Legislative
Updates
In an effort to keep all sportsmen abreast of what is taking place in the Pennsylvania Legislative arena, the UBP maintains the Legislative Updates page on the UBP web site. Check here for up-to-date information concerning legislative and committee actions that effect sportsmen.
|
|
Legislative Report
May, 2008
It is March 19 as I sit down to write this May issue legislative report. There is so much going on just now, it is going to be a Herculean effort to keep this report brief by any stretch of the imagination.
First, we just concluded our 2008 UBP Winter Rendezvous. As is reported elsewhere in the newsletter, we had a visit by Senator John Eichelberger. The manner and procedure that produced this rare occurrence is a UBP success story in itself. There was also a meeting after the UBP event had concluded of a Sportsmen’s Coalition group, of which the UBP is a member, to discuss current affairs and pertinent legislation facing all sportsmen in the Commonwealth at this time. Our membership needs to know that these meetings of this nature are crucial to the ability of this organization to aggressively and successfully pursue the goals and objectives of the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania.
Next, your legislative director must report that after each issue of our newsletter I do receive commentary from a few UBP members who either disagree with the assessments contained in our legislative report, or are even vehemently upset with this organization’s viewpoints, direction and activities. The majority of these comments typically take issue with this organization’s support of the PGC, funding increases for the agency, and support of, or opposition to, specific legislation that deals with those issues. Unfortunately, the perspective through which our activities are viewed are all too often the old and severely scratched lenses of perceived deer populations.
Believe it or not, some of those who contact me actually believe that I, personally, determine the legislative policy of this organization. Or that I do not quite give the full picture of current events in these legislative reports. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my legislative report is reviewed by all seven members of the UBP Legislative Committee and then by the full UBP Board of Directors before it goes to print. Our organization has a mission statement that simply says, “Resource First.” That is supported by the statement that, to paraphrase, “wildlife and habitat management should be instituted using the best science available.” This should make perfect sense. There can be no bowhunting, no increase of opportunity, no enhancement to our sport unless our total natural ecosystems are healthy and productive. And, ironically enough, the application of science based management practices is how all wildlife and natural resource agencies in all 50 states operate. Increasingly, especially in the last two years, more peer review and sharing of information from state to state is occurring than in any time in my fifteen-year tenure as legislative director.
Additionally as I have reported, the non-hunting faction of all populations has become much more involved in all those processes we sportsmen alone had influenced in the past. Again, not at all surprisingly, all these groups also use the “best science” approach. Whether or not you like the fact, the days are long gone forever when sportsmen alone will dictate how wildlife and their habitats are managed. This is not a case of, “if you can’t beat them…”, This is instead a case of, “if you can’t beat them, then at least figure out a way to work productively with them.”.
Now have I taken upon myself to report events and current affairs
in Harrisburg to our membership as if it were the Gospel?? No. I have not.
One of the most common themes in the conversations I have with those disgruntled
members who contact me, is when questioned, they have never attended a
PGC meeting, never availed themselves of a habitat tour, or attended any
of the regularly scheduled educational opportunities that occur around
the state. I have always encouraged UBP board members, UBP legislative
committee members, UBP county reps and region directors, and UBP members
to attend any or all of these events. And they have, usually in good numbers.
In fact, the UBP is nearly always the best-represented organization at
any of these events and meetings. ALL who have attended have all seen,
and subsequently made up their own minds, and because of that, this organization
has become quite capable in the legislative arena. Your UBP leadership
continues to urge all our members to attend at least a couple of these
very educational opportunities. A well-informed UBP membership
has always been one of our strongest assets. Advance notice of opportunities
such as habitat tours and deer management seminars are frequently posted
in our newsletter, on the UBP website, and on the PGC website as well.
Gather up your family and attend one of them. You will enjoy the occasion.
Now the pressing issues that currently face us, and we are addressing as this is typed:
HB 1214 would address the terms of a PGC commissioner, shortening the term to four years, with a possible tenure of two terms, with legislative confirmation. I have reported in previous newsletters on the dire ramifications of this legislation. The bill is not dead, but sits in the senate pending.
HB 2205 addresses increased penalties for wildlife vio-lators. What ethical hunter would not support this Bill?? Presently, it is a bit snarled up with some technicalities in language, but practically all sportsmen’s’ organizations leaderships and the PGC are working together to correct the problem.
And last, but certainly not least, there is the ominous question of funding for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. It must be soon and is probably the foremost issue in the minds of all the sportsmen’s’ organizations. We ARE hard at work on that as I type. Some of those who have contacted me, looking through the extremely myopic lens of deer numbers, frequently say, “…let’s allow the PGC to go down.” I have reported on this issue before also. Two facts should be all that anyone needs to know about agency absorption by state government, to understand our UBP position on that. First, the logistics of making the switch, in themselves, take years to accomplish, with inevitable disruptions of all services. Second, no one has yet determined, and I doubt anyone can, what should become of nearly two million acres of public hunting lands purchased by and for hunters.
I’ll leave you with this thought. Those who become involved with
the processes of government and regulation, at least understand why they’re
headed where. Tip of the hat, to those who choose to become so involved.
Legislative Report
House Legislative Committee Hearing
Alternative Funding for Fish and Game Management
April 29, 2009
House Legislative Committee Hearing
House Bill 1676
United Bowhunters Of Pennsylvania
April 29, 2008
Good Morning Chairman Levdansky, Chairman Nickol, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee this morning. My name is Ed Wentzler, I am from Lycoming County, and I am the Legislative Director for the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, a position I have held under all but one UBP president and for a period of fifteen years now. Our organization presently has slightly more than four thousand avid members across the state, with a significant percentage of them in your district Chairman Levdansky, and also in yours, Chairman Nickol.
I served on the first Governor's Sportsmen's Advisory Council and I served on the first Deer Management Working Group in 1999-2000. I have represented the UBP as a member of the Sportsmen's Coalition since 1996. I am extremely proud of the enjoyable working relationships our organization has developed and maintains with nearly all of the other sportsmen's’ organizations in the Commonwealth, and with the entire PGC staff and the presently serving PGC Board of Commissioners. The UBP feels it is quite important for members of this committee to understand that we constantly monitor every aspect of the PGC’s operations and policies to assure they satisfy our own organization's mandate of “Resource First”. Suffice it to say, we are presently quite well satisfied. In addition, members of this committee, and all members of the General Assembly for that matter, need to know the UBP believes that affairs of government which affect our Commonwealth's priceless natural resources and thus, also, the rich heritages of our outdoor pursuits, should always be a bi-partisan effort of support.
As I am sure most of you are well aware, the
Fish and Wildlife Services of nearly every State in the Nation, whether
or not they are encompassed by the State Government or are independent
Agencies such as our own, are suffering severe financial difficulties.
Most have been forced to cut back on services and programs that serve our
fish and wildlife habitats, and in Pennsylvania alone the welfare of 467
species of birds and mammals, speaking from the PGC side of the issue,
which is our sole arena of activities.
Perhaps one of the best known examples of the counterpoint possibilities inherent in good funding structure is the State of Missouri. Many states’ fish and wildlife services, and their sportsmen and non-hunting populations alike, observe Missouri with some degree of envy, as Missouri is not cutting back on programs and services, but enhancing them instead. They seem to have the funding available to them to enhance their public information and education efforts and even to advertise the many diverse opportunities available to sportsmen coming to Missouri. They seem to have a rare potential for habitat improvement and restoration, and the amount of good new scientific data coming out of Missouri would certainly indicate they have the funding to support research in field. In a nutshell, one who has their ear to the wind, doesn't hear much in way of sportsmen's complaints coming from Missouri. A precursory examination of Missouri's funding structure reveals a percentage of their state sales tax supports fish, wildlife, and habitat efforts there.
