Possible Hiking Ban on Game Lands

[Bamboozle]

salmonoid wrote:

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.

Yea really, why let laws or the truth get in the way of good old fashioned rumors, supposition and 3rd hand information. ;-)

To be honest, I advocate a written test to get a fishing or hunting license like they do in Europe. The amount of ignorance amongst the masses on the rules & regulations, not to mention awareness of the resource is staggering.

 

[bigcountryhuntr]

As a hunter who hunts SGLs I have been on both sides of the fence. I've had cross country skiers come right past me on opening day of rifle. Was I pissed, you bet. But its their life their risking that time of year. Its public ground let the public use it. If there are other hunters that hunt SGL on here they will probably (definitely) agree that the people that got this proposed are the same hunters that park their butts 50-100 feet from their vehicle and wonder why they never see deer. Should the hikers be required to wear orange? Yes but only for the safety. As a hiker also I always wear colors that pop in woods when not engaged in hunting so that if something bad happened during my hike it would be easier for others to rescue/save me or the people in my group.

Also I read somewhere in one of the repliess that the public is allowed to use SGL gun ranges. Wrong! Nowadays you either have to have a hunting license or state issued permit.

 

[jifigz]

Hiking and backpacking are easily one of my favorite hobbies. The problem with this proposal is that it would ban hiking for nearly half of the year through game lands. The problem with some supporters saying that their are plenty of state forests and state parks to enjoy during this time obviously do not backpack. Backpacking trails are often many miles and run through state forests, game lands, private property, state parks, and maybe even other locales. This means that I could not hike these trails for half of the year? That just seems crazy. Especially when the amount of time I can already find to do a week long hike is very minimal and now I must find that amount of time during only half of the year.

There is a high density of hunters packed into the state game lands and the state forests. Is a few hikers/backpackers going to affect your hunting more than the already overcrowded amount of hunters utilizing the same area? I don't think so. I do not hike during rifle season because of the density of hunters and the nature of the weapons that they are using. The other hunting seasons, however, I will definitely backpack and hike. I think that the ban should only cover rifle season if the ban goes into effect.

If the law is passed I will still backpack during hunting season. I will buy a hunting license. What are they going to tell me then? I am not hunting and I'm clearly only hiking? Well I'm scouting the area lol. I think it is stupid.

 

[CodorusTUTom]

I wonder what would happen if we all asked the PF&BC to ban all boating, rafting, and other uses on all commonwealth trout waters during fishing season. After all, they're managed using fishing license dollars right?

Just using one ridiculous example to illustrate another...

 

[FiveWeight]

If this has been brought to the forefront already I apologize. These state game lands are just that. Game Lands. They are not public lands. They, for the most part were not purchased with the general populace tax dollars. They have either been donated(very small percent) or bought with the monies from hunting license sales and an extra tax that is put on hunting items. So the lands that have been bought through hunters monies are now being used in some cases very hard by everybody that enjoys the great outdoors. Horse, hikers, bikers, snowmobiling, 4 wheelers, etc. Now lets look at this from an entirely different perspective. What if, for the past say, what. 100 years the hikers, horseback riders and all the others had an organization that bought said properties for them to use and they had been paying a fee for these types of transactions to take place so they knew that they would have a place to do their thing. Well as time went by and the hunting on private land got smaller and smaller, the million or so hunters in this Commonwealth looked upon these lands and thought... Wow, this is a God sent for us to use for hunting. Tell me now, how F'n loud do you think the yell'n and cry'n would be over that? If all these so called lovers of the great outdoors really care about what it takes to have lands like this.... Then man up and pay a yearly fee for it like the hunters do. I'm pretty pleased paying the $40.00+ for my hunting license that allows me access to state game lands about the size of Delaware +-. For the life of me I just can't understand why people seem to think they are owed something for no input. Even if I didn't hunt. $35.00/$40.00 a year to use these lands is one hell of a deal. These are not public tax payer purchased lands. Hunters have bought them through the years. But have no fear freeloaders.... The issue has been tabled and there will be no vote on this in the month of January.

 

[BrookieChaser]

FiveWeight, I agree. Fishing licenses did not pay for SGL's. People seem to forget, at times, the two agencies are separate.

The only people, other than hunters (hunting license buyers) that have a legitimate right to SGL's would be birders. The land is managed for non-game species, so they'd have a valid argument.

The other people are using the SGL's on the hunter's dime. So the least they could do is be courteous to them during the fall.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

My point was that there are news articles etc out there misleading people, telling them they don't have to wear orange. And the requirement is only for a month.

