Question about State Game Lands (Jim Thorpe: sales, real estate, 2015)

[ktbeast918]

Hello everybody,

My significant other and I are looking into possibly moving to PA next year. We want to be near areas with some good hiking. I saw that PA has a lot of state game lands and couldn't find a clear answer to whether the public is allowed on these.

If anyone can tell me if the public are allowed on these lands for hiking, biking etc... and if it is year-round or only in non-hunting seasons.

Thanks in advance!!

Kevin

[thecoalman]

Yes with restrictions. They even allow for some activities on designated trails like bike riding, ATV's, etc.


https://www.pgc.pa.gov/HuntTrap/Stat...s/default.aspx


As general rule best to avoid them during hunting seasons for safety reasons alone, also note you can be charged if you are making disturbance during hunting season.

You may want to also investigate the state parks which are often adjacent to the state game lands. Some can cover quite a a large area like Ricketts Glenn. Those are specifically for the general public and generally off limits to hunting. They have all kinds of activities including camping, boating, trails etc.

Just an FYI but the PA Game Commission has been around for more than 100 years, it's quite unique how it's been utilized and I don't believe any state has anything like it at least as far as land goes. Those lands were acquired and are maintained through hunting license fees and other revenue generated from their use, currently 1.5 million acres. No public tax dollars are used. There has been recent efforts to impose fees on the general public, with the general decline in the hunting and the increased usage for other activities I believe that is inevitable.

[Icy Tea]

Pa has so much land protected thanks to hunters. Land that is mostly open to all with the said restrictions during hunting season. Don't hug a tree, hug a hunter.

[PAhippo]

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

Pa has so much land protected thanks to hunters. Land that is mostly open to all with the said restrictions during hunting season. Don't hug a tree, hug a hunter.

don't know as the hunter's SO would approve.

[ktbeast918]

Thanks everyone for the responses!

That is good to know and what I was thinking when researching some. I saw measures were brought up (2014/2015?) to possibly charge the public for something like a permit but didn't see if it was passed or not.

Again, thanks for the help

Kevin

[thecoalman]

It's not been passed but it's inevitable. As you can imagine many hunters not too happy about footing the bill for things like maintaining roads and parking areas. Some would be quite happy to just stop other activities but I believe that is short sighted because of the declining hunting population. The other concern is losing control of it, if you have large part of the population paying fees they get a seat at the table for decisions. That's not necessarily an issue but on the other hand it's not 120 years of licensing fees that paid for that land.

[ki0eh]

In most cases the PGC can only legally pay $400/acre for land from funds raised from hunting license sales, ammunition taxes, and funds from timber/mineral sales from the game lands. Nowhere in PA has land been that cheap for decades, so in practice SGL acquisitions are mediated by land conservancies that get private donations from hunters, hikers, etc. to make up the difference between the actual price and the $400/acre the PGC pays. However, it's then carried on the PGC's books as paid for entirely by their own sources of revenue. As hunting is currently in thrall to white identity politics, there is an increasing likelihood that the PGC will "take their ball and go home" and introduce more restrictions. That's already happened at Glen Onoko near Jim Thorpe, where PGC elected to just close a trail rather than be bothered to leverage resources to fix it - honestly, I'm surprised the state politicians have let them get away with that move. OTBE most of the conservancies are now dealing with DCNR (state parks or forests) to assume ultimate ownership of their larger acquisitions, due to the ungratefulness of the PGC. Real estate agents typically list their properties as adjacent to SGL even when it's actually state forest (different land management agency) that it's next to. If I typed in verbatim what the PGC printed on the back of the old "sportsmen's recreation maps" about access to SGL twenty years ago, I'd be accused of being a commie or worse. While there is much good to be said about the PGC approach to land management where hunting actually remains the dominant recreation demand, it's probably past time for a big land swap so PGC yields certain tracts dominated by non-hunting recreation potential to DCNR, and in turn assumes responsibility for some of the DCNR tracts way out wherever where no one but hunters and loggers go.

Actually, I believe all states and territories have ammo-tax (Pittman-Robertson) eligible lands. Most states embed these into some agency that also handles fishing, or perhaps broader resource management, and typically call them "wildlife management areas." Under Obama they were flush with cash, but lately folks don't seem to be buying as much ammo. Of course many of those ammo buyers don't hunt, either.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by ki0eh

While there is much good to be said about the PGC approach to land management where hunting actually remains the dominant recreation demand, it's probably past time for a big land swap so PGC yields certain tracts dominated by non-hunting recreation potential to DCNR, and in turn assumes responsibility for some of the DCNR tracts way out wherever where no one but hunters and loggers go.

The burden shifts to the state and you already have issues with funding for existing parks etc. Leave it in the Game Commissions hands and they can broaden the activities allowed, impose fees on those broader activitires. Especially ATV riding, bikes, horses etc. Those utilizing it are paying the fee.



With the decline in hunting this is inevitable sometime down the road.