Sign up | Log in | Forgot Password

Faxes Sent to Robert E. Belfanti Jr.

Letters

From:	KVR
To:	Representative Belfanti
Date:	Saturday, 07/09/05
Subject:	New Paintball law

Dear Mr. Belfanti,
I would like to thank you for introducing legislation which was not a hinderance
to the sport of paintball. Many states and counties are inacting laws and legislation
which are hindering this growing sport. I am a 19 year old, sophmore electrical
engineering major at the Univeristy of Arizona and personally compete in
tournaments around the country and have been playing for almost eight years now.
I hate driving around cities (both the one I live in and others which I visit) and seeing
the marks of paintball splotches on signs and other public property. Even though I
don't live in Pennsylvania (I live in Arizona), I apprecitate the effort you you put into
such legislation and I wanted to thank you personally for your contribution to the
sport, and hope that your state is only the first of many states to realize that
paintball is a sport, not new form of vandalism. Thank you.

Sincerly,
Kyle Van Renterghem

Hon. Robert E. Belfanti, Jr.
15 West Avenue
Mount Carmel, PA 17851

January 22, 2005


Dear Representative Belfanti:


As a fellow graduate of the class of 1966 (Smethport, McKean
County) I have seen the deer numbers where I hunt decline as
you have. This decline would have happened with or without the
PGC. I have seen the ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare decline
even more dramatically than the deer. The forest has changed
from the one we started hunting in 1960. The canopy is tighter
and the amount of browse is even less. Every hemlock tree is
browsed to the height that a deer can reach. The forest in
this condition can not support the deer numbers that it once
did. Where I hunt, the land is managed by large forest
companies and the cutting has increased dramatically in the
past few years. Because of the lower deer numbers and the
larger size of the cuts, they no longer have to fence the areas
they cut to get regeneration. Deer hunting here will improve
dramatically in the next few years (with or without the PGC).

If the data indicates that the deer herd has been overshot in a
managament unit, I have full confidence that the PGC will
reduce or eliminate the doe licenses issued for that management
unit. There is one other thing that can be done to improve
deer hunting and all hunting on public lands and that is to
increase the amount of timber harvested. Neither the PGC or
the DCNR is cutting the amount of timber needed to maintain a
proper timber rotation (allowable cut). For twenty years they
have said it is due to a shortage of foresters. This is a lame
excuse and something that both agencies could address with some
encouragement and help from the legislature. The difference in
deer carrying capacity between a young forest and the current
mature forest is dramatic. A diversity of age classes is
beneficial to the health of the forest as well. I would be
happy to discuss my views on this matter with you at your
convenience. The following is the body of a letter that I sent
to Commissioner Schleiden.


This year I was more excited about deer hunting than I have
been in a long time. I thought that I would have a chance to
kill the best buck of my life and I was not disappointed. I
got the best deer I have ever harvested. I hunted the whole
first week of the season and it was the first time in many
years that I have done so. I hunted in McKean County and saw
few hunters in the woods. I saw far fewer deer than I would
have seen in the 60’s and 70’s as I expected. I did not see a
single 3 inch spike as I have seen many times in the past
years. Clear cuts that have been made in the past three years
are regenerating and the habitat will continue to improve for
ruffed grouse and snowshoe hares and deer. We have not seen a
hare in the area I hunt for about twenty years, but they will
have suitable habitat in two more years. I saw nine grouse on
the day before deer season and that was the most I have seen in
many years. We flushed grouse every day and I saw my first
fisher in the wild. Young hemlock can now be found in the
valley where we hunt and this has not occurred for more than 40
years. They still show evidence of hard browsing, but some of
them are making it for the first time in my memory and I first
hunted the area in 1960.



Deer numbers have been down in our area for at least the last
five years, even before Gary Alt came on the scene and the
hunter numbers have been very low as well. The valley where we
hunt is owned by a large forest company and they have had the
roads gated for about ten years. Hunter numbers have been down
ever since. We have not seen many deer killed there for more
than five years and we do not hear much shooting compared to
the “old days”. The habitat is showing encouraging signs of
regenerating and the carrying capacity of the valley is going
up fast for deer and all forest wildlife. Deer numbers and
quality can only improve.


