Time for legislators to support the WMRA
This past month without a column deadline rested my body and mind. The break gave me a few weeks to gather my thoughts and now offer what I think are critical recommendations for our future. Part of the reasoning for cutting back my writing was the realization that many of our problems have just been repeating themselves for literally decades. It became frustrating writing about the issues that were solvable, but continuously ignored. I’m calling this one the “Wildlife Management Restoration Act of 2005” (WMRA). Obviously, I can not initiate legislation, but rest assured I will send these recommendations to every legislator in this state. We shall see if anyone has the guts to craft legislation that benefits millions of Pennsylvanians and our precious natural resources. We know our legislators don’t have a problem giving themselves a pay raise in the face of public outrage. Passing the WMRA should be child’s play for our seasoned, professional politicians.
In overview, what I see is a test of wills which has emerged between our state agencies and our citizens. We, the people, want our agencies to go in a certain direction and they want to go in an entirely different direction. This is primarily due to people with special interest agendas securing positions of authority within our state agencies. With no system of control or accountability established by the legislature, agency personnel thumb their noses at citizens and legislators alike. Legislators make the excuse that they don’t want to become involved in micro-managing the agencies.
I have a very simple solution. Treat the agencies like the public servants they are. Give them goals, monitor their progress and hold them accountable for results. If they can’t do the job, we will find people who can. Let me lay out for you in no specific order the main points of WMRA and how the games our agencies play would come to an abrupt end.
First, make it mandatory that both agencies cut 1% of their mature timber every year, no excuses accepted. How much of the forest sits in saw timber is contentious, but I would estimate the PGC should be cutting a minimum 10,000 acres per year and DCNR should cut 20,000 acres per year into posterity. Additionally, an independent forestry advisory team should be assembled to make certain all timber cuts from this day forward benefit wildlife. Never again should we allow our forest ecosystems to be turned into a tree nursery.
Second, ban all forest “stand improvement cuts”. This is a forestry strategy of removing non-commercial trees leaving only the money trees for eventual harvest. This strategy has had a devastating effect on our forests. Those non-commercial species are critical as wildlife food and habitat. Blaming deer for munching on red oaks when the agencies have removed the deer’s preferred species is a farce. Never should we cut another white oak tree in this state.
Third, if we must hear about sustainable forestry practices, then we must demand sustainable deer management. The PGC, by law, should be required to maintain a yearly harvest of 150,000 bucks and 200,000 antlerless deer. If the agencies complain our forest can not carry that many deer, then they better start improving habitat by cutting trees and spreading lime. If the buck harvest drops below 150,000 in a given season, doe season would automatically close the next year.
Fourth, soil sampling should become a legal requirement of Pennsylvania’s forestry practices. Living in a state with the most acidic precipitation on the planet requires that this travesty be monitored very closely for the benefit of both our forests and waterways. DCNR shouldn’t breathe a word about deer impacting forest regeneration until they have determined if desired plant species can even grow in our acidic soils.
Fifth, require by law that all Pittman-Robertson funds be dumped into the PGC’s Bureau of Wildlife Management, not the Bureau of Land Management. I wrote that column five years ago. This one is a no-brainer.
I hope you are getting my point. I didn’t explain my reasoning, but you know very well the root causes of my recommendations. In essence, take the major decision and policy making away from the agencies so they can not impose their bizarre agendas on the people.
We, the people, are supposed to tell our legislators how we want these agencies to operate. Our legislators are supposed the write the laws to make certain our agencies don’t drift into self-destructive oblivion and take our wildlife, forests, rural economies and hunting tradition with them.
The last time I checked this was still America. Our political system was designed from the people up, not from the ivory towers of state agencies down to the people.
I hope you will contact your legislators and support the “Wildlife Management Restoration Act of 2005.”