Your original post seemed to suggest you think it is common knowledge to wear orange in gamelands year round, and I think think that is true at all. Maybe for educated people like ourselves with common sense, but to people who randomly decide to go out on a hike?

That's all.


Also, hunting licenses are not the only thing that fund SGL's so you guys should probably look into that... sporting arms and ammo, among other things, play into that. But the fact that we "bought" something from them that allowed them to purchase land doesn't meant we have any more entitlement to the property than the next guy. You don't get to tell Walmart what to do because you buy your groceries there, do you? In the end, they get to decide if they want to allow access for people to do more than just hunt (fish, hike, ride, etc) on the lands. Yes, the main purpose is hunting, but I don't think we should act so entitled to public/gov property that is funded through several means.

The hiking ban idea was "dropped" yesterday anways. It was not a good idea. Allowing hiking, enforcing the orange year round, and better educating the public and hikers about hunting seasons would be the best thing to do.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Who buys sporting arms and ammo? Notice I said sporting arms.

Hunters that's who.

Also, PR funds are distributed based on hunting license sales.

 

[chubmaster]

For me it is a question of courtesy. I don't want anyone having their rights infringed using public land, but SGL are used primarily for hunting. When there is snow on the ground, I only hike on trails that are (primarily) hiking only. I stay off of the X/C ski trails and give them the courtesy of keeping their tracks maintained. It sucks to have a person tromp all over their ski tracks with snowshoes, I get it.

I stay off of snowmobile trails to avoid a hazardous situation involving a fast moving snowmobile and a relatively stationary guy in snowshoes. I am the one with something to lose, I respect that.

I am a hunter, and I do not use state game lands. But with the wealth of fishing/hiking in our state, why would you strut around on SGL during a major hunting season? Is taking in a day of fishing on SGL during the 2 weeks of deer season or bear season worth the risk?

As some of the other site members have said, I do not mind guys walking around and pushing game to me, but from their end, do they want to unwillingly play the part in an unknown deer drive?

I wish common sense could prevail, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[dryflyguy]

I've always thought that buying a hunting license gives a person the right to shoot and harvest animals - i.e., paying for that privilege.
And a person just hiking - even on game land - is leaving only his his/her bootprints. But - according to some of you - they would be freeloading?

And interesting scenario - and I've done this quite a few times:
I'm out for a drive on a beautiful fall day with my wife. And we come across a nice looking stream that just happens to lie on state game land. I'd like to check it out - just to see if it looks worthwhile to come back and fish someday And we take a little walk along it.
So, what are we doing? Not fishing - but hiking? And in violation., if this new proposal would have gone through.

Seems pretty silly to me

 

[troutbert]

chubmaster wrote:
For me it is a question of courtesy. I don't want anyone having their rights infringed using public land, but SGL are used primarily for hunting. When there is snow on the ground, I only hike on trails that are (primarily) hiking only. I stay off of the X/C ski trails and give them the courtesy of keeping their tracks maintained. It sucks to have a person tromp all over their ski tracks with snowshoes, I get it.

I stay off of snowmobile trails to avoid a hazardous situation involving a fast moving snowmobile and a relatively stationary guy in snowshoes. I am the one with something to lose, I respect that.

I am a hunter, and I do not use state game lands. But with the wealth of fishing/hiking in our state, why would you strut around on SGL during a major hunting season? Is taking in a day of fishing on SGL during the 2 weeks of deer season or bear season worth the risk?

As some of the other site members have said, I do not mind guys walking around and pushing game to me, but from their end, do they want to unwillingly play the part in an unknown deer drive?

I wish common sense could prevail, but I'm not holding my breath.

The PGC proposal was to prohibit non-hunters from setting foot on the land for nearly half the year. You could go somewhere else, but other public land is hunted also, so carries the same safety risk.

There is really no difference between going out on state forest land or ANF land versus state gamelands during hunting season.

The basic practical political situation for the PGC is that very large numbers of the public like to go for walks in SGLs. And many of those people vote and politically active. It's likely that many legislators would take their side.

The PGC could try to fight that battle, but they would be playing a dangerous game politically. The PGC (like the PFBC) were created by votes of the legislatures and a signature of the governor.

The agency could be eliminated in exactly the same way, and the lands and functions simply folded into a larger DCNR, the way it's done in all states other than PA.

