Archive

ShareThis Page
Quotables: Taking aim at the Pennsylvania Game Commission | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Quotables: Taking aim at the Pennsylvania Game Commission

ptrpennhillsfinance10051916
Lillian DeDomenic | For The Tribune-Review
Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale

The Pennsylvania Game Commission, which has come under criticism over its management, the declining number of hunters and even the dwindling population of Pennsylvania’s state bird, the ruffed grouse, will be the focus of an state audit. Auditor General Eugene DePasquale says the focus will be on a review of proper procedures for wildlife management from 2014-17, commission finances and property purchases. A review is in order, as the commission’s last audit dates back almost a decade.

“We know that we have about 200,000 declined numbers of hunters, and that’s for a reason of what they have concerns with, and that is the mismanagement of that wildlife.

David Maloney

Republican state representative from Berks County, referring to the state’s white-tailed deer population.

“We are … optimistic that the results will correct some misconceptions that continue to persist within segments of the Legislature and the hunting community, and will allow us to move forward to address the challenges facing wildlife in the commonwealth.”

Bryan Burhans

Game commission executive director

“This audit was prompted by a bipartisan group of House members who have questioned the activities of the Game Commission for quite some time.”

Michael Hanna

Democratic representative from Centre County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.