The UBP has the luxury of an extremely fast, extremely accurate sampling mechanism. When we were invited to address this committee a little less than two weeks ago, we initiated a membership survey. Our membership is nearly eighty percent in favor of the provisions and concept of House Bill 1676. Additionally, when members who participate in our surveys have called in on this topic with specific questions or reasons of non-support, the information supplied them has resulted nearly unanimously with a change of position to support for the Bill. These calls have also illustrated the concerns of the UBP's membership and leadership for such legislation.
We strongly urge that no restraints, assignments, earmarks, or designations attach to funds appropriated to our respective Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Monies should go directly into the respective General Game, and Fish Funds. Such funding as proposed by HB 1676, among the many other benefits, would definitely offset future concerns for hunting and fishing license increases, which all of us in this room know are both unavoidable and imminent. The UBP urges you to make this piece of Legislation a priority, bi-partisan effort, and you have our organizations full support.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address
this committee this morning. The UBP is always available to answer
any questions members of the General Assembly might ask.
Legislative Report ( This month's report can be found by clicking here )
March, 2008
The following is Ed Wentzler's January, 2008 testimony at the PGC Meeting:
January 2008
Quarterly PGC BOC Meeting
United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Testimony
Good morning Commissioners, Director Roe, my name is Ed Wentzler. I am speaking on behalf of the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania this morning.
Our membership’s assessment of the hunting seasons of the 2007-2008 license year, once again, include some widely varying accounts of those seasons. Most agree hunting was quite challenging, but our membership continues to express fairly high satisfaction levels with their experiences afield, and in all regions of the State. We are confident that Dr. Ternet is carefully weighing data from the second archery bear season, and that the Wildlife Management Committee is already considering options for the future of PA’s archery bear season. Those of our membership who enjoyed additional hunting opportunities in WMUs 2B, 5C, and 5D express their gratitude for the provision and for the extra effort the Agency put forth to get antlerless licenses to them in time for the early opener. The rest of our membership continues to urge me to remind you there is still a huge reserve of unused time available for even greater opportunity to just hunt.
Another facet of our seasons and bag limits that seems to be generating widespread enthusiasm is Mentored Youth Hunting opportunities and expanded opportunities for Junior License holders. We are collecting stories from young people that wonderfully illustrate how two people’s lives are dramatically changed when one adult takes one young person hunting. We applaud these expanded opportunities, and share the belief with many other sportsmen’s groups, that there are still many enhancements that could and should be added to these programs.
We have reviewed the one change in deer management listed as a possible proposal for next year in WMU’s 2D, 2G, 3C, and 4B. Our major concern with the proposal would be some loss of opportunity for young people. However, if the BWM has discerned this step is necessary to improve deer management we would support the provision.
We would like to thank the Board of Commissioners for approving the half hour shooting hour’s extension. It was, to the best of our knowledge, well received and very safely observed. If one adds up the extra minutes each hunting day, it affords nearly an extra week of hunting and outdoor experience for each and every hunter in Pennsylvania.
The UBP continues to take every opportunity to support this Agency’s bid for funding in the form of either a license fee increase, and/or attractive and workable alternative funding. Please understand that we share the same concerns for our resources and their management that all of you do as well.
As always, we thank you for the opportunity to present our input here at these meetings, and are always available to assist in any way we can.
United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Legislative Report
UBP Annual Meeting
January 13, 2008
In the past year bowhunters have enjoyed relatively little threat
to our sport in way of regulatory changes in seasons or bag limits, or
from any legislative action on Capitol Hill.
With respect to proceedings at Elmerton Avenue, it is my opinion
that maintaining a steady course in deer management has required adhering
to a policy of minimal change in seasons and bag limits, by the Board of
Commissioners, to avoid any more than the usual constant and continuing
social objections to scientific wildlife management. At this juncture,
I would like to reiterate that I remain convinced that our present serving
PGC Board of Commissioners is the best collection of devoted and talented
individuals to ever serve sportsmen and the resources at one time.
With respect to proceedings on Capitol Hill that affect bowhunters…well, there haven’t been any. This is due, I believe, to the fact that we have/had nearly an entirely new House Game and Fisheries Committee, under a different party leadership, and comprised of many new and/or junior legislators who have been reluctant to move on many issues before the committee. It appears the committee is stonewalling the PGC in an effort to force a capitulation to intense social pressure to increase the deer herd. I would suppose another plausible excuse would be their focus on the state budget for most of the year just past.
Bowhunters did enjoy another half hour of legal hunting time each day of the season, as did all hunters, statewide. If one adds the time added to each and every day, through the course of the seasons, this simple provision adds up to more than a week of additional hunting time. The UBP was a major force behind this initiative, and the response from our membership in the precise time frame requested was both critical to the outcome of the proposal and significantly large. Bowhunters participated in the second year of an archery bear hunt, with a reported 49 animals taken, which is remarkable considering a second year of heavy rains on day two. There can be little doubt the BWM is nervous about two years of data, with bad weather conditions affecting both participation and harvest. The UBP Archery Bear Season Committee remains vigilant, and will be prepared for the evaluation of this trial season at the end of year three. Bowhunters in several WMUs were afforded a significant increase in hunting days to address deer management concerns in those areas of the state. There were some issues with antlerless tags being available for this early opener, but the PGC did make every effort to address the problem, which would not exist were the point of sales computer licensing system up and running. The firm designing and engineering the POS system could not comply with the date for delivery, due to the demands of doing the same systems for several other states, and we still have some problems with getting the process out of the hands of the county treasurers. Additionally, the continuing fiscal dilemma facing the PGC is hampering efforts to see this milestone improvement through to completion.
Speaking of the agency’s fiscal woes, it is my opinion that this is still the primary concern facing bowhunters and all sportsmen, and the wildlife and habitat resources so valuable and important to all of us. I firmly believe that the legislature has used the ever- present negative social sentiment concerning deer management to support present leadership’s own personal opinions of, and agenda for, deer management. What should be a straight forward response to duty and obligation, has become a fairly disgusting and petty power struggle for control of deer management, with all of our precious wildlife resources at stake. The PGC is combating yet another lawsuit, engendered by the Unified Sportsmen of PA.
And this brings us back to deer; the bowhunter’s favorite game in Pennsylvania. Without them, there would be no UBP, we wouldn’t be here today, I wouldn’t be reading this annual report, or, at the least, life would be fairly dull. Unfortunately, it is the regulatory and legislative issues surrounding this single species that drives the people in this room and gives us our purpose. Just as unfortunately, bowhunters are perhaps the most unique of sportsmen with whom to discuss the topic. Do not forget, as shown by our own UBP poll some years ago and several independent studies, that nearly 90 percent of bowhunters also love to hunt deer with firearms and muzzleloaders. Be it with bow or firearms bowhunters seem to enjoy both a much lower expectation threshold and a consistently higher overall hunter success ratio, and regardless continue to indicate a higher satisfaction level whether they harvest game or not. And I still maintain that is because they/we do bowhunt, and the very nature of the game demands we are more attentive to our surroundings and environments. By and large, bowhunters are more satisfied than non-bowhunters with a scientific wildlife management program, focused on healthy environments, because they intrinsically understand wildlife follows the habitat, not the other way around.
• Last year, the Unified Sportsmen of PA called for a legislative
audit of the PGC Deer Management Program. At our recent December UBP Board
meeting, our president received an invitation for the UBP to provide input
to the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, pursuant to the possible
development of such an audit. The UBP has provided such initial input
and is encouraging the LB&FC to proceed with the audit. .
• Although there seems to be little occurring in the House or Senate
Game and Fisheries Committees, we continue to monitor activity.
• Commissioner Roxane Palone’s and Commissioner Russell Schlieden’s
terms both expire officially 11/21/08, with their last official meeting
being the October 2008 meeting.
