PFBC fishing license fee increase

afishinado

afishinado

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
16,163
Location
Chester County, PA

Article >

Fishing license fees and an olive branch

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commissioners are trying to meet anglers and state lawmakers halfway.

Or, well, at least 30 percent of the way.

Commission executive director Tim Schaeffer recently delivered his agency’s annual report to members of the House of Representatives game and fisheries committee. Much of his commentary – not at all surprisingly — focused on increasing the price of fishing licenses.

Those haven’t changed since 2005.

Since then, Schaeffer said, commission expenditures related to supporting fishing and boating grew by an additional $11 million annually.

“Where our revenues have remained stagnant, costs have continued to rise,” Schaeffer said. “Inflation, increased personnel costs and aging infrastructure have all placed considerable pressure on the commission’s long-term financial picture in the absence of new or increased revenue.”

A resident adult fishing license costs $22.90. Adjusted for inflation, the commission said that should have been $37.18 by 2017

Only lawmakers can increase license fees, though. And they’ve been unwilling to do so.

Most of the opposition centers around the commission’s emergency, or reserve, fund.

The commission’s annual budget usually hovers between $50 million to $55 million. In recent years, it kept almost exactly that much – enough to fund the agency for one year – in uncommitted reserve funds.

Lawmakers have been unwilling to ask anglers to pay more when the commission has that much money bankrolled.

The commission heard that and is making a change, Schaeffer said.

Commission staff spent the last few months evaluating its “risk factors,” Schaeffer said. That includes things like the loss of a major revenue source, an outage in the automated license sales system in the week or two around trout season, when sales peak, or an unforeseen infrastructure emergency, like a dam or hatchery failure.

“Based on cash flow needs and agency risk factors, it was determined that the commission should strive to maintain its unrestricted reserves at a level equal to 70 percent of prior year revenues,” Schaeffer said.

So starting this year it’s going to keep 70 percent of its annual budget – not 100 percent – in reserve. It will spend all money over and above that right away.

Already it’s recruiting a new class of waterways conservation officers, with the goal of restoring its law enforcement staff to full staff. Schaeffer said it’s also going to use reserve cash to replace hatchery trucks with more than 250,000 miles on them; replace law enforcement boats more than 30 years old; update oxygen alarms at hatcheries to save fish; repair unsafe boat ramps; and rehire seasonal biologists to help survey rivers and lakes.

None of that – nor “aggressive steps” to cut costs already taken – forestall the need for a license fee increase, though, Schaeffer said. The commission maintains it still needs more money if it’s going to continue delivering the goods and services anglers expect.

Increasing costs beyond its control are one reason, Schaeffer said. He pointed to fish food and gas prices as examples.

“We’d simply like to be able to keep up with them,” he said.

Lawmakers seem willing to help.

The state Senate actually passed a bill last year that would allow the commission to set its own prices for three years. After that time, authority would revert to lawmakers.

The bill died in the House of Representatives, however.

Now, an identical bill is expected to come out of the House. Rep. Thomas Mehaffie, a Dauphin County Republican, is going to be its prime sponsor.

If that is adopted, Schaeffer said the commission’s plans to increase resident adult license fees by $5 in year one, $2 in year two and $2 in year three. Other licenses – for non-residents, for example – would see increases, too.

“And we think that would sustain us for at least 10 years,” Schaeffer said.

He believes anglers would find such incremental increases more palatable than the larger ones traditionally implemented every 10 to 15 years. That’s also believed to be a reflection of what the market might bear price-wise.

The commission gets no general tax revenue, Schaeffer noted. It makes money only when people pay to fish and boat. So it has no intention of pricing itself out of business.

“In short, the future of our agency depends on our goods being competitively and appropriately priced, much like the private sector. The last thing we can afford as an agency is to drive away our constituents,” Schaeffer said.

Committee members – relatively few of whom fish or boat — had a few questions. But unlike in the past, none expressed opposition to increases.

That doesn’t guarantee any bill that gets out of committee will pass the House. Twelve of the 25 committee members are in either their first or second terms, so few rank high among legislative leadership.

But Mehaffie seemed optimistic, saying it’s time to raise fees in support of fishing and boating.

“Let’s get this thing done and over the finish line,” he said.


Link to source >https://adventures.everybodyshops.com/fishing-license-fees-olive-branch/?fbclid=IwAR3qSij2iiKARwJZbXYzLS3CJfGYIB6P33_Ty7x8KXLYeSe2XfpAcV9xj-Q
 
Didn't they already raise non-res fishing license a few years ago?

MAybe it just seemed that way with the return of lake erie stamp.

I'm not complaining, just asking.
 
Nevermind. I looked it up. Been $51 for the basic licenses since 2005.

I could have sworn that the increase was more recent.

 
No problem with an increase to keep things going but would like to see some Ford Eco-Boost trucks in the fleet that get around 18-20 MPH versus the gas guzzling trucks they use now. Just a suggestion....

Ron
 
Fisheries Management Area 6 has driven a Ford Ecoboost 6 cylinder full size pick-up for about four years. The truck delivers all of the power that most people would need, towing boat loads (literally) of wet trap nets and anchors and a bed loaded with equipment over the Blue Mountain with no problems. Pretty impressive! They had always driven 8 cylinder full size pick-up trucks in the past, but the 6 Cdr with Eco-boost works great.
 