The PGC (and the PFBC) are aware of that. The PGC put the proposal out there, but when they saw how much negative response it got, they withdrew it. If they were truly "independent" they would have stuck with it. But they know their power is limited.

It's still a state agency, and SGLs are state public lands. The state government created the agency and retains ultimate control over it.

 

[Bamboozle]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Who buys sporting arms and ammo? Notice I said sporting arms.

Hunters that's who.

Also, PR funds are distributed based on hunting license sales.

I own lots of guns & don't hunt. Are the monies allocated to the Game Commission from the sales of these items only received if I show them a hunting license?

And no, not every non-hunting gun owner only has AK-47's so I guess I've legitimized my SGL usage. ;-)

 

[troutbert]

-----------------------------------------------------
In a press release, the Executive Board of the Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners, through board President Robert W. Schlemmer, announced that the item proposing creation of a state game lands user permit is being deleted from the board's Jan. 27 meeting agenda.

In addition to creating the free permit, the proposal called for adding hiking to the list of activities that can occur only on Sundays during the height of hunting seasons, joining the ranks of bicycling, snowmobiling and "animals for conveyance."

Schlemmer said the board received hundreds of public comments about the proposal and wants to allow more time to properly consult with hunters, conservation partners and elected officials about it.

"The Appalachian Mountain Club commends the Board of the Pennsylvania Game Commission for listening to the public and deciding not move forward with a proposal to ban hiking during hunting seasons on state game lands," Mark Zakutansky, the Mid-Atlantic Policy Manager of the Appalachian Mountain Club, said in an email after receiving the news.
--------------------------------------------------------

They made the proposal, but got hundreds of responses against it, including from organized groups. So they dropped the proposal. This is the way things work.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Bamboozle wrote:

I own lots of guns & don't hunt. Are the monies allocated to the Game Commission from the sales of these items only received if I show them a hunting license?

And no, not every non-hunting gun owner only has AK-47's so I guess I've legitimized my SGL usage. ;-)[/quote]

That's a catch 22. You paid into the PR fund by purchasing sporting arms for self defense. The state did not incur as high of a percentage of PR funds as it could because you, and I'm sure others, did not buy a hunting license.

 

[tulenkot]

Does anyone think that the PGC does an excellent job of enforcing the existing regulations? Hiking is the least of there problems. A hunter is a hunters worst enemy. Poaching, vandalism (think about how many signs have been shot on a Gamelands road), road and vehicle hunting, and trespassing are rampant in PA. How about they work on some of those problems?

 

[dryflyguy]

tulenkot wrote:
Does anyone think that the PGC does an excellent job of enforcing the existing regulations? Hiking is the least of there problems. A hunter is a hunters worst enemy. Poaching, vandalism (think about how many signs have been shot on a Gamelands road), road and vehicle hunting, and trespassing are rampant in PA. How about they work on some of those problems?

I think they do about a good a job as can be expected, given their limited manpower.
And I would agree that they certainly have a lot more important problems to keep after, than people hiking on game lands illegally.

 

[JeffK]

I'm of many minds here. I see that Game lands should be primarily for hunting, but as parts of the state develop and become suburban they become both parks for walking your dog etc and more valuable for hunting as open land disappears. Can cause conflicts. The only out I see is common sense. I saw common sense work in the 70's when I lived in Central NYS and battles among the cross country skiers, snowmobilers, and hunter heated up. It briefly got ugly, but settled down when each side, through clubs, put down what they wanted most (ie skiers wanted quiet and not to have their tracks messed up) and came up with a plan. It worked well, but the use was by locals so it was easier to compromise. The people knew each other already. That is a stumbling block now that Im not sure how to address. In his polarized world each side is at fault, not just a neighbor who likes to ski more than hunt or snowmobile.

 

[oakesna]

To me, as licensed hunter who does not have access to private property, I enjoy the fact that some of the money from my license purchase is put towards the maintenance and ability to use these public game lands. One of the most irritating and frustrating things I have experienced is seeing game and then having it scared off by hikers tromping through the woods where I am hunting. I agree that if hikers would like to use these lands, they too must contribute to the maintenance and upkeep through permits. I also believe that those who truly want to hike the game lands would be the ones willing to buy a permit and would most likely be respectful and have an understanding of what these game lands mean to us hunters using them. That's my stance on this issue.

 

[k-bob]

how bout a parking permit for sgl lots?... free w hunting license, rest of us can buy one for $20/year. easier to enforce, and in many sgls you really need to use the sgl lots.

 

[nickyfins]

They should probably just ban untrained selfish people and we would be better off