The Pennsylvania Game Commission has a trust issue.
One can argue the agency has been viewed with varying degrees of skepticism for years, but no one can deny that the problem exists today, and on a pretty grand scale.
There are two current issues that have led hunters to doubt the Game Commission.
The audit released in May – the one that yielded 11 findings and 43 recommendations – revealed the PGC needs to do a better job with its finances, on a number of levels.
Hunters weren’t too happy to learn that the agency was sitting on a $72.8 million reserve fund, had lax oversight regarding payments owed by oil and gas companies, didn’t deposit some royalty checks in a timely manner and had $6.5 million in various escrow accounts that the commission’s financial officer apparently didn’t know existed until the audit was conducted.
Those were just some of the problems uncovered by the audit, and hunters were right to be upset with the agency.
But there’s a silver lining in the audit mess: It’s easy to remedy. The Game Commission simply needs to abide by the recommendations outlined by Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, become more transparent with its finances and keep us all in the loop as issues are addressed.
The PGC pledged to implement the recommendations and fix what was broken, and that’s the right way to earn trust.
The other matter that has resulted in a lack of trust with the PGC has to do with attempts to conduct targeted deer removals, or culling, in an effort to slow the spread of chronic wasting disease.
There are two sides to this issue and both have merit. On one hand, we can’t let CWD continue to spread across the state. Something needs to be done.
But, hunters in those areas where the culling was to take place don’t want to see the deer herd decimated, and I can’t blame them. A group of hunters in Blair and Bedford counties that opposed a planned culling effort did so because they weren’t convinced removing deer via sharpshooters was the answer.
Especially when there are still so many questions surrounding the disease.
While it’s going to be hard for the Game Commission to gain the trust needed for hunters to support the culling of deer, the agency can help itself if it leads by example.
It’s widely accepted that CWD, and other wildlife diseases, are made worse when animals congregate. Feeding wildlife promotes congregation, which heightens the risk of CWD.
On its website, the agency makes a pretty good case against feeding wildlife:
“Wildlife feeding brings animals into closer contact with one another and for longer periods of time than typical. Increased contact increases exposure.”
“Feeding sites harbor and concentrate disease agents deposited by infected animals creating a reservoir of disease.”
“Wildlife feeding can increase transmission of CWD and mange.”
Furthermore, in Disease Management Areas (places designated by the PGC where CWD has been found), feeding deer is prohibited, and rightly so.
But here’s where the trust issue comes into play: If feeding deer causes them to congregate, which increases the risk of CWD transmission, why does the agency allow baiting on private property in the Southeast Special Regulations Area?
How can we sincerely trust what the agency is telling us – don’t feed deer – if they are allowing that exact practice to happen in one part of the state?
In my opinion, there’s no difference between baiting and feeding. If you put corn or pellets on the ground, you’re feeding deer and thus forcing them to congregate. It doesn’t matter if it’s done for hunting purposes or just for the fun of it.
What I find even more troubling about the allowance of baiting in the southeast is the proximity of the practice to an area (DMA 4) where CWD has been found.
Disease Management Area 4 was established in 2018 after a CWD-positive deer was detected on a captive deer farm in Lancaster County.
Parts of Lancaster and Berks counties are included in DMA 4. They both border Chester County, which is part of the special regulations area where baiting is allowed.
So, in those parts of Lancaster and Berks counties under DMA 4, feeding deer is prohibited because of the presence of CWD. But in nearby Chester County, feeding (baiting) deer is allowed.
Is feeding deer really that dangerous if the agency allows baiting in a county that is in close proximity to a CWD area?
Of course it is, but such inconsistencies don’t help the PGC when it comes to trust.
That’s why the agency should lead by example. If feeding deer heightens the CWD risk in one area, it also increases that threat everywhere else, regardless if the disease has yet to turn up.
The PGC needs to be proactive when it comes to CWD. Don’t wait for the disease to turn up in an area and then prohibit feeding. Do it now.
It’s the right thing to do for our deer herd, and it would go a long way to showing hunters they can trust what the agency is telling them about CWD.
