Roofin' Trouter
Well-known member
Have you ever watched Gunsmoke? How many times did Chester and Festus save Martial Dylan?😁
Pafbc and Pagc to stop deputy wardens program
- Thread starter CRB
- Start date
Tigereye
Well-known member
Barney Fife??????
JG63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,474
Since both commissions paid for the study it only makes sense that there will be a merger in the near future. Getting rid of a part time, per diem or volunteer work force also indicates a pending merger probably in the beginning of the next fiscal year (7/1/2027) Why they already are not one organization boggles the mind. In reading up on both commissions I was shocked to learn the game commission is sitting on a reserve of a 1/2 billion dollars and the fish and boat commission is sitting on a reserve of 150 million. Holy hell! So two groups of unelected bureaucrats have become a bank where an unbelievable amount of money is socked away and saved for who knows what reasons. Let’s merge the two and let’s start spending the money on natural resources instead of saving it for ??????
rustbeltwilds
Well-known member
As a former pfbc fish culturist you aint kiddin
Having 150 million in reserves is not what I would call broke. Neither commissions are sustainable as is and the game commission would have really been broke if not for the 812 million it received from fracking leases. Let’s face it hunting and fishing license sales are down and will continue to go down and hunting is really falling off the edge. License prices are going to have to go up substantially and drastic changes need to be made to prepare for a future of dwindling interest. Less people are going to have to shoulder a higher cost.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,776
Don't fool yourself, if a merger happens any game commission surplus is going to be seen as a lifeline to prop up the hatchery system.
When the time comes, all the self proclaimed wild trout advocates should be contacting their legislatures and hammering home the reality that the hatchery program is going to drain any surplus funds that are part of the merger and it will be a net loss for wildlife, sportsmen, game lands, etc. etc. etc.
I can't support a merger where the current hatchery program is intact. I say that as both an angler and hunter.
Tigereye
Well-known member
The long game is that the State has their eyes on the gas royalties sitting in PaGC coffers.
I would hate to see a merger -- but for a different reason than others have stated. I think that the PFBC generally tries to do the right things. It tries to strike a balance between wild and stocked trout. Remember, there are more guys who are interested in stocked trout than are interested in wild trout. I think the PFBC tries to accommodate warmwater anglers as well. I think the PFBC has the best interests of fish, fisheries (the streams and lakes), and fishermen in mind when it makes decisions. I have a lot of respect for the PFBC in most cases.
I think the PGC is all about killing. Deer have been decimated on most public lands because of PGC policies that game hogs adore. The long, long seasons, which the PGC claims are in place to counteract CWD, promote the slaughter of deer, which game hogs must absolutely love. The PGC allows baiting (aka the use of groomed, short-term "food plots), decoys, and blinds to murder magnificent gobblers in the spring. These three things were all illegal at one time, though apologists for them insist that baiting is still illegal and that "live" decoys were and still are illegal and that only certain types of blinds are legal now. Gobblers baited in to blinds that are surrounded by decoys in the bait plots have no sporting chance to defeat the shooter in this grossly unfair contest. Yet, the PGC not only allows this practice but encourages it.
The PGC has introduced predators (eg. fishers) that take a toll on game birds and animals and wants to introduce martens, which would undoubtedly adversely affect our beleaguered grouse and other wildlife, esp. songbirds. The PFBC, on the other hand, has reduced limits on fish, has increased the legal size for keepers, and encourages sportsmanship, unlike the PGC. I admit to being disappointed that the PFBC has also gone along with the policy of eliminating the deputy program. There is more here than meets the eye.
Anyhow, I would not like to see the game hog-promoting policies of the PGC infect the PFBC. That is why I oppose a merger of the agencies.
I think the PGC is all about killing. Deer have been decimated on most public lands because of PGC policies that game hogs adore. The long, long seasons, which the PGC claims are in place to counteract CWD, promote the slaughter of deer, which game hogs must absolutely love. The PGC allows baiting (aka the use of groomed, short-term "food plots), decoys, and blinds to murder magnificent gobblers in the spring. These three things were all illegal at one time, though apologists for them insist that baiting is still illegal and that "live" decoys were and still are illegal and that only certain types of blinds are legal now. Gobblers baited in to blinds that are surrounded by decoys in the bait plots have no sporting chance to defeat the shooter in this grossly unfair contest. Yet, the PGC not only allows this practice but encourages it.
The PGC has introduced predators (eg. fishers) that take a toll on game birds and animals and wants to introduce martens, which would undoubtedly adversely affect our beleaguered grouse and other wildlife, esp. songbirds. The PFBC, on the other hand, has reduced limits on fish, has increased the legal size for keepers, and encourages sportsmanship, unlike the PGC. I admit to being disappointed that the PFBC has also gone along with the policy of eliminating the deputy program. There is more here than meets the eye.
Anyhow, I would not like to see the game hog-promoting policies of the PGC infect the PFBC. That is why I oppose a merger of the agencies.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Who, one bullet Barney? 😆
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I'm all in favor of LEO's, the more the better so I'm not happy about losing deputies who I am sure were qualified for the jobs they held and the responsibilities.
However, I've been an advocate for years of creating a single fish, game & wildlife agency that includes the DCNR. Combining HQ's, having a single uniform, stationary and sharing resources would definitely save money. Sure there are differences between the jobs & mission statements, but even just consolidating the LEO's into a single force should reduce costs.
While it won't be popular, I also have to believe consolidation at the top levels of management and administration should happen and that would save money as well.
I can't see the PSP in the mix, their job while similar in some respects is a completely different animal at other times.
And like I said before, it's WAY overdue to combine the Turnpike Commission & PennDOT.
However, I've been an advocate for years of creating a single fish, game & wildlife agency that includes the DCNR. Combining HQ's, having a single uniform, stationary and sharing resources would definitely save money. Sure there are differences between the jobs & mission statements, but even just consolidating the LEO's into a single force should reduce costs.
While it won't be popular, I also have to believe consolidation at the top levels of management and administration should happen and that would save money as well.
I can't see the PSP in the mix, their job while similar in some respects is a completely different animal at other times.
And like I said before, it's WAY overdue to combine the Turnpike Commission & PennDOT.
greywolf
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 198
The turnpike commission is a favorite place for governers to provide their backers with good paying political appointments. When talking to long time state workers this often comes up as a main reason that merger never happens
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,449
Dear Bamboozle,
Maybe I'm too cynical, but if the Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission are merged into the DCNR then ultimately the general assembly will be in charge of funding and policy. They can't even reliably do the jobs they are currently tasked with, adding anything more to their plate is a recipe for disaster.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
Based on the research I have been doing the idea of a merger goes back starting in 1947 and real effort on this happens again 1962 when the Wildlife Management Institute creates a report on the observations and recommendations of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and Pennsylvania Game Commission (1962). The topic seriously reaches the state level in different ways again in 1972, 1989, 2003, 2014 and 2019.
From the 2014 report on the history of studies.
From the 2014 report on the history of studies.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I'm not saying you are wrong but, why do you assume the General Assembly would automatically be in charge of funding and policy.?
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,449
Dear Bamboozle,
The State provides funding for DCNR but not for the PGC and PFBC. That money is approved by the General Assembly. I just think it all part of a move to get at the surplus monies in both the PGC and PFBC.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
CRB
Well-known member
I Still Favor a commision vs agency. JMHO.
greywolf
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 198
I am okay with PGC and PFBC merging as long as they remain independent of state funding and control. I agree we do not want them merged with DNR. If they merge the two, a greay way to spend some of the PGC reserve would be fishing easements and stream improvements on Game lands.