• The UBP Legislative Committee is uncertain as to what the proposals
would be, or could be, at the upcoming January Board of Commissioners Meeting
January 27-29; but, as usual, the UBP will be present at all three days
of those meetings, to monitor, report, and react if necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Ed Wentzler
Legislative Director, United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Legislative Report
January, 2008
It is the last day of the scheduled three-day firearms bear season as I write this issue’s installment of the legislative report. Pennsylvania’s firearms deer season opens this coming Monday. Legislatively speaking, things are pretty quiet just now, but should be expected to gear up while many of us are still distracted by appealing opportunities in the out-of-doors. Before I launch into our fairly moderate report on legislation and activities to commence with the New Year, I would certainly wish each of you and your families the best for the holidays. I also hope your outdoors experiences were, are, and will be for those of you who aren’t done yet, rewarding in every manner.
Presently there are 34 bills and three resolutions under consideration by the PA House of Representatives that affect those of us who hunt. The three resolutions are to direct the legislative budget and finance committee of the General Assembly of PA to examine the fiscal proceedings, financial strategies, assets base, and relationship(s) thereof to hunting license costs. While some of us might reasonably assume that this is a concerted effort by our legislators to ensure for us that the PGC is properly administrating their responsibilities (a task they obviously assume we can’t accomplish ourselves), others of us might conclude another less than plausible excuse to further procrastinate on their own responsibilities to provide adequate funding for wildlife and habitat management in our commonwealth. Honestly, many of our legislators honestly don’t know what is happening with respect to our outdoors, and look to the house and senate Game and Fisheries Committees for guidance on the issues. I’m sure there are a few of us who would even contemplate whether it’s not all just a power struggle…over deer numbers?
Now those thirty-four legislative bills, presently sitting for further consideration by committees and waiting that consideration beginning just about the time the January 2008 PGC Public Quarterly Meeting occurs, concern everything from land access and liability, to Sunday hunting and baiting/feeding. I’ve actually reported on most of them in previous newsletters. However, there isn’t one which deals with funding for the agency in the form of hunting license fee increases, and not really any serious indication anybody is really thinking about one, except maybe of course a few of us who are beginning to wonder where the next PGC budget cuts must expectedly occur.
It seems a general theme in the House Game and Fisheries Committee that the agency might as well fail, if something can’t be done about this deer situation. This also seems to be the general consensus of a yet to be determined number of hunters. Fact is, some of us are happy and some of us are not, but far too few of us are actually asking ourselves “what if??”
If the agency fails, there will be and must be a fairly radical change in how and who manages wildlife. Such radical changes in government have always precipitated a major and frantic shift (grab) of the asset bases of the failed entity. And in this particular case, the asset base we are talking about is the vast acreages of public hunting lands your grandparents, parents, and you paid for with hunting license dollars and matching federal funds someone wisely appropriated long ago. That single fact should be more than enough motivation for you as a concerned and involved sportsman to relentlessly pursue our legislators to put this issue to rest, sensibly, and soon. It really isn’t all about deer. Not at all.
There are also presently 23 Bills, concerning approximately the same issues, sitting in the senate. And here again there is no indication any funding initiative is even being considered. Indeed, if one listens carefully around Harrisburg, it seems the senate is expectedly perfectly content to wait and see what the house does.
In the meantime, the PGC continues to not so slowly whither away, in personnel numbers, services, education and information…and worst of all…morale.
Perhaps each of us should start the new year with a resolution to become more knowledgeable of current events in Harrisburg which affect us as sportsmen and outdoorsmen, dedicate a certain amount of increased effort to help find the solutions, and then help sell the resulting plan to those who have the power to implement it. That’s almost as hard a decision as whether or not there are enough deer in Pennsylvania. However, one thing is certain. If it all goes wrong, which it could, deer populations are going to be the very least of our worries. You can take that to the bank.
You can find reference to the various legislative bills and resolutions on many computer sites. I think it’s appropriate to list some of these resources in all of my columns. They are listed below. Believe it or not, we also presently have a serving PGC Board of Commissioners who will find the time to address your concerns. Try contacting them, you’ll find them all to be avid, involved sportsmen and sportswomen. And if you have questions relating to any of my columns or reports, don’t hesitate to contact me directly or through the UBP office.
To close, I’d offer that you each consider how patient and professional our organization, our board of directors, and our membership have been to finalize the attainment of so many of our long tern goals and objectives. We have a bear season. It may not be the bear season we all dream about, but we have a bear season, and the promising prospect of going back to the table next year. Our archery season has expanded, if only within a few WMUs, but many of our fellow bowhunters have benefited directly as a result. We all have another half hour of precious hunting time, each hunting day across the state, and we don’t need wear an overly obnoxious and socially objectionable amount of blaze orange material. And the amount of huntable acreage, in highly developed areas of the state, nearly doubled with the 50–yard safety zone provision. We’ve accomplished a lot together. That’s something to be extremely proud of. Pass the word often. Please come see us at the Winter Rendezvous. Happy Holidays to each of you.
Resources:
# There are several websites that bring a wealth of information to the concerned bowhunter. Although there will always be some controversy on a public website, reading these sites is always educational. I provide links to some of my favorites below.
1) UBP Website, www.ubofpa.org
2) Pennsylvania Bowsite, www.bowsite.com
3) Pennsylvania Game Commission. www.pgc.state.pa.us
4) Hunting PA Website, www.huntingpa.com
5) Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmens Clubs, www.pfsc.org
Pennsylvania General Assembly, www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm
Legislative Report
November 2007
My legislative report this issue will be a bit more relaxed from the recent intense reporting of issues...much shorter too. It is, after all, autumn. Hunting seasons. But rest assured, while you are archery hunting the legislature will be in session. I don’t expect much activity until winter. But, we will watch for all eventualities. As I will have been on vacation and missed my first PGC meeting in many years, our president will have penned the usual legislative report, as it is current, the day after the meetings.
There are some things we bowhunters need to consider, and begin the process we always undertake to arrive at good suggestions and simply accurate appraisals of all the possibilities for lawmaking that actually accomplish some of our mutual goals. The internal process we undertake, all of us as members of this organization, should include examining our own need for limits. As one example, PA’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) as the State Department/steward of millions of acres of public state forest lands, responds to all the citizens of the Commonwealth, and listens to inputs of all owners regarding use and management of those publicly owned lands. There are those who want significantly expanded use of ATVs on those lands. There are also those who don’t because they prefer to walk, or know the encroachment of such technology will ultimately degrade the very headwaters and remaining wildernesses we have left…significantly. Like many things in bowhunting or hunting, it’s a choice.
Another example and another request for your involvement in the think tank would be to consider how the effects of our present deer management plan and other equally superior wildlife species management plans have resulted in a need for increased protection for a much more valuable resource…our wildlife. As many of you know, your legislative director is a staunch proponent of our present deer management program. It must be working, because poaching of class animals (bear, deer and turkey) is increasing dramatically. Those who would perform such unthinkable larceny are stealing from every single Pennsylvanian, including you and your kids.
These are but two examples of things you could ponder this fall while enjoying Penn’s Woods and all she has to offer. Most UBP members will be thinking such things occasionally. Now we encourage you to bring them to us, through your county reps and regional directors, to the UBP Board of Directors, in time for the annual meeting this winter, so we may take your good ideas to Harrisburg. Simple. Effective.
Enjoy your hunting, safely.
*****************************************************************************************
OCTOBER 2007, PGC BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
As is normal for the October meeting, there were few of the general public in attendance, and those sportsman’s organizations present were the UBP, PFSC, PA Chapter of the NWTF, Susquehanna Waterfowlers, and PA Fox & Coyote Hunters. Representatives from the PA Farm Bureau and the PA Vegetable Growers Association also attended, but in all only twelve people registered to offer testimony and four of them were from the Save Stony Valley Coalition.
