License/permit revenues

[TimB]

As I'm getting ready to buy my PA license and launch permits for 2018, I just got to wondering where the revenues go. Do they just land in a general fund or are certain revenues targeted to a specific budget?

For example, do my fees for a launch permit directly support acquisition and maintenance of boat launches? Does my Erie permit go to support access and stocking of the Erie tribs? Does the trout stamp specifically support trout fishing?

For as long as I can remember, I've always just purchased the trout/salmon/Erie combo stamp. But in recent years I haven't gotten much use out that. I fished a ton in PA this past year, but never made it to Erie and only fished for trout once. On the other hand, I launched my canoe from PFBC boat launches quite a bit even though most of the places I float could be accessed without needing the permit.

So just wondering what the revenues support before I purchase stamps I may not actually make use of.

 

[afishinado]

Here is an accounting of the Erie stamp dollars spent and committed as of 7/1/2017.

Here is a performance audit for the year ending in 2015, which is the latest I could find with details of revenue and expenditures.

 

[Bamboozle]

TimB wrote:
As I'm getting ready to buy my PA license and launch permits for 2018, I just got to wondering where the revenues go. Do they just land in a general fund or are certain revenues targeted to a specific budget?

For example, do my fees for a launch permit directly support acquisition and maintenance of boat launches? Does my Erie permit go to support access and stocking of the Erie tribs? Does the trout stamp specifically support trout fishing?

For as long as I can remember, I've always just purchased the trout/salmon/Erie combo stamp. But in recent years I haven't gotten much use out that. I fished a ton in PA this past year, but never made it to Erie and only fished for trout once. On the other hand, I launched my canoe from PFBC boat launches quite a bit even though most of the places I float could be accessed without needing the permit.

So just wondering what the revenues support before I purchase stamps I may not actually make use of.

If you are so inclined and NOT obsessed with license fees, you can make an additional donation to the CAP Fund which is specifically for access acquisition and preservation.

Or you could ditch the Erie Permit if you think you won’t go and use that money as a CAP donation instead.

You used to be able to direct your donation to either warmwater or coldwater access but I no longer see that option on the donation form however, that may still be possible.

http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AgencyOverview/Funding/Pages/CAP-Program.aspx

 

[afishinado]

^ The CAP program is a good thing, IMO. Unfortunately it's existence is not well known by anglers and boaters since is buried in the PFBC site. Thanks for putting up the link.

The more people bail on buying fishing and boating licenses and permits > the less is spent on maintaining and enhancing fishing and boating opportunities.

The less is spent on maintaining and enhancing fishing and boating opportunities > the more people bail on buying fishing and boating licenses and permits.

 

[TimB]

Thanks afish. Far more reading than I was interested in, but now I have a better idea where my "donation" is going. From a quick skim, it looks like the fees are just dumped into either the fish fund or boat fund respectively. I guess the only exception is that the Erie stamp specifically funds access in Erie. That one makes sense.

So my trout stamp purchase goes into the general fish fund which also supports warm water fishing. That's a good thing for me, but if I were interested in fishing for stocked trout I might object to my trout stamp money funding other species & programs. If the stamp doesn't exclusively support trout fishing/stocking, why have it at all?

I was suprised by the boat fund revenue from registrations & permits. Looks like the boat fund really needs my launch permit fees.

Looking through those reports I also got to thinking about future trends in license sales. I wonder if they've done any actuarial projections on the baby boomers' potential effect on sales as they get older. I'm not too far away from buying my senior lifetime license. I'm guessing a lot of other boomers will do the same...

 

[afishinado]

TimB wrote:
Thanks afish. Far more reading than I was interested in, but now I have a better idea where my "donation" is going. From a quick skim, it looks like the fees are just dumped into either the fish fund or boat fund respectively. I guess the only exception is that the Erie stamp specifically funds access in Erie. That one makes sense.

So my trout stamp purchase goes into the general fish fund which also supports warm water fishing. That's a good thing for me, but if I were interested in fishing for stocked trout I might object to my trout stamp money funding other species & programs. If the stamp doesn't exclusively support trout fishing/stocking, why have it at all?

I was suprised by the boat fund revenue from registrations & permits. Looks like the boat fund really needs my launch permit fees.

Looking through those reports I also got to thinking about future trends in license sales. I wonder if they've done any actuarial projections on the baby boomers' potential effect on sales as they get older. I'm not too far away from buying my senior lifetime license. I'm guessing a lot of other boomers will do the same...

Tim,

Yeah, it's very complex. Oh, and from my understanding, the opposite is true for trout stamps. The trout stamp monies collected do not cover the entire cost of stocking, so "general fund" monies are allocated to trout stocking. It's hard to pin it down, but I believe I've read $16 -$17 of the approximate $30 cost of a fishing license and trout stamp goes towards the stocking program.

