There are roads to be traveled, and yes we prefer those "less traveled." Places where the umbilical cord of a cellphone flashes "no signal."
The roads are often nearly abandoned except by vehicles that seem in a hurry to get somewhere. We consider "somewhere" exactly where we are.
Although it seems odd, our numbers continue to grow, and those carrying a camera — even a cellphone with one — are being used to photograph wildlife, wildflowers and those shots from awesome vistas. But some of the newbies in the outdoor world just don't understand why we go and I often wonder why they do.
A few overheard conversations went something like this; "OK, I saw an elk, now can we leave?" Deby Dixon, a fulltime photographer at Yellowstone National Park, wrote an excellent article on photographers and wildlife for National Parks Traveler titled "Photography In The National Parks: A Wildlife Advocate's View Of Wildlife Photography" in which she outlined the problems with people who claimed to be professional photographers and those who did not.
She outlined her experiences of not only photographing the park's wildlife but handling people who seemed not to understand that wildlife can be dangerous. One person who responded to Dixon's survey told her while he was photographing buffalo with their calves, he overheard a lady telling her husband to take their kids and get closer to the animals. When the husband faltered and questioned his wife's direction, asking if she was sure, she said, "Yeah, this is a National Park. They wouldn't put wild animals in here".
Although it seems funny, it does fill in the blanks of what understanding some people have of both wildlife and what may be known as "viewing areas." Although I feel that viewing areas serve to attract more folks to certain areas, it has become a necessity to stop people from trampling through those sensitive areas that hold the habitat needed for wildlife to prosper.
But at the same time, those roped areas often make many feel safe, as if a deer, bear, elk, buffalo or any other species of wildlife could not cross a barrier. What people need to know is that wildlife is wild and not even close to their home-kept pet.
At the current time, the Pennsylvania Game Commission is studying the possibility of a user fee on our Game Lands. They're working on the language that would include the cost of the permit and when a user fee would allow non-hunters on Game Lands.
A behind-the-scenes debate has been as loud as a tin can kicked down a proverbial alley. Sportsmen who paid for Game Lands are concerned that such a "user fee" could lead to non-hunters wanting a say in how their land should be managed.
It should be noted that many non-hunters use our Game Lands free of charge each and every year and even become miffed when told that they must wear florescent orange when using the land during hunting seasons.
Over the years it has become obvious that Game Lands are often confused with State Parks and State Forests that are funded by tax payers' dollars. Game Lands have not been advertised in a way that tell our citizens that they have been welcomed guests of hunters and trappers.
Gas and oil leases have added some money to the PGC coffers, and it seems unrealistic to believe that they can count on antlerless permits as a major source of income in the future. The deer herd is becoming absurdly low and is not rebounding as some believed it would. If a "user fee" or visitor's fee was put in place, it has been rumored that it would cost more than a hunting license.
Many states charge to enter their state parks. One state park we entered in Maryland charged a fee for use of all recreational areas. Despite the higher use of many of these parks, staffing has become less rather than more.
National Parks do charge an entry fee as well, so it becomes immediately apparent that you have arrived to a state or national park when you arrive at the toll gate. Like PA state parks, there is a charge to camp in any one of the state's camping areas. But it doesn't mean that visitors can tell any of these agencies how to manage their lands.
Putting the wagon before the horse may be the plan's biggest drawback. It seems almost necessary that maps of horse and hiking trails and specific game land maps would be necessary. The commission owns more than 1.4 million acres of game lands across the state, and that's a lot of land.
If you recall, the PGC did issue shooting range permits at the cost of $30 per permit. Range permits brought in close to $300,000 for the commission this past year, with most of it going into maintenance of those ranges. Why people didn't opt for a less expensive hunting license to use those ranges is something only they can answer.
What are often referred to as non-consumptive users of Game Lands apparently prefer not to support hunting and or trapping, although it is apparent that they will if they want to use land managed for wildlife. However, it does seem less expensive and with the same results to purchase a hunting license.
As others suggested, the PGC could increase its timbering to increase its revenue. The major concern of hunters and trappers is that they would be opening the doors to people that oppose their hunting, as if opening the doors to their home and having someone else rearrange their furniture.
The proponents consider it a chance to allow those so-called non-consumptive users to help pay their fair share. It would be a challenge that could lead to bigger problems down the road.
Perhaps like in many National Parks and on some Game Lands they could point us to those viewing areas where ropes keep us from danger, and cameras would be clicking as a white-tailed deer ghosted through the forest.