|
Post by jmitch on Jan 18, 2015 13:14:39 GMT -5
Does anyone know why this restriction came up, was there a specific or series of events that led to this? Has it been brought forward before? This seems to have been an issue for sometime in the PGC that is finally beginning to surface with this proposal. Maybe the PGC is struggling to adapt to changing demographics/outdoors interests. PA was an overwhelming hunting and fishing state. Those two activities are still most popular, but less so over the years. Hunting license sales have dropped. Meanwhile, other outdoor activities have become more popular, such as mountain biking, bird watching, geo-caching, rock climbing, kayaking, hiking, etc. These outdoor enthusiasts have turned to SGLs to recreate. GPS has opened up the SGLs even more, with or without trails. This has placed the PGC in a position in which they are not experienced or used to; after all, their focus, understandably, has been on hunting and wildlife management, not outdoor recreation. This is one reaction to that.
I'm sure there is a hard-line faction in the PGC, i.e. "Game lands for hunters only". Maybe they are prevailing at the moment.
Regardless what the PGC does, the issue is not going away. Outdoor activities in PA will continue to diversify and grow more popular as people will continue to go to the SGLs. This is especially true since there is no way the PGC can enforce these regs; they can't enforce what is on the books now. To PGC's credit, they have allowed trails, although they don't tend to offer the support for them like DCNR. So, PGC has tried to adapt, a little. But a much deeper change is gradually occurring. Governmental agencies respond to change by liberalizing, or becoming more restrictive. PGC is choosing the later, which is typical.
There was an effort to fold the SGLs into the state forests a few years ago. It failed. I'm not sure if that is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by jmitch on Jan 18, 2015 13:22:25 GMT -5
The SGL 13 and 57 cover almost 100,000 acres when combined (I think). They have some of the most impressive scenery and diversity in the Mid-Atlantic. Truly gorgeous. That is why I'd hate to not be able to go on them for such a long period. If I lived near small, somewhat unremarkable SGLs, I probably wouldn't care as much, especially if the Mon was close.
Please keep in mind many backpacking trails cross SGLs- Appalachian, Tuscarora, Mid State, Standing Stone, Quehanna, North Country, Lost Turkey Trails, maybe a few others. So this is a big concern. As you observed, while SGLs may not play a big role in some parts of the state, they are crucial and beloved in others.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2015 13:45:35 GMT -5
I have never hunted a day in my life but I've talked to several and observed many more. The ones that are successful are those who enter the woods before sunrise and exit shortly after and then enter just before sunset and leave as darkness approaches. What happens to the rest of the day? Also, as Jeff has mentioned, Most large game hunters can be found within what - 1/4 to 1/2 mile from vehicular access? It would seem to me that's an awful big waste of time and real estate.
|
|
|
Post by dunkard on Jan 18, 2015 16:57:31 GMT -5
MR speaking from experience a successful hunt can and does occur anytime of the day. Most deer are active at dusk and dawn most of there lives but when the rut comes in those bucks get an itch that has to be scratched and they'll move anytime of the day sometimes following a predictable pattern. Some very knowledgeable hunters have set up in the middle of the day to intercept a specific deer as it makes its rounds. Yes most hunters do set up within 1/4 mile of vehicular access but to say that the rest of the SGL is wasted is incorrect. Those large tracts our extremely important for quality deer management (QMD). And even if the hunters aren't penetrating into those areas use by hikers DOES effect the deer herds. An extreme example would be Canaan Valley those deer our adversely impacted by people. They can be a downright nuisance. You can also see the same thing happening at Shenandoah with deer and bears, mount Rogers with deer and the Smokies with bears. These are extreme examples and I know that most SGL do not see the same amount of use as those places, but I hope my point is not lost. It would be a shame to lose hiking privelages to some of those unique areas. I hope it doesn't come to that but over time with encroachment and population growth more people will use these places and that would be detrimental to successful hunting. Maybe some of these areas could be reevaluated and turned over to the state park or forest service to administer and leave fewer acres for more hunter friendly management.
|
|
|
Post by aseege1 on Jan 20, 2015 16:35:00 GMT -5
Please keep in mind many backpacking trails cross SGLs- Appalachian, Tuscarora, Mid State, Standing Stone, Quehanna, North Country, Lost Turkey Trails, maybe a few others. So this is a big concern. As you observed, while SGLs may not play a big role in some parts of the state, they are crucial and beloved in others. The AT being a National Scenic Trail, and its own protected corridor of land, won't that still be passable as long as the hikers don't tread too far off trail?
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Jan 20, 2015 19:06:23 GMT -5
I believe the AT and the LHHT are exempted in the proposed ban.
|
|
|
Post by arfcomhkr on Jan 21, 2015 13:13:12 GMT -5
Interesting. I would hope they could come to an understanding at least with regards to the existing trails that cross through those areas.
|
|
|
Post by jmitch on Jan 21, 2015 22:47:56 GMT -5
The AT May be exempted, but it is unclear if the ban includes side and access trails. Also, the AT does not have its own corridor, much of the trail is on game lands, not national park service property.
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Jan 22, 2015 8:50:49 GMT -5
According to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy " more than 99.7% of the A.T. is now in public ownership. Not only is the footpath itself protected, but a corridor of land, averaging one thousand feet in width, is also protected."
|
|
|
Post by aseege1 on Jan 22, 2015 9:53:10 GMT -5
That is correct. I wish they could get the same classification for Tuscarora. And I assume they will do the same for the GET. But I don't see the DCNR and PGC working together to get protected corridors for every backpacking trail going through the SGLs.
|
|
|
Post by jmitch on Jan 22, 2015 16:11:19 GMT -5
I should have been more clear. Most of the AT is on public land and protected by a corridor, but that corridor is not always owned by the NPS or the ATC. State agencies may own it, like DCNR or PGC. So the AT can be subject to regs of those state agencies.
|
|
|
Post by jmitch on Jan 22, 2015 16:33:31 GMT -5
|
|
ki0eh
Forum Elder
Posts: 196
|
Post by ki0eh on Jan 26, 2015 15:13:18 GMT -5
|
|
ki0eh
Forum Elder
Posts: 196
|
Post by ki0eh on Jan 30, 2015 10:45:37 GMT -5
big_load is over on the old forum asking if people were talking about this. I wish he too would come over here...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 30, 2015 10:48:07 GMT -5
I had invited him. Send him the link.
|
|