The prime topics of concern at this meeting were the NWTF’s request to eliminate fluorescent orange for the spring gobbler season, the opposition to the PA Department of Agriculture’s proposed changes to the dog laws, and the current status and concerns for epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) in white-tailed deer in southwestern Pennsylvania. Presentations were conducted on EHD and the endangered status of the northern flying squirrel.
The UBP testimony was well received and delivered with the usual timorous feelings I experience during such endeavors. No questions were asked and comments from the commissioners were limited to those delivered privately during the breaks. Even with five presentations of new class flags from past graduating WCO’s, the meeting was adjourned at just past noon on Monday.
Tuesday’s session was as usual primarily concerned with addressing business. There was one additional testimony presented by Ms. Jesse Smith from the Dog Law section of the PA Department of Agriculture. She indicated that the PDA is addressing some of the greatest concerns of dog owners in regard to the recently proposed regulations. Business continued with the following items of interest to our members:
* Approved elimination of “daylight fluorescent orange” during the spring turkey season.
* Approved providing wildlife depredation permits to qualified agricultural landowners to authorize them to secure the assistance of subpermittees, to destroy game or wildlife causing agricultural damage on lands owned or leased or otherwise controlled by the agricultural landowners.
*Approved increase opportunity (time) for snow goose seasons.
* Approved moving “over-counter” applications of antlerless deer licenses by county treasurers for WMU 2B, 5C and 5D to “the second Monday in September.”
In other action, the commissioners approved the combined purchase of over 1,066 acres of additional Game Lands in Cambria, Somerset and Clearfield counties. They also approved a land exchange in Cambria County and a mine acid abatement project on SGL 100 in Tioga County.
The January 2008 Seasons & Bag Limits Meeting was rescheduled from January 20, 21 and 22 to January 27, 28 and 29 due to confliction with Martin Luther King Day on which all commonwealth offices are closed.
The meeting was adjourned before noon.
On some related matters, the UBP will be on the Monday, January 28, 2008 S&BL Meeting agenda to make our award presentations to WCO/Land Manager Dave Mitchell and WCO Matt Teehan in regard to their efforts in securing archery opportunity in Trexler Preserve. I talked with SE Regional Director Doug Killough who has indicated that those two men “will” be in attendance. He also will be checking to determine if there were any other of his personnel involved with this effort, and will contact me.
In the matter of the early archery opportunity in WMU 2B, 5C and 5D and the problems we have heard with bowhunters not receiving their antlerless tags in time, the approved move to “the second Monday in September over counter sales” will no doubt help to eliminate this problem. However, both Ned and I agreed that the problem with mailed applications has not been addressed. In conversations with Bureau of Wildlife Protection Director Rich Palmer and County Treasurer’s Association Chairman Bruce Mackely, it is felt that this problem can most likely be solved.
During a Monday morning conversation with Director Palmer, he indicated to Ned and I his desire to have our members assist him in providing some data. He asked if we could poll our members to determine if any of them – during the archery seasons – have been checked by a WCO or DWCO. Both Ned and I feel that this is something we should do and indicated as such to Director Palmer. We do not feel that a poll should be conducted on this subject alone, so perhaps the board members, vice president, and directors-at-large should be thinking about some additional questions with which to create a poll.
Muldoon
Legislative Report
September 2007
I have received notice by several means that the legislative report in our last newsletter was not only widely read by the membership, but also that many of you elected to immediately sit down with pen and paper and write to our legislators and even the PGC Board of Commissioners. I was notified of several comments delivered to the office, I received several phone calls from members, and there were questions posed and some minor disagreements registered. I am also pursuing a clarification on NY’s regulations as a result of one of those calls.
But the best indicator this past column was well read and acted upon is because I have received more copies of letters and correspondence between our membership and their legislators than I ever have in one reporting cycle…or even many combined for that matter. And, as your legislative director, I see some things are happening as a result. You may have difficulty, like I also do at times, seeing a major difference, because they are small changes. But, as one of my oldest son’s favorite sayings indicates, “Little changes can change a lot.”
The fact remains though that it is a heavy responsibility to direct our form of government, and the best way to do it is to sit down immediately, as you are moved to do so, and make yourself heard. To put if off, if we are at all honest with ourselves, is simply not to get it done at all. Your UBP Board of Directors and officers have all gotten in the habit of writing often. We have members who write just as often and always have. But, now we also have many members, and some good friends who aren’t members, who constantly bring pertinent info to many public websites and forums, and encourage the readership of those websites to bring their voices to the table as well. I make it a regular habit to monitor many of these websites, and I encourage you to do so as well. That is called networking, and the UBP does do a very effective job of networking, and we’re still learning rapidly. Some amazing talent in our ranks has come forward with video programming capability, and some equally amazing talent is coordinating many impressive educational opportunities in the field on everything from wildlife biology to forest and habitat management.
One should ask how this relates to our legislative efforts to protect and enhance our bowhunting heritage. Well, these educational opportunities should provide a direct link to our legislators to help them understand what we want and need as concerned, bowhunting sportsmen and women. The way this should work is each of us should ask our legislators to attend one of these sessions…with us. However, the way it does work is that such opportunities are not well attended by our legislators, ostensibly due to the constraints on their time required to…legislate. Some of that new talent is taking aim at producing these educational opportunities on DVD, so the experience can be taken to the legislator, in lieu of taking the legislator to the experience. The very bottom line to these four paragraphs is that as each of you adds your support, your voice, and your talents to our efforts, we make positive progress…one by one, little by little, day by day.
“Show me,” you might say. Well, get out your last issue. The following two bills were signed by the governor this session.
House Bill 13 went unencumbered to the governor’s desk, and received his signature. This addresses the landowner liability act, making the offering of recreational opportunities more attractive to landowners. Many of you wrote in support of HB 13.
*HB 13 Readshaw (D) Amends "An act encouraging
landowners to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational
purposes by limiting liability in connection therewith and repealing certain
acts" by stating that an owner of land who either directly or indirectly
invites or permits any person to use his property for recreational purposes
does not assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to
persons or property caused while hunting as defined in 34 PA.C.S. Sec.
102 (relating to definitions).
5-23-07 H Final Passage (Vote Y: 199/N: 0)
6-26-07 S Final Passage (Vote Y: 50/N: 0)
6-30-07 Approved by the Governor - Act 11
*HB 881 Haluska (D) Amends Title 34 (Game) further
providing for killing game or wildlife to protect property, for provisions
relating to unlawful devices and methods and for exceptions to unlawful
use of lights while hunting by adding that a hunter may use a flashlight
or spotlight held in the hand, worn on the head or mounted on a firearm
to take furbearers, if the sole source of power for light is contained
within the light or on the person. This would not include a device that
projects a beam, like a laser, to indicate that intended point of impact.
The bill also provides for penalties.
5-21-07 H Final Passage (Vote Y: 195/N: 2)
6-27-07 S Final Passage (Vote Y: 50/N: 0)
7-3-07 Approved by the Governor - Act: 27
Bills that passed the House.
*HB 1078 Hanna (D) Amends Title 34 (Game) providing
authority for deterrent fences for deer, bear, and elk. The bill adds a
section allowing for payment of claims for damages by certain elk within
or outside of areas protected by elk deterrent fences. All claims of damages
would be investigated within 24 hours of receipt of the damage claim and
payment would come from the Elk Damage Fund. The amendment further provides
penalties for unlawful or fraudulent claim.
