical step of the hunter harassment laws are not working.

It's speculation, but I bet the non-hunting "hikers" can blame their potential loss of areas to "hike" on deliberate acts as well as lack of courtesy.

I do not hunt on game lands.

Bravo!

and I don't blame you. I quit the gamelands in PA a long time ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with me joining the Army and moving either because I still hunt in PA.

 

[troutfanatic]

Chaz wrote:
There are signs now in all the SGL's that suggest blaze orange during hunting season. Shame on those that don't head the message.

I did not know that. I wish there were signs like that down here in NC. Truth is, even hunters only need to wear an orange hat in NC during deer rifle season. Might be a brilliant idea for me to wear my hunting hat when I fish these gamelands down here,

I assume PA still has the 100 Square inches rule?

I always wear a full jacket of orange in PA, but hunters are a bit nuttier down this way and I stay away from public land as much as I can here.

 

[KeithS]

Again, no one wants to take any personal responsibility even for their own safety. Sure, you don't HAVE TO wear orange if not hunting, but why take the chance? I keep an orange ball cap in the car IN CASE I go to an SGL. If it's hunting season, I don't go to an SGL.

 

[ratgunner]

The Game Lands were bought with and are maintained with hunters dollars. Maybe hikers can get together and buy land to hike on. You also can't use Game Land shooting ranges if you don't have a hunting license. If you do hike on Game Lands you also need to wear the proper amount of orange.
I was fishing last fall on Clarks and met a warden. I had an orange hat on. We talked awhile and he said as long as I'm on Game Lands during hunting season I need to wear the orange hat. He said it's the law. Of course he wasn't wearing any lol.

 

[dryflyguy]

Yinz guys who are claiming that game lands are bought with hunting license money ONLY are flat out wrong ( see Bikerfish's post)
I've been a contributor to the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy for a long time.
And we get a quarterly newsletter stating recent activity by the organization. And I can recall quite a few parcels being bought and donated to the game commission over the years. And now they are/were thinking about restricting these lands to hunting only? Not fair IMO.

On the other hand, hunting is allowed on state forest land - and even some sections of state parks. Hmmmmmm

To me - public land is public land.
I've shared many waterways with people hiking, boating, swimming, etc. And I don't have a problem with it. They have as much right to be there doing their thing, as I do.

 

[poopdeck]

Detracting, never. True I do not hunt now but I hunted for years. I have nothing against hunters or hikers or anybody else and I am 100% in favor of doing whatever you want. I very much dislike when groups pit themselves against the other to pursue ones own desire. It's a big country and there is plenty of room for everybody. Let hunters hunt and hikers hike. Just because one pays a fee and the other don't doesn't garner anymore favor or an expectation that everybody needs to pay. This is a prime example of lawmakers searching to create more laws that border on the idiotic.

 

[salmonoid]

BrooksAndHooks wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:
Since when are hikers or any one else not hunting, NOT required to meet the blaze orange requirements in SGL's?

I have asked and been told REPEATEDLY by the PA Game Commission that ANYONE using an SGL during hunting season has to meet those requirements including fisherman.

Whether or not they would cite you if you didn't, I can't answer but I know I wear orange when required.

Bamboozle, see how many hikers know that. Also, just because they told you that doesn't mean it's law, sadly. I agree, wear it when required by law, however that law isn't overly clear, and I doubt many people know it.

I'm talking year round hunting seasons including bow, small game, turkey, whatever else. There is almost always something in season. Not just rifle and muzzle loader/deer. Seems like the goal of this is to keep hikers safe, and enhance the hunting experience at the same time, right? So why not make it year round for hikers in game lands.

Also according to one article, the orange requirement is only about a month (Nov 15-Dec 15). I found a few saying the same thing now actually, and it seems accurate.

Then there is this article... http://lancasteronline.com/news/hunters-wear-orange-hikers-don-t-have-to/article_541c7072-b0a1-5d20-a777-7ef2a22a2d1c.html

Telling people the contrary...

Regardless, I actually know of a guy who was shot in the head, apparently his hair looked like a ground hawg. I have also heard a lot of stories about people being shot in spring turkey season, probably more than deer/rifle.

Don't rely on news articles to get the facts right. At least they posted a clarification on the Lancaster Online article. Journalism today might be on par with Internet forums for fact checking ;-)

§ 135.41. State game lands.
c
(21)
Except on Sundays, be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on the head, chest and back combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the same colored material. The material shall be worn so it is visible in a 360° arc. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted from this requirement.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.