To further complicate matters, funds from the federal excise tax on fishing equipment also get put into the equation.

Anyway, the Commish is short of funds. While we don't always agree 100% on how funds are allocated, I believe they do their best to spend the dollars collected in the best way possible. But it's our choice to buy or not buy a license or permit.

 

[TimB]

Interesting. I assumed the same thing, but I can't find anything that indicates revenues from the trout stamp goes anywhere other than the general fish fund.

 

[afishinado]

TimB wrote:
Interesting. I assumed the same thing, but I can't find anything that indicates revenues from the trout stamp goes anywhere other than the general fish fund.

For the heck of it, I went through the 2015 PFBC audit I posted and came up with this:

2015 Expenditures for "Bureau of Hatcheries" ($13.5M) 27% of fish fund

2015 Revenue from Trout Stamp sales $4.8M

Yes, there are warmwater fish are reared in hatcheries, but the vast majority of hatchery dollars are spent on rearing trout. Add to that the actual costs and expenses incurred trucking and stocking trout, it's becomes a huge part of the budget.

If the FBC drastically cut the stocking program, no doubt license sales would decrease. Whether the savings would more than make up for any decrease in revenue is anyone's guess. Losing individual license sales has a dual negative effect on revenue since the Federal Excise Tax allocations are based on the number of license sold for each state.

We may find out soon if the legislature fails to act on allowing the FBC to raise license fees and the FBC has to close a hatchery or hatcheries. Stay tuned.

 

[TimB]

I think we are both right - sorta. Based on what I'm reading in the reports, trout stamp revenues go into the general fish fund without being designated for any specific use. One could infer that those revenues go directly toward trout programs/stocking, since trout stocking costs far more than the money raised by the stamps.

Extracted from the report you posted here is the list of monies retricted to specific purposes. The only one directly relevant to my original question seems to be the Erie permit which goes specifically to access. I edited out the detailed descriptions:

Fish Fund Restricted Revenue
Several sources of revenue earmarked for specific purposes are also deposited in the Fish Fund. In the period FY 2012-13 through FY 2014-15, the Fish Fund had the following seven restricted revenue categories:

Lake Erie Special Fishing Permits
Natural Resources – Damage Recoveries.
Conservation Acquisition Partnership Account (CAP)
Voluntary Waterways/Watersheds Conservation Program.
Recreational Fishing and Boating Enhancements
Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed Restoration Program
Blair County Stewardship

At any rate, this answers my question. I think I'll skip the combo trout/Erie permit this year. If I decide to go trout fishing in PA at some point, I'll buy the stamp then. Chances are I won't. I'll get my trout fix in other states and Canada. And I'm sure I'll accidentally catch a few stray trout here and there in warmwater streams.

 

[afishinado]

TimB wrote:
I think we are both right - sorta. Based on what I'm reading in the reports, trout stamp revenues go into the general fish fund without being designated for any specific use. One could infer that those revenues go directly toward trout programs/stocking, since trout stocking costs far more than the money raised by the stamps.

Extracted from the report you posted here is the list of monies retricted to specific purposes. The only one directly relevant to my original question seems to be the Erie permit which goes specifically to access. I edited out the detailed descriptions:

Fish Fund Restricted Revenue
Several sources of revenue earmarked for specific purposes are also deposited in the Fish Fund. In the period FY 2012-13 through FY 2014-15, the Fish Fund had the following seven restricted revenue categories:

Lake Erie Special Fishing Permits
Natural Resources – Damage Recoveries.
Conservation Acquisition Partnership Account (CAP)
Voluntary Waterways/Watersheds Conservation Program.
Recreational Fishing and Boating Enhancements
Sinnemahoning Creek Watershed Restoration Program
Blair County Stewardship

At any rate, this answers my question. I think I'll skip the combo trout/Erie permit this year. If I decide to go trout fishing in PA at some point, I'll buy the stamp then. Chances are I won't. I'll get my trout fix in other states and Canada. And I'm sure I'll accidentally catch a few stray trout here and there in warmwater streams.

Good 'nuff, Tim.

Hey, maybe with the money you save not buying the extra permits....you can spend to buy a new hat....that one has seen better days!

See Mo....he's the official PAFF haberdasher...

 

[TimB]

Better days? Take a look at that hat now! Was thinking of starting a GoFundMe page to buy a new one ;-)

Or maybe we could convince Mo to add vintage hats to the lineup. Take a bunch of new hats and purposely distress them to create this look. I've heard he doctors hi flies that way to make them look ratty!

Actually I'll spend the extra cash on out of state licenses and more launch permits. Adding a new boat to my fleet this year...

