The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 121 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The Pennsylvania legislature may once again explore the idea of merging the Game and Fish and Boat commissions.

Forty-nine states manage fish and wildlife under the auspices of one agency. Pennsylvania is the lone exception.

But state Rep. Martin Causer, the Potter County Republican who chairs the House game and fisheries committee, said Tuesday he wants the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to study a merger.

He made that announcement at the close of a hearing about the Fish and Boat Commission's annual report, where executive director John Arway outlined financial challenges — not of its own making — facing the agency.

Those money troubles, which are behind plans to close two trout hatcheries, one in his district, are one reason a merger might be appropriate, Causer said.

“I think the thing to do at a time when we're all looking so hard at budgets is to see if it makes sense to consolidate government agencies,” Causer said.

A combined commission would continue to operate independently, he said. But it might be more efficient, he added.

The idea of even studying a merger is not a done deal. The full House of Representatives must authorize it. But Causer said he's optimistic that will happen in time for a study to be completed by year's end.

Arway was quick to say the Fish and Boat Commission views a merger as a “bad idea.”

“We think the independent form of government we've got with two commissions has worked very well over a long period of time,” he said.

Game Commission spokesman Joe Neville said staff at that agency would have to have “some long, hard discussions before commenting in depth” on the idea. But the Game Commission, which doesn't have the same financial problems as Fish and Boat right now, isn't interested in a merger per se, he said.

“I have no doubt that our senior management staff has the talent and expertise to assimilate (Fish and Boat Commission) operations into ours. An equal merger assumes the Game Commission gets responsibility for Fish and Boat's issues and problems but does not have complete authority to address those issues since they would be shared,” Neville said.

The legislature studied the idea of a merger twice before, most recently in 2003. A report issued then said that a merger of the two commissions was “clearly feasible” and would save money. But it also said that a bigger issue was the need to find new revenue sources for fish and wildlife programs.



http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/3512231-74/fish-merger-commission#axzz2LpwHFl6g
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,221 Posts
Basically, we are talking about taking PGC money to support the PFBC trout stocking program.
I ask, why not raise the price of the trout stamp? What is so complicated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
The legislature studied the idea of a merger twice before, most recently in 2003. A report issued then said that a merger of the two commissions was “clearly feasible” and would save money.
So what is taking so long? Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
Why not start charging people to utilize the public land besides us hunters and fisherman? Thats how they did it in GA, they charged you like 2 bucks for admission per vehicle or you could buy a season pass. If you have a license for hunting or fishing your good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,391 Posts
burninghxcsoul said:
Why not start charging people to utilize the public land besides us hunters and fisherman? Thats how they did it in GA, they charged you like 2 bucks for admission per vehicle or you could buy a season pass. If you have a license for hunting or fishing your good.
If we charge non-hunters for using the gamelands, then eventually they will demand a say in things related to the gamelands. In my opinion, it wouldn't be inconceivable for them to be able to hold an anti-hunting rally on our own SGLs. Better for us to pay the bills ourselves and retain complete control on these properties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
HR129
A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to investigate the financial feasibility, impact, costs and savings potential of eliminating duplicated duties and services by combi...
Action(s)
PN 0956
Referred to GAME AND FISHERIES,March 11, 2013

Reported as committed from GAME AND FISHERIES, March 13, 2013


http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/bill...pe=B&bn=126
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The official reason is due the financial condition they both share.

But combining two under funded agencies only creates a single large under funded agency... worse, the liabilities of PFBC are worse than the GC. If merged, speculation is PFBC will suck the GC dry.

Dam repair is at the head of the list of projects the PFBC needs to address. Trout hatcheries are next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
Dams serve both hunters/trappers as well as anglers.

Thay may be able to save on bulk orders of pellet feed because the trout and pheasants eat the same stuff just with different names.


I think one taking money from the other is just one of the scare tactics being suggested by the top echelons that may soon find out they are no longer needed. Everyone knows that one agency will still need the worker bees but only one queen will be needed. Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
Alpine Shooter said:
Lets rid all put and take, hunting and fishing. It is to costly in todays society.
Amen... lets rear woodcocks, stock warm water species, build better launches, put trout FINGERLINGS into streams which can support them year round.

This pull up and jump out of the car, whack some pheasants or yank some trout who were dumped in five mins ago is long past time to shut it down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,027 Posts
I love the purists who want to stop programs which have helped to support hunting and fishing numbers for decades. For those macho guys who want to hunt or fish the more wild way, you have it. You don't want all the people hunting or fishing the wild areas. Two things will happen and neither is good. Too much pressure on the wild areas and less hunters and fisherman to support conservation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Lynnappelman said:
I love the purists who want to stop programs which have helped to support hunting and fishing numbers for decades. For those macho guys who want to hunt or fish the more wild way, you have it. You don't want all the people hunting or fishing the wild areas. Two things will happen and neither is good. Too much pressure on the wild areas and less hunters and fisherman to support conservation.
Far from a purist, but the system is definately flawed. When people are sitting at a stream, or waiting in there pickup for a stock truck to pull up something is wrong. This isn't hunting or fishing. I haven't trout fished in 10 years, and have pheasant "hunted" once in my life. Do I think these programs are beneficial? Yes. but to call it hunting or fishing, far from it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Its not hunting. Pheasant hunting 40 years ago was more like hunting. On farms not gamelands behind a stock truck. Put and take is breaking both agencies, Buy a beagle, if we put as much into habitat for rabbits, more brush piles, etc. Instead of thinned grssslands we are not going to loose hunters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,621 Posts
quackmaster4 said:
burninghxcsoul said:
Why not start charging people to utilize the public land besides us hunters and fisherman? Thats how they did it in GA, they charged you like 2 bucks for admission per vehicle or you could buy a season pass. If you have a license for hunting or fishing your good.
If we charge non-hunters for using the gamelands, then eventually they will demand a say in things related to the gamelands. In my opinion, it wouldn't be inconceivable for them to be able to hold an anti-hunting rally on our own SGLs. Better for us to pay the bills ourselves and retain complete control on these properties.
This is not an issue if the SGLs were purchased or are managed with PR funds as lands purchased or managed with PR funds must be managed first and foremost with the interest of wildlife restoration. Otherwise this is a violation of federal law which happens to be one of the few that are strictly enforced.

I've heard this argument from many folks through the years and they always talk about how bad things are in this state that has a use fee but never can provide one specific instance.

As it stands now, non-hunters have just as much right to use the land now as they would if they had to pay for use of the land for their activities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,391 Posts
Wiz said:
quackmaster4 said:
burninghxcsoul said:
Why not start charging people to utilize the public land besides us hunters and fisherman? Thats how they did it in GA, they charged you like 2 bucks for admission per vehicle or you could buy a season pass. If you have a license for hunting or fishing your good.
If we charge non-hunters for using the gamelands, then eventually they will demand a say in things related to the gamelands. In my opinion, it wouldn't be inconceivable for them to be able to hold an anti-hunting rally on our own SGLs. Better for us to pay the bills ourselves and retain complete control on these properties.


As it stands now, non-hunters have just as much right to use the land now as they would if they had to pay for use of the land for their activities.
They still have the rights to USE the land, but they really don't have any say in it's use and management. As soon as they start paying, they will find a judge to grant them more influence, and that will be bad for hunters.
 
1 - 20 of 121 Posts
Top