The so called “Unified” Sportsmen have been making a lot of
noise about suing the Commission for violating Title 34.
Section 322 outlines the duties of the Game Commission
to “Serve the interest of sportsmen by preserving and promoting
our special heritage of recreational hunting and fur taking by
providing adequate hunting
opportunity to hunt and trap the wildlife resources of this
Commonwealth.” The Commission well should have been sued for
the past management of the deer herd in the areas I hunted in
the 60’s. If a commercial deer grower produced adult bucks
with three inch spikes he would be put out of business for mal-
treatment of his animals. If he allowed thousands to starve,
the SPCA would be suing him, yet that was deer management in
the “good old days”. The days the Unified Sportsmen yearn
for. Sure you could see a lot of deer. I saw 50 in one herd
the first morning of deer season when I turned 12 years old,
not a legal deer in the bunch. In those years, we could see
hundreds of deer in the fields each spring and dozens lying in
the mountain brooks early in fishing season. Keep in mind the
bulk of the forest in the area I hunt and the whole north
central portion of the state was 45 years younger then and the
carrying capacity was much higher than it is today. Deer
numbers would be less now with or without management because
the forest canopy is much tighter. I have only taken two bucks
with antlers that would not fit inside a five gallon bucket.
All the rest would fit in and the lid could be closed. I
expect to get a lot more wall hangers if the current management
program can be maintained.



Acid rain may be a factor in the reduction in carrying capacity
of our northern forests, but it does not justify maintaining a
larger deer herd. I have listened closely to this argument,
but the math does not work. I do believe that acid rain
adversely affects the forest regeneration. Forest regeneration
(browse) is what deer eat. If we have less deer food, I can
not see how that justifies carrying more deer. Acid rain alone
is not responsible for regeneration failures over most of the
state. I have viewed many deer exclosures and have never seen
one that did not produce dramatic results. Deer fences were
used commercially on the area that I hunt until about three
years ago when very large areas were cut and not fenced. The
acid rain crowd has not explained to me why most of the hemlock
north of I-80 is sheared off about 4 feet off the ground.



It seems that the number of deer on public lands is a major
issue in the discussion of deer numbers. Most of the public
land that I observe is seriously lacking in the primary food of
deer – browse. The public lands, especially in the north
central part of the state are mostly mature timber. They are
seriously under cut. I see areas near Renovo with rhododendron
browsed to the height that a deer can reach and no other browse
in sight. Most of the Quehanna area is in sad shape even with
the large open areas caused by the tornadoes. On Wykoff Run
the rhododendrons are seriously browsed. A suggestion for our
friends in DCNR and the PGC as well is to increase the amount
of cutting on public lands. This would increase the carrying
capacity of not only deer, but all of the forest flora and
fauna that are in trouble in Pennsylvania. The main argument
that I have heard to this suggestion is that the state does not
have enough foresters to cut more timber. Hire private
foresters to do the job then. It is called outsourcing and it
is done every day. Signs of over browsing are very evident
throughout the north central part of Pennsylvania that I am
familiar with and the problem is not confined to public land.
While some will want to argue numbers with you, the habitat
speaks for itself. Past management and succession has reduced
the carrying capacity of much of our deer range.



You are on the right track and while some mid course
corrections may be in order, I never heard anyone say that you
were not going to consider the data as it becomes available or
the interests and opinions of the hunters. Don’t cave in to
the whining
demands of the Unified Sportsmen and sell out your primary
stakeholders – the license
buying hunters. There is a lot more to deer hunting than just
reporting that you saw a lot of deer. It seems that many are
putting the number of deer seen as the only measure of
satisfaction. This was one of the best deer seasons I have
ever had, and I believe that it was a direct result of the
Commission’s management. I expect future seasons to be much
better as the deer range regenerates. I do not envy your job
of weighing all of the comments you are receiving and I am glad
that you are representing this area.




Sincerely,



David J. Putnam
168 Kenwalke Lane
Centre Hall, PA 16828