PFSC Resolutions

 

To be Voted on at the Fall 2006 Convention

 

Below are the 3 Resolutions submitted to the State Office, and approved by the Resolution Committee. These Resolutions were voted on at the PFSC Fall Convention on Sunday, September 17th.  The results of the votes are posted below.

 

 

 

#1)            PFSC CONSERVATION RESOLUTION

 

RECEIVED:  01/09/06

SUBMITTED BY:  HARTHEGIG CONSERVATION CLUB

CLUB SECRETARY:  JANET J. REEHER, FREDONIA, PA

  APPROVED BY MERCER COUNTY-2/22/06, CHERYL A. PEARCE, SECRETARY

 

TITLE:  Return to 2 weeks buck season and 2 days for doe season

 

WHEREAS:  The Pennsylvania Game Commission has over killed the antlerless deer in the state by selling too many doe license and too long of a doe season.

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:  That the Pennsylvania Game Commission go back to the old system of 2 weeks buck season and 2 days doe season.

 

Resolution Failed:  9 Yeas, 23 Nays, 2 Abstained

 

PGC RESPONSE:

The PGC continues to evaluate pros and cons of continuing concurrent deer seasons. After looking at the available information, the decision was made to continue the concurrent seasons. Reasons for this decision include:

1. Concerns over safety of a concurrent season have not materialized. There is no evidence to support that a concurrent antlered and antlerless deer season is resulting in a more unsafe way of hunting. In addition, the presence of antler restrictions further requires hunters to accurately identify their target prior to pulling the trigger.

2. A shorter season does not ensure a reduced antlerless deer harvest. There are three ways to change an antlerless deer harvest; change the allocation, change the season length, or change both the allocation and season length. Based on prior experience in Pennsylvania, a short season may not ensure a low antlerless deer harvest. For example, Pennsylvania hunters harvested over 300,000 antlerless deer in 2000 with a 3-day season. The most effective method for reducing antlerless harvests is to reduce the allocation as demonstrated by the 2005-06 antlerless allocations and harvests, both of which declined by a similar percentage.

3. Longer seasons reduce the effect of poor weather on antlerless harvests. With the 2-day antlerless season, poor weather could substantially reduce the effectiveness of antlerless allocations. By extending the season, the impact of poor weather is reduced and effectiveness of antlerless allocations can be better predicted from one year to the next.

4. Concurrent seasons provide more hunting opportunities. Lack of time is one of the most common reasons for why hunters quit hunting. By continuing the concurrent seasons, hunters have more opportunity to hunt than they would with a shorter season.

5. Stable season length improves population monitoring. In the current deer management program, stable season length is important to accurately monitor deer population trends.

For these reasons, the concurrent season was recommended and approved for the 2006-07 hunting seasons.  We will continue to evaluate and monitor the use of a concurrent season to manage the deer herd. If evidence arises to show that there are possible safety issues or that the season is not effectively managing the deer herd, then changes will be made as necessary.

 

 

#2)            PFSC CONSERVATION RESOLUTION

 

RECEIVED:  01/09/06

SUBMITTED BY:  HARTHEGIG CONSERVATION CLUB

CLUB SECRETARY:  JANET J. REEHER, FREDONIA, PA

 APPROVED BY MERCER COUNTY-02/22/06, CHERYL A. PEARCE, SECRETARY

 

TITLE:  Eliminate antler restrictions

 

WHEREAS:  Antler restrictions in Pennsylvania doesn’t seem to be helping the deer breeding for more points.  Brow points at more than a few yards are hard to see.  In a statement in the Pennsylvania Game News, Feb. 2004 edition, letters to the editor page 3.  On the day of buck season I saw one of the largest deer I’ve ever seen.  I figured it weighed 180 lbs. And was carrying a rack in the 16 to 18 inch range.  It had 3 well defined points on each antler, but try as I might I couldn’t put brow tines on it.  Since I as hunting in a 4 point aside area, I let it pass.  Will this deer ever have brow tines or will it destined to be a 6 point all its life?  The Games News answer was “No way to know for sure, but generally upon reaching adulthood the number of points on a buck’s rack remains the same.”

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:  That the PFSC petition the Pennsylvania Game Commission do away with the antler restrictions because the smaller bucks become the primary breeders passing on their genes to future generations.

 

Resolution Failed:  6 Yeas, 28 Nays

 

PGC RESPONSE:

Genetic analysis of deer breeding behavior is beginning to shed new light on the dynamics of deer breeding. In many instances, older, individual bucks are not dominating breeding privileges as previously thought (see references below for DeYoung et al. 2002, DeYoung et al. 2004, Sorin 2004, Shaw 2005). In addition, Pennsylvania’s buck population appears to remain relatively young with 1.5 and 2.5 year-old males constituting the majority of bucks in the population. As a result, there is no evidence that smaller yearling bucks are becoming the primary breeders as they mature, rather all bucks, including yearling bucks, have opportunities to pass on their genes.

 

In Pennsylvania, this is beneficial because most of our bucks are harvested during the regular firearms season after the peak of the breeding season. Despite the fact that many 6 and 8-point yearling bucks are being harvested, most of them have likely passed their genes on to future generations.