 

[troutbert]

Are fishing & boating licenses/fees lower in other states?

 

[TimB]

Not sure how PA compares to other states since I'm purchasing non-resident licenses. Most of the states I fish don't require a trout stamp however.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Are fishing & boating licenses/fees lower in other states?

The fishing license fees for all other states are listed on page 70-71 of the link I posted.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

not being antagonistic here, but remember that PFBC receives no "state funds" so comparison to other states may not be appropriate/easy.
If you think about it, how a** backwards is it that PFBC has to be self sustaining but can't control its own license costs ??!!! The rates are established by the state, who contributes little to none to the agency. Obviously a model set by democrats!

 

[TimB]

Yeah I get it. I've been "donating" to the PFBC for years. Just taking the time to think it through this time and pay for the services I actually use, rather than ones I don't.

I've got no issue with paying for launch permits for my boats, because I use the PFBC launches. Same is true with fishing licenses (both here in PA and other states & countires) They're a bargain compared to the price of admission for most other recreational activities.

Sounds like the PFBC is stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. One solution would be to stop ALL stocking. That would get the state's attention and break the endless cycle of stocking where it's not needed and the perpetuation of artificial fisheries. Some might see this as antagonistic, but blowing up the current status quo might result in a more enlightened and sustainable recreational fishing culture in PA.

I'd probably spend more time fishing in PA rather than elsewhere....

Damn you PAFF! All I wanted to do was figure out where my license dollars were actually going to make informed decisions on what to purchase and you sucked me into another hopeless quagmire! ;-)

 

[Maurice]

Or you could just buy the stamps and permits instead of poking them in the eye for not spending your dough the way you want them to ya cheapskate. Come on, what are we talkin, $16?

SMH....

 

[JackM]

Years ago I posted the legislation that authorizes the PFBC. The overall directive is to promote the recreational use of fisheries. It is believed, by our elected representatives, that having natural recreation areas on waterways in the Commonwealth promotes the common weal.

Because people will pay for the privilege of fishing, the state has made a business out of maintaining, enhancing and protecting our recreational fisheries. It is a way to raise revenue, like a tax, but it draws voluntary payment in exchange for a privilege. A non-licence-buyer is not privileged to fish in a Commonwealth waterway (the government owns them all) without paying his privilege fee.

Any Federal revenues from direct taxes are also directed to the PFBC for their budget. Unlike the turnpike, there is no law allowing funds of the PFBC to be directed to the state government coffers.

It is the PFBC's responsibility to manage its revenue stream to be self-sufficient. This while carrying out the task of promoting recreational fishing.

With this preamble, I propose that we trust the PFBC as far as we can throw them, and that would be as far as we are willing to become active either in promoting efforts to properly fund them, but also in the actions of the Commission. Anyone with a better plan can go to the Commission with commentary on policy. You can do it publicly or privately, if you know how. You could also go through your Rep or Sen with policy proposals.

 

[afishinado]

JackM wrote:
Years ago I posted the legislation that authorizes the PFBC. The overall directive is to promote the recreational use of fisheries. It is believed, by our elected representatives, that having natural recreation areas on waterways in the Commonwealth promotes the common weal.

Because people will pay for the privilege of fishing, the state has made a business out of maintaining, enhancing and protecting our recreational fisheries. It is a way to raise revenue, like a tax, but it draws voluntary payment in exchange for a privilege. A non-licence-buyer is not privileged to fish in a Commonwealth waterway (the government owns them all) without paying his privilege fee.

Any Federal revenues from direct taxes are also directed to the PFBC for their budget. Unlike the turnpike, there is no law allowing funds of the PFBC to be directed to the state government coffers.

It is the PFBC's responsibility to manage its revenue stream to be self-sufficient. This while carrying out the task of promoting recreational fishing.

With this preamble, I propose that we trust the PFBC as far as we can throw them, and that would be as far as we are willing to become active either in promoting efforts to properly fund them, but also in the actions of the Commission. Anyone with a better plan can go to the Commission with commentary on policy. You can do it publicly or privately, if you know how. You could also go through your Rep or Sen with policy proposals.

Your trust of politicians is really hard to believe.

While the PA Fish & Boat Commision is far from perfect, I certainly trust them a heck of a lot more than any Rep or Sen. in Harrisburg.

In fact the main problem right now is the politicians themselves, meddling and wanting to control the actions of the PFBC. They want to continue to hold the purse strings, and enable many pollies to extract favors from the PFBC for their supporters in their districts to get reelected.

Commonweal!!!!.....more like the welfare of the politician not the public or the angler....zoweee diggins!!!

 

[JackM]

So cynical, Tom.