Email
Print
FeedAgency’s article about deer insulted some state hunters
Franklin, Pa. — An often-repeated complaint about the Pennsylvania Game Commission is that it no longer cares about or respects deer hunters, and some are pointing to an article written by one of the agency’s deer biologists in a recent issue of its public relations magazine as proof.
At their recent quarterly meeting here, commissioners heard a complaint about the story, authored by Jeannine Fleegle in the August issue of Pennsylvania Game News.
Randy Santucci, president of the Unified Sportsmen, claimed the piece was “disrespectful” and “essentially spit in the face of sportsmen.”
The article titled “Enough,” according to Santucci, was condescending towards Keystone State hunters unhappy about low deer numbers, comparing them to spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum.
“I have been contacted by sportsmen who are highly offended and insulted being compared to children,” he said.
In the article, Fleegle claimed that Pennsylvania deer hunters are “stuck in the ‘70s and suggested they should consider the title of the Rolling Stones song “You Can't Always Get What You Want!”
Santucci, of McKees Rocks, pointed out that hunters pay Fleegle’s salary, and demanded an apology from the commissioners for her insulting hunters.
“As a small business owner, if any of my employees addressed my customers in this degrading, disrespectful manner, there would be serious ramifications!” he said.
“This agency is supposedly professing a new commitment to transparency and connecting with the public. But one must ask, are hunters part of the public they want to embrace with this outreach?”
Publicly – although Commissioner Ralph Martone, of Lawrence County, president of the board, did say that Fleegle does not speak for the agency – commissioners declined to disavow her opinions.
Privately, after the session, however, they made it clear they did not appreciate the “tone of the article.” One said it is “a personnel issue that is being investigated.” Another vowed, ”it won’t happen again.”
Fleegle is entitled to her opinions, Martone indicated, but commissioners don’t necessarily agree with her. He called her article an opinion piece.
“So, I think the deer team does its job biologically and the board of commissioners takes the social issues into account,” he said. “And believe me, it is always part of the discussion, keeping the hunters in the game.”
Martone pointed out that commissioners don’t always follow recommendations by agency biologists like Fleegle and her boss, commission deer section leader Chris Rosenberry.
“We listen to his recommendation the same as we listen to yours,” he told Santucci, who is also now a member of the Governor’s Advisory Council for Hunting, Fishing and Conservation. “That doesn’t mean that we always take his advice – to his consternation.”
Santucci – who has been contending for years deer numbers are unnecessarily depleted in the northern tier – complained that there was no way to debate or rebut Fleegle’s opinions because Game News does not include letters to the editor.
“But we do offer a lot of contact with the board members,” Martone said. “Emailed comments to the website are forwarded to us and all letters sent on paper to the Harrisburg headquarters are forwarded to us.
“We follow Facebook and Twitter, so we see all the comments both positive and negative. So it is much easier in the last few years to get directly to your commissioner and the whole board.”
Fleegle’s “Enough” article was part of a series called “History of the Whitetail” that has been running in Game News.
“I think that series of articles was a little bit risky, to say the least, but I do think Jeannine is a good biologist and I would stick by her biology in this case,” Martone said.
“But her commentary maybe explains how sometimes the deer team feels like they are under the microscope and under fire a lot.
“It was a pretty controversial article, and that’s basically beyond anything else I could say. I am uncomfortable giving my personal opinion on it.”
If she was any kind of upstanding person. She could apologize for miss-understanding. But it just goes to show because you are educated, doesn't mean your smart. I was under assumption while employed for a company or group you were also a representative of company or group, and actions or negative statements could get you reprimanded. I guess at PGC they don't care about how they are viewed by citizens they work for.
This "Fleegle" person is clearly someone who thinks VERY LITTLE about hunters or the good of our sport, and its no wonder when she was taken from the same place as Rosenberry, who clearly is cut from the same cloth.
Both should have been fired long before now. It strongly supports what many have said about the agency for over a decade now.
I'm interested to see where this leads. Personally, I thought the article was tastefully written, but then, I'm not one of the folks whining for more deer. I commend Jeannine for being brave enough to publish the article. It shows she truly does care about the long-term preservation of the resource despite how it might affect her job. There's nothing more frustrating than being a PA deer biologist.
