The Art and Science of Wildlife Management: Questions of Interpretation and Accountability

By: Anonymous

Pennsylvania Game Commission and Science-Based Management

The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) leadership and Board of Commissioners frequently state that wildlife management decisions are guided by the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which emphasizes science-based management of wildlife resources. While that principle is widely supported, some public statements and policy decisions have led hunters to question whether conclusions are always based on sound scientific analysis or whether important factors are occasionally overlooked.

For example, during a Fox News interview in the Harrisburg area several years ago, a PGC spokesperson suggested that hunters were purchasing licenses earlier than in previous years due to the implementation of the Saturday opening day of deer season and the introduction of online licensing. While earlier purchases did occur, another significant variable was not mentioned.

That same year for the first time in modern history, hunters were allowed to apply for antlerless deer licenses (doe tags) at the time they purchased their hunting license. Experienced hunters understand that obtaining a doe tag often requires applying immediately when licenses become available, especially in popular Wildlife Management Units (WMUs). In fact, one unit sold out in less than 24 hours. Hunters who waited even one day to apply were unable to obtain a tag.

Given these circumstances, it is reasonable to ask whether the increase in early license purchases was truly caused by the Saturday opener or whether the new doe-tag application process played a larger role. The question becomes one of interpretation: was the conclusion incomplete or a deception by overlooking, or even hiding, a significant contributing factor?

Antlerless License Allocations and Management Decisions

A more recent PGC policy guaranteed that Pennsylvania residents applying for a doe tag during the first week of availability would receive a license in the WMU of their choice. However, that guarantee had not been possible in the previous year when one unit sold out almost immediately.

The following year, to fulfill the new guarantee, the PGC increased the allocation in that WMU by approximately 20,000 tags. Agency officials stated that the increase was made solely to ensure hunters applying during the first week would receive a license in their selected unit.

Critics argue that the additional allocation was driven primarily by administrative considerations (to fulfill their guarantee) than biological data regarding deer populations. This very decision raises questions about whether the allocation reflected true scientific wildlife management principles. This becomes even more concerning, considering that the WMU in question reportedly has the lowest deer harvest rates per square mile in the state.

The Role of Advocacy Organizations

Various advocacy and lobbying organizations also play a role in influencing wildlife policy discussions. One prominent organization is the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen and Conservationists (PFSC), which represents numerous sportsmen's clubs and promotes itself as the voice of Pennsylvania sportsmen in the state capitol.

The PFSC publicly supports science-based wildlife and fisheries management and regularly advocates for allowing wildlife professionals, rather than elected officials, to make game and fish management decisions. In supporting the Saturday opener, one PFSC representative stated that the organization backs the Game Commission's “science-based, resource-first model.”

The same representative also noted that hunters comprise only a small percentage of Pennsylvania's population and suggested that special-interest groups and public misunderstanding can sometimes influence wildlife policy debates.

However, some hunters contend that organizations engaged in active legislative advocacy may themselves be viewed as special-interest groups. This raises a broader question: to what extent do such organizations represent only their members views and not the views of the average Pennsylvania hunter?

It is important to note that members of the Game Commission Board have acknowledged the controversy surrounding the Saturday opener, which they originally agreed was not scientific but a social change. In recent years, commissioners have publicly stated that the issue has divided the hunting community and have sought legislative discussions regarding potential solutions.

Examining Population and License Trends

Supporters of the Saturday opener have stated that the change would help recruit and retain hunters. At the same time, general license sales continue to decline for both the adult and junior resident hunters.

Some advocates using “rural statistic websites” have pointed to demographic changes such as the death rate in rural Pennsylvania surpassing the birth rate around 2008; suggesting that as a contributing factor. However, statewide demographic data may tell a different story than the rural-only statistics as the statewide death rate did not pass the birth rate until 2020, the year of the COVID-19 pandemic.  To avoid any measure of deception, care must be taken to ensure that comparisons are based on proper statewide datasets.

Similarly, recent PGC presentations have highlighted data showing that hunting participation among younger age groups has stabilized since implementation of the Saturday opener. Recently the PGC presented graphs showing that since the Saturday start the license sales in both the 12-17 and 18-25 age groups has leveled off and stopped declining.  Upon closer look at the title of the graphs, it shows that the information presented was a combination of both general license sales and additional tags. Because antlerless license allocations have increased an average of over 120,000 tags in the last four years, this graph and the outcomes presented are misleading.

Critics argue that total license numbers may appear stronger even as the number of individual hunters continues to decline. In other words, there are less hunters buying more additional tags. As a result, some hunters believe more emphasis should be placed on analyzing trends in general hunting license sales rather than total permits issued.

Access and Hunting Practices

The Saturday opener has also generated discussion regarding traditional hunting practices. Hunters who travel to camps often point out that a Monday opener provided additional time over the Thanksgiving weekend to prepare camps, clear access routes, and set up equipment.

In response, some supporters of the Saturday opener have suggested that hunters should prioritize their time and prepare earlier. They even allude to the Monday supporters being “unsafe” by waiting to put up or check their treestands a day or two ahead of opening day and mention they check theirs throughout the year. However, hunters who use public lands note that regulations governing state forests and state game lands limit how long tree stands may remain in place. They are not permitted year around in those areas. Consequently, preparation options available to private-land hunters may not always be available to those hunting public property.

These differing circumstances illustrate why many hunters continue to view the issue through very different lenses.

Economic Considerations

Another area of debate involves the economic impact of hunting across the state. During a recent informative legislative hearing, PGC Executive Directo, Steve Smith reportedly noted that the agency's statutory mission under Title 34 does not specifically include responsibility for protecting individual business revenues.

Nevertheless, the PGC has frequently highlighted the positive economic benefits generated by wildlife-related tourism at destinations such as Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area, Pymatuning, and the Elk Country viewing area near Benezette.

Critics argue that if agencies can appropriately acknowledge positive economic impacts associated with their programs, then the economic (negative) consequences of policy changes should also receive consideration when evaluating management decisions affecting 100’s if not 1000’s in other areas.

Moving Forward

The debate over the Saturday opener reflects larger questions about how wildlife policy is developed, communicated, and evaluated. While most hunters support science-based management, many also believe that transparency and complete analysis are equally important. The Saturday opener has not met its objective to reverse the decline in general resident hunting license sales, and opinions remain deeply divided among Pennsylvania hunters.

The PGC is urged to return the Monday opener and shift their strategic priorities to focus on the main reason for the decline in hunters, which is poor deer management. Their Title 34 directive should serve as their “North Star” and guide their teams to manage and increase the wildlife to make it worthwhile for people to spend their time in the woods. As mentioned above, it is alarming that they would add antlerless deer licenses, just to guarantee a tag, especially in WMUs with significantly low deer populations.

In conclusion, it appears that the Pennsylvania legislators, as well as the Governor and his staff, need to give more due diligence to the decisions made by the PGC as well as the information they share to the public. Given the fact that over 90% of Pennsylvania residents do not hunt, including the various state legislators, published information and graphs presented to the public must not be misleading. PGC decisions must reflect sound science and the interests of Pennsylvania's hunting community and not those of select special interest groups and their lobbyists.