 

Finally, based on Game Commission surveys of thousands of Pennsylvania hunters, hunters support antler restrictions by a 2 to 1 margin in both the 3 and 4-point areas.

For these reasons, continuing the antler restrictions was recommended and approved for the 2006-07 hunting seasons.  We will continue to evaluate and monitor the use of antler restrictions to manage the deer herd. If evidence arises to show that there are biological concerns or if antler restrictions are not effectively managing the deer herd, then changes will be made as necessary.

References

 

DeYoung, R. W., S. Demarais, R. A. Gonzales, R. L. Honeycutt, and K. L. Gee. 2002. Multiple paternity in white-tailed deer revealed by DNA microsatellites. Journal of Mammalogy 83:884-892.

 

DeYoung, R. W., S. Demarais, K. L. Gee, R. L. Honeycutt, M. W. Hellickson, and R. A. Gonzales. 2004. Harvest management affects the distribution of male breeding success and genetic structure in populations of white-tailed deer. 27th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group, Lexington, KY.

 

Shaw, J. C. 2005. Implications of quality deer management on population demongraphics, social pressures, dispersal ecology, and the genetic mating system of white-tailed deer at Chesapeake Farms, Maryland. Dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

 

Sorin, A. B. 2004. Paternity assignment for white-tailed deer: mating across age classes and multiple paternity. Journal of Mammalogy 85:356-362.

 

 

 

 

#3)            PFSC CONSERVATION RESOLUTION

 

RECEIVED:  01/09/06

SUBMITTED BY:  MARION TWP. ROD & GUN CLUB

CLUB SECRETARY:  DEAN KINTZER, ROBESONIA, PA

   APPROVED BY BERKS COUNTY-10/12/05, BRUCE E. STRICKER, SECRETARY

 

TITLE:  Allowing cock and hen pheasant to be hunted in all Wildlife Management Units (WMUs)

 

WHEREAS:  Cock and Hen Pheasants are legal game in thirteen (13) Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) of the Commonwealth, during established small game seasons.  Since the natural reproduction of the Ringneck pheasant in the wild in Pennsylvania is practically nill, due to many varied reasons, and it does not appear that this situation will improve greatly in the future, not withstanding some local pheasant research areas, which are greatly limited.

 

WHEREAS:  The Pennsylvania Game Commission and various sportsmen’s groups throughout the State stock cock and hen pheasants, which basically is a “put & take” endeavor, and is done at considerable expense.  Often hen pheasants can be purchased at a lesser amount than cocks, which could lead to more hens being stocked.

 

WHEREAS:        There is such a low survival rate of stocked pheasants, it seems inane that hen pheasants cannot be considered a legal game bird  in all Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) throughout the Commonwealth, with the exception of areas where legitimate pheasant research is being conducted.

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:  That the Marion Township Rod & Gun Club, at its regular meeting held on Sept. 1, 2005, at Stouchsburg, Berks County, PA, voted to introduce this resolution for further action, to respectfully request that the Pennsylvania Game Commission seriously consider allowing the hunting of cock and hen pheasant during the established small game seasons in all Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) throughout the Commonwealth, with exception of areas where active pheasant research is being conducted.       

 

Resolution Failed:  15 Yeas, 19 Nays

    

 

PGC RESPONSE:

The PGC pheasant propagation program is designed to provide improved statewide pheasant hunting opportunities, while seasons, bag limits, and hunting zones help safeguard naturally reproducing pheasant populations and provide hunting recreation in an equitable fashion.

 

Few areas of Pennsylvania support viable pheasant populations due to suburban sprawl, maturing forests, clean farming, and intensive agricultural land use.  While areas in southeastern Pennsylvania have some potential to sustain wild pheasant populations; however, most areas do not. The southeastern counties contained in Wildlife Management Units (WMU) 5C and 5D may contain small isolated pockets of suitable habitat that support some natural reproduction, but these areas are too small and fragmented to support sustainable hunted wild or reintroduced pheasant populations.  Studies suggest and pheasant biologists agree that a minimum of 25,000 acres of safe nesting and winter escape cover are needed to support a sustainable population.  In our opinion these counties do not contain a sufficient amount of habitat and the trends in human population growth and conversion of existing habitat preclude any future successful restoration programs for pheasants in the area.

 

Either sex pheasant hunting currently occurs in areas of the Commonwealth where natural reproduction and survival are poor and habitat is insufficient to support sustainable populations.   Either sex hunting allows for utilization of propagated hens and provides more opportunity for pheasant hunters to harvest a bird.  Most stocking of pheasants occurs on state game lands and other public lands where harvest is maximized. Private land owners can always prohibit either sex hunting on their own lands if they feel it is desirable to protect hens.  In 2005 we expanded either sex hunting areas in southcentral Pennsylvania by including WMU’s 4A and 4B.  

 

Pheasant hunting is regulated by wildlife management unit; therefore, any changes to hunting regulations must be implemented by WMU.  Based on current and anticipated future conditions in land use, we cannot concur with the resolution to allow either sex pheasant hunting on a statewide basis; however, we believe including WMUs 5C and 5D in the list of either sex hunting WMUs for the  2007-08 season has merit and should be discussed among Commission staff biologists and regional field staff.  Please note that the Board of Commissioners ultimately have the final say of what season changes will be permitted.