Jul 3, 2007 - H-Final Passage by a vote of 201
YEAS 0 NAYS
Since our last newsletter HB 1214 passed the House and now sits in the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee. HB 1214 would limit commissioner terms to (2) four year terms, instead of (1) eight year term. This provision would have some implications for the continuity of wildlife and habitat management for periods of biological significance. You should contact your Senator and let him or her know of your concerns.
New Bills Introduced in the House.
*HB 1676 By Levdansky (D) Amends the Tax Reform Code by adding a section to dedicate sales and use tax revenue for transfer to the Game Fund and the Fish Fund. The bill requires 0.00116 percent of the revenues collected from the tax imposed would be annually transferred to the Game Fund and requires 0.00058 percent of the revenues collected from the tax imposed be annually transferred to the Fish Fund. - Jul 3, 2007 - Referred to House Finance.
Please refer to the president’s article on alternative funding. This bill and its concept should receive your full attention.
*HB 1692 By Haluska (D) Amends Title 34 (Game)
by stating that section 2308(b) "Unlawful devices and methods" (baiting)
would not include shelled or eared corn.
- Jul 6, 2007 - Referred to House Game &
Fish
HB 251 is still in the House G&F Committee. It also concerns baiting, and was addressed by our president at a hearing before the committee in June.
Please refer to the President’s Message with regard
to information on the UBP Poll on baiting issues.
The other bills reported on last issue have not moved out of committee this past session. Please note, most of those bills that did not move, did not receive high marks in the last UBP newsletter. Keep writing those letters.
* Sections marked by asterisk are excerpted from information compiled and published by Pennsylvania Legislative Services and/or the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmans Clubs.
# There are several websites that bring a wealth of information to the concerned bowhunter. Although there will always be some controversy on a public website, reading these sites is always educational. I provide links to some of my favorites below. On the PA General Assembly site, if you enter a bill number in the search line, you can read current bills, their status, and also respond to either the House or Senate with your input on the legislation.
1) UBP Website, www.ubofpa.org
2) Pennsylvania Game Commission. www.pgc.state.pa.us
3) Pennsylvania General Assembly, www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm
4) Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmens Clubs,
www.pfsc.org
5) Hunting PA Website, www.huntingpa.com
6) Pennsylvania Bowsite, www.bowsite.com
By the time most of you read this report, summer will be all but gone, and thoughts will turn to archery season. Keep your awareness of current issues just as sharp as your broadheads while you enjoy a safe, and hopefully, exciting archery season. And relish the fact; you’ve all contributed to our opportunities to bowhunt.
EW
Legislative Report, Ed Wentzler
July, 2007
I am truly sorry, but this is perhaps the most important legislative report I have ever written in my 14 plus years as your legislative director. And, as such, it is also the longest. Please read it in its entirety…I wrote it with your best interests at heart.
In the last issue of the newsletter I predicted that the Pennsylvania Game Commission Board of Commissioners would continue with quorum support for the deer management plan that correctly, legally, and properly addresses the agency’s mandate to manage all 467 species of wildlife and their habitats for ALL the citizens of this commonwealth. That prediction, based on UBP’s very close working relationship with the Board of Commissioners, was accurate.
Unfortunately, for nearly one hundred years many sportsmen have believed, and continue to believe, that the primary function of the agency is to provide deer in abundance to the “whim and pleasure” of hunters. It is your legislative director’s studied and very firm conviction that our century-long history of commissioners bowing to that “whim and pleasure” of hunters, with regard to whitetail deer management, has caused severe habitat damage across most of the state. My conviction on this issue, and my continuing recommendations to your UBP Board of Directors and to the membership of the United Bowhunters of PA, have all been strengthened by my 14 plus years of service in Harrisburg to the regal sport of bowhunting, this organization and you…the membership.
I am very proud to be able to say today that UBP leadership and the UBP membership have always undertaken to educate themselves on the issues that affect bowhunting and sportsmen. What should really make all our buttons pop, though, is that together we have always taken the high road and supported sound scientific wildlife and habitat management practices, to the long-term benefit of those very resources, and ultimately the benefit of every citizen of this commonwealth, most importantly of all our future generations. But I would be the first to admit bowhunting, bowhunters and the UBP have taken some pretty heavy hits, and made some very noticeable sacrifices in that process.
However, for any of you who regularly read this report, it should be quite evident that not all “sportsmen” think like the membership and leadership of the UBP, or for that matter, all but one of the major sportsman’s organizations in the state. For the most part, these are hunters of my generation, or the one before mine, who just want things back to the way they “were back then.” These hunters do NOT see that our present PGC Board of Commissioners has the strength and conviction, for a welcome change, to give us not what we want, but instead what we all need…hope for the future. These hunters do not see the daily, convivial interaction between the leadership of all the major sportsman’s organizations (save that one) and the present PGC Board of Commissioners, to reach workable solutions and even greater hunting opportunities in the process of resolving wildlife and habitat management concerns. They believe that the PGC BOC has turned a deaf ear to hunters, when in fact, for the first time in history, a majority of a quorum of that board has done exactly the opposite. They, the entire PGC Board of Commissioners, are more accessible to us now than they have ever been. It is no accident that PA has a fifty-yard safety zone for bowhunters, or that we have a bear season of any description. In addition, the commissioners have authorized 30 more minutes of hunting time per day, and as well, there will be quite a few additional days to hunt in the Special Regulations Areas.
In their despair, disgruntled sportsmen, lead by that one other single sportsman’s group, have gone to the PA Legislature to seek assistance in returning to the dangerous and illegal wildlife management practices of our infamous and somewhat shameful past. And they are finding a legislature quite willing to listen and act on the behalf of their pleas. As I predicted, the legislature has reacted to the final adoption of the Seasons and Bag Limits proposals at the April meeting with a rash (and I chose that word very carefully), “rash” of introduced bills and a “frenzy” to do so…which, as I write this, continues on nearly a daily basis! In my opinion, and in the opinion of most of the other leaders of organized sportsman’s groups, many of these bills can only be viewed as punitive, vindictive, and aimed directly at usurping the independence of an agency established by their own legislative forefathers over 100 years ago. The PA Game Commission was established as an independent agency, specifically and intentionally, so that it might make proper wildlife and habitat management decisions, independent of that very same political strangulation now evident in the majority of bills coming out of the general assembly!!!
Below is the listing of house bills in the Game and Fisheries Committee presently listed on the PGC website. Go to www.pgc.state.pa.us , click Laws and Regulations. The legislations you should support are preceded by an asterisk. Those bills that should totally alarm you have my own commentary behind them.
* House Bill HB 13
Amending the act of February 2, 1965 (P.L.1860, No.586), entitled,
"An act encouraging landowners to make land and water areas available to
the public for recreational purposes by limiting liability in connection
therewith, and repealing certain acts," further providing for liability
of landowners toward recreational users, persons or property for acts or
acts of omission by recreational users. Good legislation.
HB 249
Amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,
further providing for the term of office of commissioners. (Bill is aimed
at premature removal of Commissioners who support scientific resource management)
Bad legislation.
HB 251
Amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,
prohibiting hunting in and around game feeders and game feeding areas.
(Bill is worded to REDUCE the present statute making it illegal to hunt
near or over bait/feed. This bill arises out of several cases involving
large private hunting clubs in Lycoming County in 2006, cases which lost
in the courts by the PGC. This bill affects those who hunt surrounding
public lands, as baiting/feeding programs can and do alter wildlife populations
for many miles around such operations.) Very bad legislation.
HB 550
Amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,
further providing for killing game or wildlife to protect property and
for general categories of permits. (The wording of this bill is so vague,
nearly anyone, at anytime, who feels for any reason, that any species of
wildlife is causing them personal or potential discomfort, would be within
the law to destroy that wildlife.) Bad legislation.