Mike -

Good to hear that maybe Fish & Boat is making an attempt at saving money by using more fuel efficient vehicles. The gas savings by driving more fuel efficient vehicles must be enormous.

Ron
 
The problem with any state agency and their vehicle choicesis that the Department of General Services in Harrisburg has more of a say regarding the exact vehicle than the end user. This goes for Fish and Boat, Game Commission, DCNR, DEP, State Police etc. Many departments within the game commission and pfbc make due with hand me downs from law enforcement that typically have well over 100,000 miles. If it was as simple as buying all new ecoboosts over a 5 yr period im sure it would be down already.
 
I fully support a license increase if the money is being used in the right areas but my guess is there is still some money being spent on things that maybe could be cut out or redirected into things that really matter.

Ron
 
The license fee should be increased simply to keep up with inflation.

The increases to keep up with inflation should be done often, even annually.

Rather than waiting for many years and making a big political brouhaha out of it.


 
Was interesting the learn that the reason the Legislature wouldn't raise fees was that the commission is sitting on 55 million dollars it won't use. In fairness, the money is one years annual budget being held in cast ALL their annual budget gets nixed somehow. I guess the proposed increase is on the condition they no longer hold 100% of that money.

I read it pretty quickly so I'm sure someone will interpret this differently. I look forward to clarification.

https://triblive.com/sports/pennsylvania-fishing-license-fees-and-an-olive-branch/
 
Does anyone have details on what the license increase would fund and what the budget looks like for 2019? I think we should first understand what is being spent now including all programs and what would a increase increase be used for prior to just randomly supporting a license increase.

Ron
 
troutbert wrote:
The license fee should be increased simply to keep up with inflation.

The increases to keep up with inflation should be done often, even annually.

Rather than waiting for many years and making a big political brouhaha out of it.

^ agreed.

The politicians continue to want to keep their thumb over the PFBC even though the commission is not funded by taxes from the general fund. The revenue is derived from voluntary purchases of licenses, permits and tackle.

Any reasonable person would concede going 15 years (from 2005 > 2020) without raising revenues to meet inflation and expecting the same level of goods and services is not reasonable.
 
Wasn't a license increase what John Arway was pushing for for several years but they refused to give it to him? Wasn't it part of the reason for his release? Funny as soon as he is pushed out they give the approval for a license increase...
 
While I have no issue with a fishing license increase, the PFBC this year instituted 4 additional sources of voluntary income in the Voluntary Permit program.

That is in ADDITION to the C.A.P. Program, the S.O.S. Program, license button sales (which DOUBLED in price for 2019; not to mention the PFBC magazine, patches, posters, keyrings, mugs, hats, T-shirts, signs, vintage buttons, patches and magazines, the "formally free" Summary Booklet that now costs $3.00 (YET, it has paid advertisers) and a bunch I stuff I'm sure I forgot.

It kinda makes me wonder why the PFBC already doesn’t have enough EXTRA money to get things done without creating additional programs and raising the cost of a license.

It also makes me wonder if other state’s “Commissions” or DNR’s peddle this much crap and have all of these extra sources of income and if not...

...why not…?
 
bigjohn58 wrote:
Wasn't a license increase what John Arway was pushing for for several years but they refused to give it to him? Wasn't it part of the reason for his release? Funny as soon as he is pushed out they give the approval for a license increase...


The PFBC is still in the asking stage for a license fee increase. Many believe it is more likely the Commish gets and increase from the Legislature since John Arway is no longer the ED (he ruffled some feathers in H-burg). If it was up to me, I would do more than ruffle feathers, I would clean out the whole nest.....but that's for another time and place, I guess.

Anyway, hopefully the politicians will allow the FBC to increase license fees a modest amount and in small increments to match inflation in the future.
 
PALongbow wrote:
No problem with an increase to keep things going but would like to see some Ford Eco-Boost trucks in the fleet that get around 18-20 MPH versus the gas guzzling trucks they use now. Just a suggestion....

Ron

Traded in my old F-150 on Friday for a 2019 F-150 supercrew 4X4 with the 2.7L ecoboost. With the 10 speed automatic, it's rated 24 highway!

That better than my Explorer.

Even the 5L is rated 22 mpg highway now.



 
PALongbow wrote:
Mike -

Good to hear that maybe Fish & Boat is making an attempt at saving money by using more fuel efficient vehicles. The gas savings by driving more fuel efficient vehicles must be enormous.

Ron

Not only that. Its a 1K savings before you take it off the lot (if you go by MSRP).

2.7L ecoboost option is $995.
5L V-8 is $1995.
New 3.5L ecoboost is more, but I didn't entertain that.

The 2.7 has been around awhile and has similar HP and torque specs as 5L.
 
Gas savings of a v6 va v8 is probably 1k per vehicle per year max. It's some savings but in the big picture not very significant.
 
True, but don't tell my wife that. She wanted me to get an EcoSport of an Escape. ;-)
 
Every bit helps and shows that the agency is trying to make all necessary cuts before asking for more money. I really think there are things that can be further cut but its just easier to ask for money.

Does anyone know where additional funds would be allocated within the agency other than just business as usual operating costs?

Ron
 
Back
Top