License Increase For Game Commission

[Booner]

Plenty of deer where I live, too. And plenty of turkey, bear, rabbits, etc.. We could use a few pheasants here and there. Grouse population is good as well.

[JDC]

Originally Posted by ham385

I know I'm going to piss people off, but I think a license increase is a great idea. I pay alot more for a fishing license, trout/erie stamp than I do for a hunting license, and I can get a lot more meat hunting. Pheasant stockings have been dropping because they can't afford it. I think that sucks. Deer populations are dropping. This years buck harvest was down 19% from last year. that sucks. If the prices go up, especially for out of state hunters, who hunt here cheaper than in their own state, so what. Less hunters means rebounding game populations (I know there's more variables, but that's a biggie).

How many people go to the range and blow through $50 in ammo in 1 day. $50, that's 1 dinner out with the wife and kid. For $47 I get my license, archery, migratory game bird, doe tag, and anywhere from 80-200 hours of fun in the woods. That's one heck of a bargain, and still will be after an increase. Heck, it costs me that much in gas just to drive to camp!

I would be ok with paying more if we were going to get more. But I think the game commission management so far has sucked and gotten worse in the last 5 years. So I see no reason to give anymore money unless there is a plan in place to improve overall hunting conditions and better wildlife management.

[ham385]

Originally Posted by JDC

I would be ok with paying more if we were going to get more. But I think the game commission management so far has sucked and gotten worse in the last 5 years. So I see no reason to give anymore money unless there is a plan in place to improve overall hunting conditions and better wildlife management.

What came first, the chicken or the egg.....
The game comission is stretched very thin (from what I have read) financially. Maybe I'm naive to believe. If it is true, more budget would open up many more possibilities for habitat management, land purchases/leases, and pheasants (I love pheasants). I do think the antler restrictions are good for the gene pool. I'm a meat hunter, not a rack hunter, so I could care less, but I would like to see less doe being shot in the counties with lower populations. I'm not happy about the doe allocations, but this stuff isn't exact science, rather more of a trial and error approach based on hypothesis. Who knows, maybe they're right. I'm willing to give their approach a couple years to see the impact. If it's working great, if not, I do expect them to correct the issue. I do not think condemning them, without giving it a chance to work, is beneficial for anyone.

[Seventy4Blazer]

heck... its still 2 dollars for me... ;-)

and i dont hunt... lol

[Deerman08]

Anyone who would support a fee increase the way things are now is not very smart. Funding the game commission "staying the course" is a joke! We've had the lowest harvest of buck this year than the last 40!!

Some of you guys need to pull your head out of the sand and see things as they really are. Course there are 3-4 guys/and a gal, who go around to ALL the message boards trying to put on a happy face! Really quite comical when 99% of hunters would like to see the board of commissioners tarred and feathered.

[XUSNORDY]

I don't think I'd mind the increase. I'll hunt anyway, I have to. That's how I "sharpen my saw"...so to speak. I'm in the woods each deer season (if need be) except FlintLock (keep meaning to do that, but "usually" have my tags filled by then), and do birds. As for the buck harvest....I've just been lucky in the areas I hunt. I'm at the point I can pass 'em up and wait for the one I want, or had been scouting for a while. However, I know this won't last with all the development going on. But, saying I won't mind the increase...I'd like to see some changes. I'm game to hear everybody out, and help support where needed. I do a ton of Hunting in Maryland also. Paying for both is a bit pricey....

[CoyoteJack]

I think the PGC made a mistake in treating the whole State basically the same with the change to increase doe harvests. Part of the reason though I think was to allow the antler restrictions a chance to work. If you drastically reduce the number bucks harvested by those who used to take a small forked buck or even spikes and don't give them something else as a sub they are going to stop buying tags rather than go home empty handed year after year.

I'd suggest they treat the different regions of the State more individually. In some parts the changes are working, in others the aren't. Treat them accordingly. Will it cause hunters to travel more in the State to get their deer? Maybe. That isn't all bad.

I'm biased though I admit. In the days of 2 or 3 days of antlerless coming after antlered, Erie county couldn't give it's doe tags away. It got to the point where they were selling extras at the courthouse. For many years I'd get 3 antlerless tags and fill them all.

I'm not thrilled for an increase but I'll pay it. I view the PGC sometime like I often do the NRA, a necessary evil.

[Big Tom 852]

Not in favor of an increase. Maybe in a few years, but not the way things are being run at this point in time.

[1iarrowking]

Originally Posted by JDC

I would be ok with paying more if we were going to get more. But I think the game commission management so far has sucked and gotten worse in the last 5 years. So I see no reason to give anymore money unless there is a plan in place to improve overall hunting conditions and better wildlife management.

What I was going to say. +1

[Karl/PA]

One of the damn few advantages of becoming a senior citizen are the lifetime hunting and fishing licenses. Pay once and be done forever.