HB 586
Dealing with Right to Know and “Sunshine” provisions, this bill wants
to make public information of who serves on the newly forming Citizens
Advisory Groups (CAGs) which will address specific deer management objectives
in specific WMUs. (Presently CAGs are formulated through function of state
government, NOT the PGC, to represent as broad a spectrum of concern as
possible. Ironically, in the initial test WMUs, that broad spectrum representation
has fairly well indicated that scientific wildlife management principles
are supported by all the citizens of the Commonwealth…including hunters!)
Bad legislation.
HB 1139
How ‘bout this one? This bill would make it illegal for our wildlife
enforcement officers to use “facsimiles” of wildlife to apprehend those
who find themselves compelled, for whatever reasons, to shoot at game and
wildlife from vehicles or from roadsides or at night with the aid of a
light. The sponsors of this beauty contend that this constitutes
“entrapment” and induces “otherwise law-abiding hunters to break the law.”
Sorry, but I’d bet my bow none of you buy that one either. You
are either willing to shoot illegally all the time…or you never even consider
it. I’d also bet my bow every one of you shares my desire to remove every
single element of that faction from the outdoors, permanently. Bad legislation,
very, very bad legislation.
Then, within just the last several days, consider this pair of beauties?
HB1214
Another Bill to reduce the term of commissioners to four years. The
intent should be obvious. Commissioners serve 8 year terms (volunteer,
unpaid, some few expenses compensated) at the appointment of the Governor,
and lately at least, at the recommendation of sportsmen. The system
was so designed to keep a new Governor from wiping the slate and starting
over with a full board of his own choosing. Presently, the commissioner
appointment/confirmation process is working better than it ever has.
It took all the major sportsman’s organizations (save that one) a long
time and a lot of hard work to make the system work for US. It should
be readily apparent to all of us that the legislature does enjoy the PGC
BOC working for sportsmen, instead of for the legislature. Bad and ridiculous
legislation.
Senate Bill (SB)????
This one is so new it doesn’t have a sponsor list yet or a bill number.
Proposed by Senator Fumo, this proposed legislation would put four more
commissioners on the PGC BOC as selected by certain officers of the General
Assembly!!!!! What don’t these folks understand about the word “independent”????
Seriously BAD legislation.
What should I do?
Right now, our legislature is running somewhat out of control. In defense of their actions, I could offer that the House Game and Fisheries Committee is comprised of a majority of fairly new legislators. I could suggest that perhaps they are not fully cognizant of the state of current affairs; but I won’t…because by now they should have fully researched the current state of those affairs, that is their responsibility, that is why we elected them, and that is what we pay them to do! More importantly, I am highly disturbed that almost to the individual, they claim they are only hearing from disgruntled hunters and nothing from satisfied sportsmen. I know beyond doubt that is NOT the case…and I have a growing boxful of copies of your letters to them that indicates otherwise. That boxful should/must grow considerably in the near future!
I have inside information that indicates that OUR Wildlife Management Agency, the PGC, has at best about 24 months of fiscal solvency left before something really drastic happens. Nobody seems to have considered very fully what that “something drastic” might entail. Any funding increase for our agency must come through the General Assembly, and it appears that the General Assembly is perfectly willing to allow that “something drastic” to occur...if it means they will finally, after over one hundred years, have gained control of wildlife management. The last funding increase for our wildlife management agency occurred in 1999! How would your family be doing financially if there had been no cost of living increase for eight years?
Many might say, “Well, that won’t be so bad.” But in other states where it has happened, it hasn’t been so good either. Since New York State’s General Assembly gained control of Fish and Wildlife management some 25 years ago, New York Bowhunters have not gained a day of archery season. Their season is still even shorter than our own. They have suffered more intrusion on archery season quiet time than we have, and they have not gained any of the other attractive options our board of commissioners has provided and helped to provide for us! New York has fewer acres of public hunting lands in the entire southern tier than our commissioners have approved purchase of for us, in just the last five years, across our Commonwealth!
You should write!
You should write your legislators, both House and Senate, and you should do it NOW before it’s too late. You should cc: me, your legislative director, on every communication with your legislators. You should answer every editorial contribution, in or on, every form of media that affronts your viewpoints! You should take every opportunity to thank those so ably serving us at the present time. You should encourage everyone you know to do the same. And I should receive a copy of all those communications as well. You should find time to visit the PGC and PA Legislative websites often, learn how to navigate around them, and how to stay abreast of current affairs. You should teach your children what it really means to become involved, and what is at stake if they/we don’t. You should encourage them to write their own letters also; after all, they will inherit what we leave behind for them. What we leave for them should include not only healthy and abundant resources, but also a code of ethics and conduct, and a desire to make their government work for them…not the other way around.
Demand of your legislators that they listen to your concerns, demand
they respond to you, and not with a “form letter.” You pay them and
their staffs handsomely to do so. Demand that they appropriate adequate
funding for wildlife and habitat management in this state, and that they
do so for an independent agency that has served in that capacity to the
honor of every citizen of this Commonwealth for over a hundred years and
that they do it now! Demand they acknowledge your support of the
present board of commissioners’ activities, the current direction of wildlife
management and its importance to you, your family, and all your voting
friends. And then vote them out of office in the next election if
they don’t comply with YOUR wishes!
You can find your legislator and his/her contact information, as well
as his/her voting record, at this website, http://www.legis.state.pa.us/index.cfm
Act now…before it’s too late.
And, I now predict that soon a handful of legislators will step forward to accept the heavy responsibility, and significant risks to their careers, of doing what is right by our precious wildlife and habitat resources…simply because it is the right thing to do. When that finally happens, it is incumbent upon all of us to give them an immediate and noticeable, public, standing ovation.
For bowhunting, bowhunters, wildlife and habitat.
Ed Wentzler
Legislative Director, United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania
Address to House Game and Fisheries Committee
In Consideration: House Bill 251
Baiting Feeding Issues
May 24, 2007
Good Morning, Chairman Staback, Minority Chairman Rohrer, members of the Committee. My name is Ed Wentzler, I am Legislative Director for the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, a position I have held under five presidents, for fourteen and a half years, with a distinct sense of honor and pride, for the entire duration of that tenure. Today our membership numbers 3,800 and some members from across the Commonwealth. It should be of important note to this committee that our membership has at times exceeded 6,000 members, but that was in times of issues of high concern to bowhunters, and in such times when the then-serving PGC Board of Commissioners was considerably less approachable with our concerns than the serving Board of Commissioners at this point in time. We have noticed a distinct trend, over our twenty-two year history, for our membership to drop as bowhunters find themselves content with their evaluation of current affairs. Quite obviously, at the present time, they do find themselves relatively content, and that would certainly include their general approval of the present deer management plan and program, as contentious as it is for some to accept.
We are very pleased to be invited to offer our input to your consideration of House Bill 251. Personally, I must offer that I have some measure of nervousness addressing this situation and issue, because I am a resident of Lycoming County, and due to my constant involvement in, and evaluation of wildlife and habitat issues, I am keenly aware that a primary premise of this proposed legislation has a lot to do with some citations issued last hunting season and which went to litigation, and involved some of the long standing, well known, large hunting clubs in Lycoming County. Many of those particular clubs’ members are well known to either me or my family, as are details of the litigation. Not withstanding, I believe I am quite able to render my organization’s viewpoints of the proposed legislation without bias. However, I do feel, in expressing the viewpoints of our membership, my personal experiences in the outdoors, in areas immediately adjacent to these properties may well illustrate and substantiate more effectively my organization’s viewpoints.
