PFBC New Hires and Proposals 7/10/18

[bigjohn58]

http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/MinutesAgendas/Documents/agendasDocs/2018-07agd.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/PaFishandBoat/posts/2090508877686417

Any thoughts on these new hires for positions and the proposed stamps, etc? The PFBC facebook post gives more of an overview where the link to the PFBC page gives it in depth.

 

[semperfly]

All proposed stamps are voluntary.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

what new hires? A new president and vice president were elected from the existing group of commissioners.

 

[bigjohn58]

Whats the deal with Arway? I have yet to ever hear anything official...

 

[troutbert]

"It is proposed that any individual who enters and uses a Commission owned or controlled property will be required to possess and carry with them either an annual $25 property use permit, a valid PA fishing license, PA boat registration or Commonwealth issued launch permit. Individuals without such a property use permit or other approved license, registration or permit would be fined."

For people walking at Fishermans Paradise & Spring Creek Canyon?

Walking along the railroad grade along Penns Creek through the section the PFBC owns?

That would be political risky. I wonder if they have considered that.

 

[sarce]

Troutbert wrote:

"It is proposed that any individual who enters and uses a Commission owned or controlled property will be required to possess and carry with them either an annual $25 property use permit, a valid PA fishing license, PA boat registration or Commonwealth issued launch permit. Individuals without such a property use permit or other approved license, registration or permit would be fined." For people walking at Fishermans Paradise & Spring Creek Canyon? Walking along the railroad grade along Penns Creek through the section the PFBC owns? That would be political risky. I wonder if they have considered that.

That's a good point. Other states do something similar, but the annual permits are only a few dollars. VA I think has a $2 annual pass to use VDGIF-owned property, or a fishing or hunting license. $25 is very expensive just to walk around somewhere.

 

[semperfly]

I believe the fee pertains to boat ramp only.

 

[RLeep2]

It may well be that the changes and the new (?) $25 fee are for Commission owned/maintained launches. This would make sense to me given the drunks in kayaks explosion in user numbers. I see a lot of yaks I'm pretty sure were launched from PFBC facilities that aren't showing the non-power launch permit they are supposed to have. I also see a lot of them coming off the water at the same launches, again without the legally required launch permit. This is a pretty hefty source of potential revenues that is being missed out on.

Cite the lot of them, I say...

 

[troutbert]

See part N, on page 28.

It's not referring to boating. It says that specifically.

If they try to institute a $25 fee to go to Fishermans Paradise and Spring Creek Canyon, there would be a political firestorm.

You have to "pick your battles," and that's one they shouldn't pick.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
See part N, on page 28.

It's not referring to boating. It says that specifically.

If they try to institute a $25 fee to go to Fishermans Paradise and Spring Creek Canyon, there would be a political firestorm.

You have to "pick your battles," and that's one they shouldn't pick.

Troutbert is correct. Just walking through and PFBC properties will require a usage permit if passed.

From the actual proposal on the PFBC site:

One of the remaining funding concepts is to evaluate and establish a program that requires an access fee for members of the public who choose to use Commission property for recreational purposes other than fishing and boating. This concept would extend theuser-pays, user-benefits funding model and philosophy that has supported fishing and boating related programs managed by the Commission to its non-traditional customers.

One of the many assets held in trust by the Commission for the anglers and boaters of Pennsylvania is its portfolio of property holdings that consist of a network of 250 public boat launches, fifty-four lakes, and access to over 43,000 acres of Commission controlled public lands. This concept is designed to create a new funding stream from the use of the Commission’s property holdings to support its core programs. Historically, fishing license and boat registration dollars have provided most, if not all, of the funding needed to keep the Commission’s properties open to the public. More recently, anglers and boaters are increasingly outnumbered by other recreational enthusiasts who do not fish or boat. A property use permit fee would help ensure everyone who recreates at one of the Commission’s properties pays for their existence and operation.

It is proposed that any individual who enters and uses a Commission owned or controlled property will be required to possess and carry with them either an annual $25 property use permit, a valid PA fishing license, PA boat registration or Commonwealth issued launch permit. Individuals without such a property use permit or other approved license, registration or permit would be fined. Property use permits would be valid for no less than one year. Exceptions to this new permit requirement could extend to those who are under sixteen years of age and properly accompanied by a licensed or permitted person eighteen years of age or older. Final details for the program may change as it matures through the development and implementation processes.

