Hiking to be banned for half the year

I'll probably be in the minority here but I'm all for the proposal. First its not as bad as it seems. You can still hike on Sundays and for large parts of the year. I hunt, fish and trap and have a degree in wildlife sciences and management, so this is pretty important to me. Hunters have just as much right if not more (which I would argue due to more money being put into the system by them) as do hikers. Also look at it this way, a hunter in the woods will not ruin a hikers experience, they are generally not hunting right on trails and go out of there way to be quite and inconspicuous, however a hiker can ruin a hunters experience or at the least make it much harder on them to be successful. There is a lot of public land out there thats off limit to hunting, horseback riding, biking, etc. so I'm ok with restricting hikers to benefit another paying user. Theses are all just my opinions and yours may vary.

P.S. I remember a while back expressing my concerns to others on this board (back when we were on the dark side) about the complications that arise from building trails on SGLs. I wonder if the long distance trails would have ever been built if the planners knew there would be restrictions placed on there use after construction.

I see the "free permits" as the gov't "getting a foot in the door". After all, permitting, wether free or paid costs money to implement. It will be just a matter of time before there will be a fee.

.

Hikers are more or less used to year round access (except private property) to any park, forest you can think of.  Whereas hunters have seasonal windows of opportunity.  If hunters have been able to put with restricted access we can too.  I see another upside to this from a general conservation standpoint - yes, it is keeping good minded hikers out from time to time, but it will also keep out the riff-raff who can't follow LNT.

Did Jeff Mitchell join this forum?  I'm curious what his perspective is on all this.

In PA state game lands were bought by hunters and they are there for hunting. Hikers have used them for years and they should be able to and will use them for years to come. The priority on those pieces of land should be hunting first and other forms of recreation second. Its a small window that you can't hike and there are plenty of other areas in PA you can hike on. As far as being mutual exclusive I would not want to have a group of hikers walk up on me when I was in the middle of calling in a turkey, or while on a stand for deer, and I would also not want to hike up onto someone who was hunting. I guess the bottom line for me is if someone is going to be excluded from SGL it should be the individuals who did not pay for the land.

I have to correct you ... I think ... but SGLs are purchased with tax payer dollars ... PA tax payers. Money collected from hunting licenses is but a part of the overall cost of the land.

There are a variety of problems with this proposal:

1. The belief that only hunters have paid for game lands is incorrect. Much of the money to buy game lands and wildlife habitat is reimbursed through the federal Pittman Robertson Act (in place since 1937, reimbursed at a rate of 75%), which is a tax on all ammunition and guns, including handguns. Many non-hunters (and I'm sure more than a few hikers) buy guns and ammo. There are approximately 1,000,000 PA hunters each year. There are about 4.4 million gun owners in PA. There is no question hunters have contributed greatly to conservation, so have non-hunters, and this should be acknowledged. Have you ever bought a gun or ammo? If so, you have supported the game lands and the PGC.

2. A few SGLs were donated to the PGC from land conservancies, such as the Thousand Steps. To now restrict their use is obviously unfair since hunters did not buy those SGLs, as is popularly claimed. This proposal will likely chill future conveyances from conservancies.

3. The purpose of the PGC is the conservation and management of all wildlife, including non-game species. The PGC does not exist solely for hunting. To restrict outdoor enthusiasts who enjoy wildlife, but do not hunt, undermines the purpose of the PGC.

4. The proposed regs create an exception for anglers. This suggests special treatment. Why do anglers get an exception, but not other non-hunting groups?

5. PGC may suggest the reg is necessary for safety. No hiker has been shot by a hunter in PA in recent memory. However, on a few occasions, hunters have shot other hunters in PA in the last few years.

6. Non-hunters, through tax dollars, have contributed more to the state forests and parks than hunters. Most state parks and almost all state forests are open to hunting. Would it be fair to restrict hunting in those places because hunters were the minor contributor? Of course not.

7. Hikers build and maintain trails for free on SGLs. Hunters use these trails to access the game lands and reach their hunting spots. Trails have been a benefit to them. Trails also assist when there is an emergency. PGC should encourage this collaboration.

8. A free permit makes little sense. It would increase costs, is unenforceable, fail to create revenue, and would not provide the data the PGC desires. No other PA agency (DCNR, PFBC) has such a requirement.

9. In my area, I've never heard of conflicts between hikers and hunters. Hikers stay out of the woods during popular hunting times. In all the time I've spent on SGLs, I've rarely seen a hunter. In fact, I can't specifically recall seeing one. Few hunters appear to go deep into the woods, far from roads and old grades. After all, there are limits to the distance where you can drag a deer. I've seen more hunters in state parks and forests and our interaction has always been positive and respectful. This is a solution in search of a problem.

I support hunting and think it is a great activity. There is no question hunters have contributed greatly to conservation. We are all on the same side, enjoy the outdoors, and respect nature. Most, if not all, of us have contributed to conservation. I find it unfortunate that proposals such as these create divisions between outdoor enthusiasts.

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?