Baiting or feeding has always played a part in hunting, most noticeably in times when hunting was for subsistence and not for recreation. It was a practice employed by the original inhabitants of this continent long before Europeans arrived on these shores. For anyone who has ever erected a simple bird feeder there can be no doubt that the movement of wildlife can be effected and affected by providing food. I have noticed that your most excellent food service here in the capitol seems to affect much the same movement of human beings at certain times of the day, and in a most predictable manner. There can be no denying the simple biological fact that at prescribed times all organisms find need to fill their bellies so to speak. But, today we are speaking of feeding and baiting as it pertains to the sport and recreation those of us in this room refer to as hunting. Both I and my organization would agree with all of you that this is a very complex consideration.
We all are considering this issue with a mind-swirling complex of considerations. We have a land base in this commonwealth comprised of approximately, and most pride fully, 25 percent publicly held lands and 75 percent privately owned lands. Our conundrum is that in a population that boasts one of the highest per capita hunter populations, 75 percent of your constituency hunts those 25 percent of publicly owned lands. Of those 25 percent of publicly owned lands, roughly 15 percent has one legislatively mandated priority for management, the other 85 percent an entirely different legislatively mandated priority for management. The 75 percent privately owned lands have neither a legislatively mandated priority nor a specified protocol for management.
However, by law the incredible wildlife resources of this commonwealth belong to every single citizen of this commonwealth until reduced to possession of a single individual, under law and provision and license thereof, as specified by statute, and proscribed by regulation, as determined by an independent board of commissioners, appointed to serve voluntary eight year terms at the discretion of the governor. The leadership of my organization certainly appreciates the monumental task for all of you who must make these decisions. How do we all keep things as “fair” as possible for as many as of us as possible with all these intertwined considerations to consider? The UBP might suggest that the rules of fair chase come into play, especially in light of the fact that none us hunt for subsistence any longer. We hunt today, or should, for recreation and for scientific wildlife management purposes alone. That is not to say that in certain prescribed instances, where the land base is predominantly in private ownership and the tenants of wise wildlife management objectives are compromised by land access considerations, that legal baiting may not be a best option. But in areas of the commonwealth where the land base ownership is of a different ratio, the question becomes more difficult to answer.
And at this point, I will infuse my own personal experiences to illustrate the point. I see the northern tier habitats as severely damaged by a long history of both deer management mistakes and natural calamity. The quite simple bottom line is the availability of that most precious commodity, food, is limited. As I hunt the public lands adjacent to private lands, many mentioned above and which sustain feeding/baiting programs, I can tell almost to the day when those feeding/baiting programs open or begin for the year. There is an immediate exodus of wildlife from that adjacent landscape and for considerable miles in all directions… to the cafeteria, down the mountain, quite similar, I’ve noticed, to the stampede down the escalator here at lunchtime. My concern, and that of my organization, has a lot less to do with whether or not those conducting the feeding/baiting programs are observing the present legalities and rules of fair chase, than it does with the fact that, consciously or not, those who feed and bait have artificially altered the value of day in the field for so many others. The United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania believe that this principle alone was the basis of the original tenants for the original statute that determined baiting/feeding should be an illegal activity, to preserve a more equal opportunity for all citizens of the commonwealth to pursue the objectives of fair chase sport and true scientific wildlife management equally. In most of the state those tenants have not changed.
We are firmly and adamantly opposed to the legislation as written, and encourage it not be endorsed by this committee. We would, however, be quite interested in seeing legislation that would encourage the widespread development of permanent, long-term habitat improvements, and we would enjoy working with you as members of this committee, and the leadership of the other sportsmen’s organizations, to develop such legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning.
Legislative Report, Ed Wentzler
May, 2007
As reported in other regular columns of the newsletter, the PGC Quarterly Meeting was re-scheduled to a time beyond our printing deadline. Final adoption of Seasons and Bag Limits, as well as action on some other regulatory changes, should be information at your disposal by the time you read this issue at www.pgc.state.pa.us
Before moving to the main issue of this legislative
report, I would like to encourage every UBP member to sit down and write
a thank you note to the PGC Board of Commissioners in regard to their efforts
to add a half hour to legal shooting hours at the end of each day.
Comments may also be offered by e-mail through the Comment Link on the
PGC Website listed above. One of the easiest ways to get your comments
to the PGC on any issue is to use the PGC comments e-mail at pgccomments@state.pa.us
There is plenty to report in this issue’s column. Just this past Monday, March 5, the PGC gave its annual review/report in front of the full House Game and Fisheries Committee. The event was televised. There are written accounts of the proceedings available. Those reports are pages and pages long, too lengthy to include here to be sure. PGC Executive Director Carl Roe presented the agency’s report. Then each member of the committee had occasion to question the director on specific concerns of that individual legislator. I fully recommend reading Director Roe’s full testimony on the PGC website, and visiting some of the hunters’ websites for a full view of the commentary.
I am being extremely careful in my choice of words in this report to you. Every well-informed Pennsylvanian, whether they hunt or not, should consider the proceedings of this hearing as at least a serious eye opener. If you do hunt and place any value on that privilege, you might do well to be alarmed. Director Roe’s report was pretty much cut and dried. It contained, almost entirely, information already made available to the public, as is required by law. It detailed specific activities of all bureaus of the agency, the wildlife management, wildlife protection (law enforcement), land management, hunter/trapper education, information and education, and automated technology bureaus. Rational and reasonable explanations were provided for many unique situations over the last year. Most notably, planning strategies for nearly all facets of the future endeavors of our wildlife management agency were outlined. Now comes the alarming part.
During the question period our legislators asked questions about the report, seeking answers that should already be routine information at the firsthand disposal of lawmakers serving on the Game and Fisheries Committee. Even more alarming is the fact that these questions were purposefully pointed at asking why the agency seems to be having fiscal problems (operating on a 1999 revenue stream), while simultaneously pointing out that severely out-dated revenue stream was not likely to receive the required legislative attention until the deer problem is fixed. There you have it, dollar$ for deer, it’s that simple. Or so it would seem on the surface.
Nearly every legislator stated that all the correspondence, from all constituents, that they are receiving is adamantly opposed to the present course of deer management in this state. I find that somewhat difficult to believe, when two out of three hunters I talk to seem to understand exactly what is happening and why. More so, when eight of ten non-hunters I talk with get it also. It occurs to me there can only be two case scenarios here. One, none of the folks who know what is going on bother to talk with their legislators; or two, those legislators don’t choose to acknowledge that input. I don’t know about any of you, but I’m extremely uncomfortable with either case.
There never seems to be any curiosity expressed by our legislators about the condition of our environment, or how the other four hundred sixty-six species that the PGC is directly responsible for, for all Pennsylvanians, are doing. It all seems to boil down, every time, to hunters and deer; and, to dollar$ for deer. Their actions don’t make us look very good at all.
At this time it seems as though the legislature is perfectly willing to leave it at that...dollar$ for deer. And it occurs to me that this PGC Board of Commissioners may just be willing to call the bet. They may well choose to stay with a program that considers an entire ecosystem, simply because it’s just the right thing to do…for all our sakes. I would be surprised if they don’t. And I am even more surprised so few have asked, “What happens next if they do?”
Write or call your legislators now and tell them you don’t like the dollar$ for deer approach.
ew
PGC contact information:
Email: pgccomments@state.pa.us
USPS: 2001 Elmerton Ave., Harrisburg, PA
17110,
Phone: (717) 787-4250
Legislative Report, Ed Wentzler
March, 2007
I am just home from the January Seasons and Bag Limits Public Meeting of the PGC Board of Commissioners. I will report as briefly and succinctly as possible on the proceedings of the meeting, and mention the impact of them on our legislative efforts for bowhunters and to our efforts to benefit bowhunting.