Here's a novel idea...if you're seeing fewer deer, stop shooting does. If you see lots of deer, harvest some does. It doesn't matter who you have for state deer biologists, if hunters do not take responsibility for their actions, they will NEVER be satisfied with their hunting experience. So spread the word with me: If you see few deer, don't shoot does. If you see lots of deer, harvest some does. Again! Few deer, don't shoot does. Lots of deer, harvest does. One more time for good measure? Nah, I think you've got the idea. Now get the word out!
Bioguy: The thing is maybe to you it was tastefully done. I just don't see where throwing gas on the fire is going to win you anything. I get flustered at my job sometimes, but I don't write an article bad-mouthing our customers. I mean they changed everything around we knew as deer seasons went, And didn't get a 100 percent pat on the back. Anybody who thinks there are no politics involved in Game Commissioners decisions on this subject are crazy.
Poor Jeanine, the victim in all this, antagonized by all the greedy evil hunters because of her departments fine decision making over the last decade place, forced her into being condescending and 100% tasteless. You are a funny gal Kathy.
"There's nothing more frustrating than being a PA deer biologist."
They bring it upon themselves. If they were to go to another state, and take a job in nongame dept's, they neednt have unnecessary emotional breakdowns. No reason at all why it must be that way. Dont let the door hit'm where the good lord split'em.
"Here's a novel idea...if you're seeing fewer deer, stop shooting does."
Stop issuing tags and hunters will stop shooting them. Novel idea. Another would be hunting legal with no license since we wont need to have pgc "manage" our wildlife at all, we'll just do it ourselves and decide how many we want to kill without paying a totally useless "middleman". Sounds like a plan you should be fine with given your line of logic here?
"It doesn't matter who you have for state deer biologists, if hunters do not take responsibility for their actions, they will NEVER be satisfied with their hunting experience."
Thats funny, most were prior to "the plan" and they are also in most other states that I hunt. So your misguided view is utterly false.
The word that needs to go out?
FIRINGS ARE NEEDED AT THE PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION. "WHO" holds upper end and biology staff positions DOES matter to a states deer hunting.
Apollodog - You make a good point. I can agree with that. As a deer biologist, I understand the frustrations the biologists at the PGC are dealing with. It always seems that whenever they make changes for the betterment of the resource, a barrage of hunter complaints to the board of commissioners sets things right back to square one, and the whole process starts over again. The biologists at the PGC have PhD's and Master's degrees in wildlife management. They have dedicated their lives to the resource and know more about the animals they manage than anyone else. They are the experts, and when their advice is completely ignored, it's insulting, frustrating, annoying, and even depressing. What's the point in being a biologist if your recommendations are completely ignored because of the opinion of dissatisfied hunters?
That said, I do believe that the PGC is currently doing a poor job at communicating with dissatisfied hunters...but then, when the dissatisfied hunters are recommended you be fired, you can see why there would be a disconnect. Would you want to communicate with someone that is so irritated that they cannot discuss things in a civil manner? This is not a good situation for anybody. Ultimately, the resource will suffer, and that's a shame.
Miss Davis, aside from you taking two sides of the issue with two identies trying to make them appear as 2 different ones to give them credibility in future commentary... I will still address your post.
Trust me when I say that I could not care less what degree is held by those hosing us over at pgc. I also assure you there are plenty of malignant organizations that have individuals at their disposal with those same credentials. Peta comes to mind as just one example.
You are also putting the cart ahead of the horse. The communication went nowhere with pgc. And that is why most of us know that the firings are needed. The reason communication went no place is because of their political agendas. Much of which was nicely prepared by John Eveland.
I agree SandMan, If their feelings are hurt maybe they should have thought about that ahead of time when it was time to do their job responsibly, and they declined.
Stanley L. Just comment on article the lame personal attacks are old dude. I don't believe PGC is all wrong, just about the communication this article projects. She will not get any support for her cause by insulting the likes of you, or others on that side of subject. Is all I was stating.
Relax Kathy. We all know that as long as the pgc are in anti-deer mode, your nose will be always be pgc green.
Is It Not time you sandman/Stanley to ditch the Stanley I.D. then declare you only comment on the article. I mean that is how your usual M.O. plays out right. By sandman taking the high road saying he is only commenting on the article, and nothing else.