This is
the first week of Pennsylvania’s traditional firearms deer season; a
long-standing tradition that has brought generations together as fathers and
sons, grandfathers and grandsons, brothers and cousins, shared time together in
forest and field and in hunting camps throughout the state. Times have changed
and now some wives and daughters and granddaughters have joined hunting parties, and many traditional hunting camps are seeing year round use as family getaways.
For more than a century hunters and trappers
have funded the state’s wildlife programs, which have included
restoring populations of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, river otters, and
fishers. However, for the most part the Commission’s programs have been concentrated
on species that are of interest to consumptive users of wildlife. But the
Commission also deserves everyone’s praise for its acquisition of over a million
acres of wildlife habitat on State Game Lands that are open to public use.
Often overlooked, however, is the fact that
wildlife is a public resource which, in essence, belongs to all the citizens of
Pennsylvania whether they are hunters, non-hunters or anti-hunters – whether
they are interested in white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, Allegheny woodrats or blue-headed
vireos.
A few
years ago there was a move to change the name of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission to the Pennsylvania Wildlife Commission to more accurately reflect
its mission; a proposal that was vehemently opposed by a faction of hunters and
so Game Commission it remains.
Now
it’s time for a change in two long-standing traditions. Yes indeed, it sure is
– in fact it’s long past time for a change.
What should be changed are the way wildlife
management in Pennsylvania is funded and the composition of the Board of Game
Commissioners. The Pennsylvania Game Commission is an independent agency of
state government that is charged with managing all wild mammals and birds in
the state and managing over a million acres of State Game Lands. The Board’s
eight members are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate;
in turn, the board appoints the Commission’s executive director. Traditionally,
Board members have been active hunters with solid connections to sportsmen’s
organizations and funding has been primarily derived from fees paid by
hunters and trappers or excise taxes on firearms.
It’s past time to change the funding base
for wildlife programs in Pennsylvania and the composition of the Board of Game
Commissioners. Although there have been ups and downs, the general trend has been
a steady decline in license sales from 1.3 million in 1982 to 952,000 in 2013 – a 27% decline. At some point
the reduction in license sales will have a severe impact on staffing and/or wildlife related programs. Unless there is a change in the Board’s
composition and the recruitment of an additional constituency consisting of
wildlife watchers and photographers, the programs that will probably suffer most are those
dealing with non-game wildlife.
It’s past time for a change, because the
citizens of Pennsylvania view wildlife in a different light than they did 50 or
60 or 100 years ago. Look at the situation with predators, Pennsylvania paid
bounties on virtually all predators for many years. Now, although a certain
element among hunters would like to resume paying bounties, the general public
acknowledges predators’ role in the natural world and their increasing interest
to photographers and others who enjoy wildlife. Coyotes are a prime example;
the Board has seen fit to continue treating them as “varmints” allowing them to
be killed every day of the year, in any number.
Pennsylvania’s elk herd is a major draw for
wildlife watchers and photographers and occupies only a portion of the state’s suitable
habitat. When the Game Commission instituted an elk hunt in 2001 it was met
with joy by hunters and complaints from wildlife watchers. Only a tiny segment
of the elk range is managed as a “no kill” zone, and that’s virtually all
within sight of designated viewing areas or public roads; thus elk that have
lost all fear of humans and move outside of that zone are shot each year. It seems obvious that hunting is
valued over wildlife watching or eco-tourism – what about serving the larger
public’s interests?
The gap between the interests the Board of
Game Commissioners now represent and the larger public is wide and growing
wider as the number of hunters diminishes and the number of wildlife watchers
and photographers has grown. The non-consumptive wildlife interests have an
obligation to provide significant funding for wildlife programs and deserve a
seat at the table, in the form of representation on the Board, when decisions
are made. And yes, there will be contentious issues leading to much debate –
Pennsylvania’s wildlife deserves no less!