Bill proposed to raise license fees....up and up and up.

[dudemanspecial]

From the Pittsburgh trib.....


http://triblive.com/local/valleynewsdispatch/12037250-74/pennsylvania-considers-raising-cost-of-fishing-licences

Interesting opinions. Some sentiment that pfbc caters to trout stocking? only from the warm water crowd.

I for one am in the camp that 40 bucks does not get you much in this day and age. I'm fine with it.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

There hasn't been a fishing license fee increase in many years... If we want the same services from PFBC we the fishermen will have to pony up.

 

[ryansheehan]

I will still purchase an out of state license every year. That being said, sudden dramatic price increases are a good way to lose business. The idea of raising the price 3% annually will keep up with inflation. That is the best way to go, no one notices a 60 cent increase. The idea that it is still a good deal doesn't matter when you bump the price 30 percent. People will compare it to what they paid the previous year instead of realizing that it is still a very cheap purchase compared to other activities. This kind of stuff is very basic when it comes to pricing and it sounds like the commission is going to take a hit for it. I'm sure there is a ton bureaucracy to get through but price change strategies must be put in place or revenue will take a big hit.

 

[dudemanspecial]

I wonder who is the demographic that makes up the roughly 10% drop in sales when there is an increase? I wouldn't think someone would just give up fishing over a few dollars more. Is it the crew that night fishes that say to heck with the license because they don't ever see a officer? Is it people that have not fished in years but still buy a license just in case? Is it a lack of new blood coming into the sport because they presume a license costly?

 

[wildtrout2]

As it is now, my license cost of $32.80 is the best spent money of the year for me. If it went up $10.00 next year it would be my best spent $42.80 next year. And I don't fish for stockers.

 

[DriftingDunn]

dudemanspecial wrote:
I wonder who is the demographic that makes up the roughly 10% drop in sales when there is an increase? I wouldn't think someone would just give up fishing over a few dollars more. Is it the crew that night fishes that say to heck with the license because they don't ever see a officer? Is it people that have not fished in years but still buy a license just in case? Is it a lack of new blood coming into the sport because they presume a license costly?

If I were to make a wild guess, I'd say most of the decline would come from trout anglers who fish only a day or two at the beginning of the season.

I'm 100% in favor of an increase. Like the last time I caught a 20" wild brown, it's long overdue.

 

[ryansheehan]

DriftingDunn wrote:

dudemanspecial wrote:
I wonder who is the demographic that makes up the roughly 10% drop in sales when there is an increase? I wouldn't think someone would just give up fishing over a few dollars more. Is it the crew that night fishes that say to heck with the license because they don't ever see a officer? Is it people that have not fished in years but still buy a license just in case? Is it a lack of new blood coming into the sport because they presume a license costly?

If I were to make a wild guess, I'd say most of the decline would come from trout anglers who fish only a day or two at the beginning of the season.

I'm 100% in favor of an increase. Like the last time I caught a 20" wild brown, it's long overdue.

Wouldn't it be so much better if your license increase paid for that "wild brown" to be "put" in that stream? We are probably very much in the minority in PA thinking that the answer is no. People are open to license increase if it means more services, meaning more, bigger trout being stocked.

 

[Maurice]

Now you are talking about the trout stamp...the dough that covers wild trout management is in the general fishing license. (ie biologists, cold water fisheries management, Law enforcement)

 

[CRB]

I'm fine with increase but feel the senior age for lifetime licenses need to increase as the age population of the state increases. Lower numbers of younger fisherman hurts as those numbers are only going to down.
Want stocked trout increase the stamp fee.
Spent $3.50 this morning for the Sunday paper.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
Now you are talking about the trout stamp...the dough that covers wild trout management is in the general fishing license. (ie biologists, cold water fisheries management, Law enforcement)

^Yep and the trout stamp $ doesn't cover but half of the stocking costs. The trout stamp revenue + a good portion of the general license revenue is used for stocking.

Approximately 70% of licensed anglers purchase the trout/salmon or combination permits. In 1991, over 737,000 trout/salmon permits
yielded nearly $3.7 million in annual revenue, representing 57% of the costs of raising trout (and Coho salmon at the time). In 2014, the
PFBC sold about 593,000 trout/salmon and combination permits that generated over $4.7 million, but increasing costs meant that the
revenue amounted to only 46% of the cost to run the trout hatchery program. If the cost of the permits and the number of trout anglers
remain unchanged, that percentage is expected to drop to 30% by 2021 as the costs of production continue to rise.

As less of the relative cost of the trout hatchery program has been supported by the trout/salmon permit, a greater portion has been
provided by revenues from fishing licenses. This greater reliance on the use of general license dollars to support the hatchery program is
further compounded by the fact that license sales have declined from 1.2 million in 1991 to about 860,000 today. A smaller pool of general
license buyers is being asked to pay for a greater portion of the trout hatchery program.