Property use permits would not need to be displayed while using a Commission owned or controlled property, but would be required to be in possession, as well as a secondary form of identification. Commission owned properties developed through certain funding sources and Commission properties leased to other governmental bodies and open to the public may be exempt from the requirements of the permit.

 

[DaveS]

Launch permit is $10/ yr. OR $18 for two.
Cheap purchase.

Move on.

 

[TimRobinsin]

You folks are correct about the usage permit. The Commission is trying to make up revenue since the future of SB30 is uncertain this fall. Some folks say it's DOA. Yet Rep. Gillepie from York had this to say in the York Daily Record.

I agree, the usage permit is risky but I don't think it is completely uncalled for. I have to pay a membership to use certain properties where I hunt and fish. I don't see why pedestrians shouldn't pay a user fee as well.

That pretty much summarizes why we are in the position we are in with some of our state agencies. Pretty much everyone in the commonwealth benefits from the work and services they provide but not everyone is paying for it. Since license sales are on the decline for now I think it's a pretty solid move to start looking into funding from the non-angling groups that benefit from PFBC services.

Even if there is a push to approve SB30 in the Fall and it passes I wonder what that will mean for sales and total revenue from that source?

The commission is also looking into increased revenue from unpowered watercraft. RLeep2 made the same observation that the commissioners did on Monday. There is a dramatic increase in kayak and canoe traffic on PFBC property and commonwealth water. Since PFBC must maintain properties to proper codes and provide the emergency service response on commonwealth waterways it seems pretty practical for folks to pay for what they are using.

Rep. Gillespie said it best when he clarified his opinion that the fees are not taxes but rather user fees. I think that is a fair and accurate assessment of what we are looking at.

 

[tomitrout]

I wonder how exactly they'll enforce it...not like there's a bunch of WCO's sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do.

 

[troutbert]

What was posted in the OP is an agenda for the PFBC quarterly meeting, which was held on Monday and Tuesday.

Does anyone know if this user fee was approved?

I did some Googling but could not find any reports of the outcomes of the meeting.

 

[FishTales]

The Board approved me moving forward with developing a proposal about how to do it. Let us put together a couple plan before everyone reacts. Much work to do.

 

[Dave_W]

FishTales wrote:
The Board approved me moving forward with developing a proposal about how to do it. Let us put together a couple plan before everyone reacts. Much work to do.

Okay, good luck and thanks for the update.

 

[poopdeck]

This is completely insane. To charge people to walk is mind boggling and is typical cash grab by politicians and bureaucrats. Next thing you know we will be required to have state, federal and county permits if we also like to walk in their parks as well.

Call it a fee or whatever you like, ITS A TAX!! Those who believe walkers should be taxed simply because others pay a tax to use the ramps is illogical share the misery nonsense. Bureaucratic divide and conquer and their hook is firmly in the corner of mouth of anglers who think this is a good idea.

somewhere along the way the "Commission" believes it is a property owner who can charge admission on a state resource.

 

[CRB]

Hunters are faced with the same users during hunting season disrupting their hunts and the PGC is studying the same.

These access areas(land) and games lands are unlike other state properties as they are payed for buy in far license dollars and not tax dollars.

 

[poopdeck]

Again, call it a fee, a permit, a license, call it whatever you want it's A TAX!

Charge anglers a tax and the walkers don't care. Charge walkers a tax and the anglers don't care. Charge kayakers a tax and motor boats don't care. Divide and rake in the dough and nobody cares about our ever increasing tax burden.

I'm standing tall with the walkers. I'll let the rest of you guys divide the house.

 

[ryansheehan]

Hear me out here, just spit balling, please correct me if I'm wrong on any parts.
-pfbc has been unable to raise fishing license fees because that is set in the Pennsylvania house.
-pfbc decides to consider a "walking license", something it CAN control not the house.
-this proposed license is just political gamesmanship imo. This will definitely get some attention from the state politcians, risky but ballsy. There will be some outrage from many but I think that's what they are looking for. Show everyone just how desperate their fiscal situation is. Poopdeck, I don't think you're wrong in anything you said but I think you are misreading a calculated chess move. They don't want a walking fee anymore than you, but it's a card they are playing to try and improve their budget, again imo.