HB1517

whheff

whheff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
1,113
Here is an interesting article from Gary Blockus of The Morning Call.
This article appeared in this mornings edition.

http://fw.to/2xn8tgF

 
I have waffled back and forth as to whether it is a good idea to combine both agencies. Sure there will be a balloon cost for the merger, but would that result in savings down the road, and if so, how far down the road. I dont know enough about the inner workings of them to make an informed opinion, so I will buck the internet trend and admit I dont have an opinion.

as for listing endangered species, i think taking that from the PGC and PFBC is ridiculous, who better to make those decisions that they folks that deal with them every day.

One thing i do think should be done is that the field personnel should be "cross-trained" and authorized to address both fishing and hunting infractions. Just by doing that you increase the field presence especially during key times of the year. There is no reason that the Game Commission guys couldnt help out on the opening weekend of trout and vice versa for the PFBC guys the first week deer season.
 
Interesting article.
 
Crotalus: It is my understanding that conservation officers from each of the agencies are indeed authorized to enforce the regulations of the other agency. And the field officers of the two agencies do indeed assist each other during busy times of the year as you suggested. So cross-pollination is occurring and is not an impediment to efficiency.

I reserve judgement on combining the 2 agencies.

The listing of an endangered spp is inherently a policy decision, which is one of the reasons why each proposed listing is first published for comment in the PA Bulletin. The PAFBC and the PGC are conservation agencies and, as such, have, and should always have, the lead role in identifying which spp are in touble. However, I see no reason why the ultimate policy decision regarding whether to list or not list should not be made by a Board representing the state legislature. Such a proposal could take some of the political pressure off the conservation agency and place it squarely on the shoulders of the legislature.
 
Tups wrote:

I reserve judgement on combining the 2 agencies.

I think we are reaching a consensus on the issue. :)
 
Tups wrote:
Crotalus: It is my understanding that conservation officers from each of the agencies are indeed authorized to enforce the regulations of the other agency. And the field officers of the two agencies do indeed assist each other during busy times of the year as you suggested. So cross-pollination is occurring and is not an impediment to efficiency.

Very good, I was not aware of that. I always try to stay within the limits of the law so I am not really versed in how the operate
 
Look at some of the other states, seems they work there..
 
The one major thing people forget is PA gets two votes in U.S. Fish and Wildlife due to the agencies being separate.

Personally, I think the agencies should stay separate. Everyone is up in arms about HB 1517 taking the say away from professionals. Yet, most seem okay with combining two specialized entities into one division.

Speaking of taking the say away from professionals, I don't like the idea of commissioners. They don't have to have a specialized wildlife/fisheries background yet they have the final say over biologists who have said qualifications.
 
May 2012 I had a game officer check me while I fished Big Moore's Run. He said he was checking for turkey hunters, it was the last day of the season but nobody was out, so he saw me and checked me. We had a nice chat.
 
I've had Forest Rangers ask to see my fishing license while on State Forest ground.
 
Back
Top