Same deal many good shore fishing spots are posted, with loss of fishing spots, we will loose fisherman just the same as we are loosing hunters because of the same reason.
License Fees
Some interesting comments in this article about fishing license fees and the closing of two trout hatcheries.
Note what Sen. Corman had to say and Rep. Haluska's observations on increasing license fees:
http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/3473176-74/commission-license-anglers#axzz2LAFMjej3
Have also heard that there may well be yet another "study" done on combining our two wildlife agencies, which to me, indicates a continuing effort by some legislators to further hammer on both agencies.
Note what Sen. Corman had to say and Rep. Haluska's observations on increasing license fees:
http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/3473176-74/commission-license-anglers#axzz2LAFMjej3
Have also heard that there may well be yet another "study" done on combining our two wildlife agencies, which to me, indicates a continuing effort by some legislators to further hammer on both agencies.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Disagree, although a factor not the driving oneAlpine Shooter said:Same deal many good shore fishing spots are posted, with loss of fishing spots, we will loose fisherman just the same as we are loosing hunters because of the same reason.
State Rep. Gary Haluska, a Cambria County Democrat, isn't going that far. But he did say the commission should ask for an increase in the cost of fishing licenses and trout stamps if that's what it takes to churn out trout for the 70 percent of anglers who pursue them.
“I think it's due,” Haluska said. “How many companies can go eight years without raising the price it charges for its goods and services? I think anglers would understand that.”
But the GC hasn't raised fees since 1999 and that OK ?
“I think it's due,” Haluska said. “How many companies can go eight years without raising the price it charges for its goods and services? I think anglers would understand that.”
But the GC hasn't raised fees since 1999 and that OK ?
I am talking the west Hammer, nowhere near the spots along the rivers. Then we have had streams that mine water has killed everything in the creeks. Put and take be it fish or birds, is costing to much to raise and disperse throughout the state. I agree a raise is needed, but we will loose fisherman and hunters, even though we are going to loose them anyway.HammerDown15 said:Disagree, although a factor not the driving oneAlpine Shooter said:Same deal many good shore fishing spots are posted, with loss of fishing spots, we will loose fisherman just the same as we are loosing hunters because of the same reason.
PGC is long overdue for a license increase.
Yep, but i sure don't want to see the two merge!hollowpoint said:PGC is long overdue for a license increase.
Anyone who thinks merging the two agencies will save money doesn't have a clue.
Works well for all other states.great white hunter said:Yep, but i sure don't want to see the two merge!hollowpoint said:PGC is long overdue for a license increase.
Raise the fees, yes please do...that way more guys will quit hunting and fishing and further drain the funds of the agency's..yes do it please
your guess would be wrong, Agencies that have merged are attempting to undo it
Do some research, there was a study done here in PA about cost and savings..... you wont like the results because it doesnt fit your anti PGC agenda.
All you would need to read is what we spent on ditch chickens and see Pa. just needs someone to oversee there funds. I would love to know what we wasted the last 20 years on them. Think of what the PGC could have done with all that money. Besides that they have done a fine job.
Its no secret what money comes in and goes out to what program. There is a report to the legislature every year and published in the January Game news. The information is there for the people that want to educate themselfs on the issue before posting something silly.
It is also posted on the pgc's website with all the yearly reports.
Serious question John, why wouldnt it? Im only going by my home state that we are under Maryland Deppt. Of Natural Rescources. Guess my main point is the same Md. Dnr officer that cites you on the stream for to many trout will check your hunting licences afield hunting. He will do ths driving the same state vechicle, wearing the same uniform talking on same radio. Wouldnt this be cost efficient? I noticed last year coming out of sport show i drove by 2 nice buildings. One was the fish comm. and other was game comm., again wouldnt 1 building be more cost efficient. I noticed out west in Co. they are Colorado Fish and Game. Wasent sure how many states have seperate agencys and im sure there is a reason, just wondering.John S said:Anyone who thinks merging the two agencies will save money doesn't have a clue.
outofstater said:Serious question John, why wouldnt it? Im only going by my home state that we are under Maryland Deppt. Of Natural Rescources. Guess my main point is the same Md. Dnr officer that cites you on the stream for to many trout will check your hunting licences afield hunting. He will do ths driving the same state vechicle, wearing the same uniform talking on same radio. Wouldnt this be cost efficient? I noticed last year coming out of sport show i drove by 2 nice buildings. One was the fish comm. and other was game comm., again wouldnt 1 building be more cost efficient. I noticed out west in Co. they are Colorado Fish and Game. Wasent sure how many states have seperate agencys and im sure there is a reason, just wondering.
The question about the 2 buildings is a good one. I guess one way to think about it is can you effectively fit an agency of double the size (if combined) into the same amount of space (or an agency of the same size in a building half the size)? Both buildings would have to be sold or demolished and then a new building would have to be built large enough to house all of the employees and all of the files that they must retain. Even if they could cut half the staff in one of the buildlings, they would still need a larger building than what they have for one agency.
The purchase of the land and building of the HQ offices in Harrisburg was actually a very wise decision considering the amount that they were paying for leasing office space in Harrisburg. I was at the old PFBC office when they moved and to say it was worth near what they were leasing it for would be an overstatement.
Regarding the LEO's: In my experience, the Wildlife COs and Waterways COs tend to work fairly cooperatively already. Does a combined agency mean you only need one WCO to patrol an area? Or does it mean the agency should try to make the area smaller for the WCO to patrol more effectively? If the latter, then there would be no net savings in WCO staff right?
Just saying what i see here in Md. See the same dnr on the streams as in the woods. No i know it wouldnt be practical to demolish buildings and start over but i see ours work out of same buiding. But, im not here to say md. does it right many issues here too.
Post a link or point us in the right direction. Who did the study? Waugh!Do some research, there was a study done here in PA about cost and savings.....
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
A forum community dedicated to Pennsylvania’s hunters and enthusiasts Come join the discussion about trails, licenses, fishing, game laws, styles, reviews, optics, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
bohunr
312 Replies
TrashPanda
232 Replies
Bigbrownie
206 Replies