Link to source: http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/Documents/2015ann_rpt.pdf

 

[curtrein]

I see no problem with the increase. It's been quite a while since they've done one and I think they should be given authority to self govern their increases in the future. That would lead to smaller, more palatable increases I would guess instead of these whoppers every 10 yrs or so. With all of the fishing opportunities that we have here in PA, I would pay a lot more. I would like it if they continue to amp up their program to protect wild trout habitat instead of just perpetuating the great white fleet.

 

[kbobb]

how much of these increases are to cover the pension commitments? they got themselves in trouble with these commitments, as someone mentioned above folks are living longer. I don't know about you all but I'm the only person who contributes to my retirement plan. I'm gonna have to work into my late 60's just to have enough to pay my bills, not to mention health care. I didn't make the commitment to support these retirees so I don't consider them my problem.

ryansheehan wrote:
The idea of raising the price 3% annually will keep up with inflation.

A lot of people don't get annual cost of living, or any other, raises, why should the fish commission?

 

[Mwheaps32]

PA is one of the only a few States that has a separate game and fish commission. They need to merge the two and gain some efficiencies. I'd prefer cost costing first over revenue increase. I still think the proposed increase is still a good deal, but as was mentioned in article I don't feel I should be responsible for employee pensions. I have to save for my retirement and all public employees should save for their own and not rely on fellow taxpayers

 

[ryansheehan]

kbobb wrote:
how much of these increases are to cover the pension commitments? they got themselves in trouble with these commitments, as someone mentioned above folks are living longer. I don't know about you all but I'm the only person who contributes to my retirement plan. I'm gonna have to work into my late 60's just to have enough to pay my bills, not to mention health care. I didn't make the commitment to support these retirees so I don't consider them my problem.

ryansheehan wrote:
The idea of raising the price 3% annually will keep up with inflation.

A lot of people don't get annual cost of living, or any other, raises, why should the fish commission?

I'm not talking about cost of living increase. I'm talking about accounting for the yearly increase in costs. Even if employee costs remain the same from year to year (which they wont)the cost of doing business will go up. However if you want to keep valuable employees your wages need to be competitive. If they aren't they will not be your valuable employees for long.

 

[tomgamber]

Merging fish and game is ok if the resources aren't lessened. Use the resources of both of don't do it. I would move boasting to another agency.

Big problem is the commission has no power to raise fees. They are at the mercy of the legislature. That's the problem. They are the only agency that has to ASK for in increase so they don't happen often causing them to be large. Pennsylvania is so backward.

 

[UncleShorty]

Fishin' too expensive? Take up golf.

You can spend more two rounds of golf than you can on the cost of a yearly fishing license.

Then, after your two afternoons of fun you can spend the rest of your time griping about how much it costs.

And by taking up golf you'll free up more water for me!

I buy a non-res license every year. It's a bargain at twice the price.

Some guys don't know how good they've got it...

 

[RLeep2]

Just be careful what you wish for.. I don't really see a way for a merger of the two agencies to take place that doesn't also (soon, if not right away) end up with the new agency subsumed into DCNR and game and fisheries revenues becoming part of the General Fund stream. This basically puts game and fisheries management under the direct control of the Pennsylvania legislature. I understand that this arrangement seems to work well in a number of states in terms of forward-looking wild trout management, etc. But it is also true that none of these states have the Pennsylvania legislature whose track record in this sort of thing is considerably less than stellar.

Other than that, I don't mind the proposed increase and would point out that, IIRC, the Commission (or at least the Exec Dir. and staff) has been looking for all sorts of ways to increase revenues in a manner that does not rely completely on license increases. Things like getting a piece of the state sales tax collected on fishing equipment and such. I don't know what the status of these proposed partial remedies to the fiscal problem is, but I do know that they can use all the help they can get to bring some of these alternative revenue streams into being. As in help from us by hammering on the abovementioned state legislature to facilitate these alternative sources of funding.

Additionally, while the public pensions matter and the liabilities created is a real issue, it is not true that public employees are the only people whose retirement is being (partially) underwritten by people who "did not agree to do so". This is fallacious reasoning. If you work for somebody and have a jointly funded (you and your employer) 401K or one of the few traditional pensions remaining, the rest of us are funding your retirement every time we buy one of your employer's products or use one of their services. It may not come from a user fee like a fishing license, but this is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

 

[ryansheehan]

UncleShorty wrote:
Fishin' too expensive? Take up golf.

You can spend more two rounds of golf than you can on the cost of a yearly fishing license.

Then, after your two afternoons of fun you can spend the rest of your time griping about how much it costs.

And by taking up golf you'll free up more water for me!

I buy a non-res license every year. It's a bargain at twice the price.

Some guys don't know how good they've got it...

Completely agree, however the end result of a 30% price hike will be a drop in sales.

 

[Fredrick]

I honestly thought that the price increase was already happening . They need to lower the out of state price to draw more people to buy the Pa license .

 

[Mwheaps32]

You can always choose not to buys the company's product or service. There is absolutely no similarities between a private pension fund and a public ( taxpayer) (no option) pension fund.