Although of somewhat less concern than in past years, our bowhunting
seasons, as we have enjoyed them since 1994/1995, have remained intact
as proposals for final adoption at the April Meeting. Indeed, we
have a proposal to increase opportunities for bowhunters in Wildlife Management
Units (WMUs) 2B, 5C, and 5D. While at first glance this proposal would
seem to benefit only a portion of the state’s bowhunters. However, if passed
in final adoption, it will represent a very real expansion of opportunity,
but more importantly may well provide the impetus for eventual consideration
of expanded opportunity in all other WMUs as well. Likewise, increased
opportunities recommended by the BWM to increase the number of bobcat permits
and the area of harvest, lengthen the September elk season, and change
the permits for that season to either sex permits, to lengthen squirrel,
rabbit, and pheasant seasons by a week, and to prepare for a recommendation
to open a fisher season in the future, all represent a desire and willingness
by both the agency and the present board of commissioners to maximize recreational
activity in a manner consistent with wise, scientific resource management.
We will certainly continue our constant efforts to keep the same reasonable
expansion of PA’s archery seasons before agency staff and the board of
commissioners. It should be noted that in UBP presented testimony,
we did acknowledge concerns with the definition and parameters of WMU 5C
as brought to our attention by many UBP members who live or hunt in that
management unit.
The BWM report on the bear resource indicated the resource is in good
to excellent condition, and that this year’s harvest was again consistent
with the management plan objectives and goals. This included the
archery bear season, and it was recommended that the season be continued
just as in 2006-2007 for the coming year. Of particular interest
to our efforts, the report indicated that the percentage of cubs (sub-adults)
taken and the percentage of adult females taken was slightly lower than
for the average of firearms season harvests. Also, average body weights
in all categories were somewhat higher as well. It was suggested during
the report that a slightly higher degree of selectivity or discretion shown
by bowhunters may well have influenced those statistics. It was reported
there was only one bear exhibiting sign of a non-fatal archery shot checked
at stations during the firearms season. That bear was reported to be in
‘healthy’ condition. The concern for wounding loss was thus put to
rest. It was also reported that the harvest was very evenly and widely
distributed over the area of the state included in the season. Although
there were some few instances of illegal baiting, the Bureau of Wildlife
Protection assured us it was of no greater concern than for any other season.
We will continue to encourage the agency to expand this opportunity when
the data base line for the three year provision is completed and established.
Before switching my focus to political discussion, I would like to mention again that the UBP always has a contingent of several or even many, very capable representatives at these meetings. All of them are keenly aware of, and knowledgeable of, all our issues and concerns, and are quite adept at entertaining cohesive communications in regard to those issues and concerns, simultaneously on multiple fronts. This factor is both a singularly unique and very distinct advantage for our organization, and is well recognized and respected by those with whom we communicate. Their presence, in every sense of the word, contributes significantly to our efforts to represent you our membership.
In this new year, as was accurately predicted in earlier legislative reports, we have an entirely new legislature to deal with issues that affect bowhunters. Representative Edward Staback, (D) Lackawanna County, is the new majority chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, the committee in which most bills which affect sportsmen initiate. As mentioned in the president’s report, funding for the PGC, the agency responsible for the management of 467 game and non-game species, will be a top priority for every sportsman, and hopefully for non-hunters as well. It is the UBP Legislative Committee’s assessment that without a funding package very soon, which includes both a reasonable license increase and also some form of alternative funding, the agency will soon face the stark reality that many critical functions, which will directly affect you, must be curtailed. The upcoming UBP Winter Rendezvous and the upcoming P&Y event both offer exciting possibilities for legislative interaction to deal with these considerations, and also hear from each of you as well.
Unfortunately, the prospects of securing that funding referred to above are directly connected to sportsmen’s perception and acceptance of a single species management plan. That, of course, would be deer management. All commentary by the scientific community, including the PGC Bureau of Wildlife Management, at this just concluded meeting, indicates that deer populations are generally down, as was hoped and intended, and that initial favorable habitat changes are becoming evident in many areas of the state, particularly the North Central (big woods) region. But, without exception, all comment from the scientific community also cautioned that the totality of change required for healthy habitats is far from accomplished. Additionally, they all urged a continuation of the present direction, which ironically enough, is just now beginning to show changes toward stabilizing populations in some WMUs and may be expected to change in additional units through the mechanism of antlerless allocations, as BWM recommendations are made in April.
The imminent problem that appears on the horizon for our organization is that as dissatisfaction with bowhunting for a changing and rapidly adapting deer herd increases, it may influence the membership’s directives to our actions and thus our ability to maintain the image that bowhunters put the welfare of our wildlife, habitats, and fellow citizens before ourselves, even while recognizing that we should ultimately benefit as bowhunters as a result, diminishes.
Years ago the bowhunters of the United Bowhunters of Pa committed themselves to a science first approach. When the science recommended that hunters correct a serious, 100 year old condition and tradition of habitat degradation, and accept the fact that it would entail considerable sacrifice, the UBP was one of the first to step forward. None of us would argue the price paid has already been significant. None of us should doubt if we ‘stay the course’, the costs will continue to increase. But, we have already made a significant investment in the future by our past commitments and sacrifices. The question we each need to ask ourselves now is, do we forfeit that investment, and perhaps our standing as an organization that truly puts others and future generations in front of ourselves?
The answer to that question will determine how we approach Capitol Hill
from this time forward. Please read, think, get involved, communicate
with us, and give us some direction. The meniscus in the glass is
exactly at half way just now. Is it half-full or half-empty?
Should we drink some or add some more to it? I would guess that with
our recent successes with a new phone call outreach, our focus group alerts,
our website capabilities, and our incredible response time to current issues,
our membership is now realizing just how effective this relatively small
organization can really be at changing a landscape on a statewide basis.
Please pat yourselves on the back a bit…and then pick up your pens.
January 2007
PGC Board of Commissioners
Public Meeting
UBP Testimony and Input
Good morning Commissioners, Executive Director Roe, and Staff. My name is Ed Wentzler and I am speaking on behalf of the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania. We wish all of you the best for the New Year, and look forward to again working with you in the wise management of our wildlife resources.
At this point I am going to deviate from the prepared testimony I have just passed out to each of you.
This past year we had very short notice of an opportunity to provide a hunt for a critically ill child through our Disabled Hunters Program, but that child could not hunt with a bow, his condition required the use of a rifle. Our DHP is designed, and was originated and equipped, to only provide bowhunting opportunities. Our BOD immediately authorized our mechanisms to make that hunt become a reality, which it did.
It concerns me to occasionally hear comments at this podium that bowhunters are selfish. The bowhunters I speak for are definitely not selfish. They simply believe their chosen first passion is one of the most difficult and challenging endeavors in hunting today.
Yes, our membership is highly concerned about deer populations, but they are also highly concerned about habitat. They have always supported scientific wildlife management, and continue to do so.
Yes, our membership is generally disturbed by any provisions that they perceive to influence natural deer movement patterns, or any condition which they perceive to make a very difficult sport, even more so. For this reason they have asked us to oppose turkey dogs. Not the use of turkey dogs for hunting, per se, but the use of turkey dogs in archery seasons. It is simply a socially oriented objection.
Our membership also has always indicated that should archery seasons in PA be lengthened to scientifically acceptable duration, they have the capacity to be extremely generous in accepting all other outdoor interests.
Our membership directs me to ask you to support Youth Mentored hunting for deer, and for every other youth opportunity.
They ask that you enthusiastically support the half hour extension to daily hunting hours.
They ask you to support the recommendations to increase opportunities in WMUs 2B, 5C, and 5D. And I would be re-miss not to mention that those of our members who either live or hunt in WMU 5C have expressed many of the same concerns about the unit that were heard from others at this podium yesterday. We urge you to re-examine those concerns.
Finally, our membership asks me to again ask you to move as rapidly as possible to provide those relatively few hunters who would rather bowhunt for deer more than anything else, a season of maximum length, based solely on scientific determination and recommendation.
Thank you.