CRB
Well-known member
Perhaps join all the law enforcement into one (DCNR, PAGC, PAFB)and perhaps the PA State Police.
PA Wildlife Agencies In the Red
- Thread starter dudemanspecial
- Start date
rustbeltwilds
Well-known member
Well said. Kinda like all these little townships and boroughs with all there own depts
Bamboozle
Well-known member
There was rather a comical situation recently where the $hitty of Allentown was trying to explain who was to blame when the streets weren't plowed but the people were issued citations for not digging their cars....
The Rodfather
Well-known member
Having grown up in a state that had 1 agency, (Dept of Natural Resources) that covered hunting fishing and the park system, I can tell you that it isn't much different. People in power in those agencies will find ways to waste your dollars and spend much more than they bring in.
For a well-considered health strategy for wildlife and all wild environment management the section of the PFBC dedicated to stream and population health should merge with the same goals sought by the Game Commission and DEP.
Ignoring stream health and focusing only on hunting and game does not address the environment in which the game is to live.
Ignoring concerns for land and air animals is not good for managing the health of flowing and impounded waters.
Ignoring invasive plant concerns should not be allowed.
Both those agencies and DEP and the federal agencies and academics all have a mutual concern for the outdoor health, but IMO they are not that well-coordinated in pursuit of the goals.
Various reasons - from agency administrators not wanting to jeopardize income for employees and maintenance and buildings and a bunch of other management concerns, to some agency administrators having a more personal goal, especially if they become the funnel of information to the appointed commission members. If an executive secretary or similar wants, they can alter truth and point fingers to others if questioned about the veracity and responses of reports and data provided by the agency. In these scenarios the executive secretaries don't put their name on the alterations to reports, but they sure can change the original.
Nutshell, all the agencies should be in close cooperation with environmental issues.
No stream and its floodplain should only be the concern of one or two agencies.
The environment is all connected. So should the agencies be!
(But money is needed to pay for all the enforcement personnel, especially since they had pay rate and benefits allegedly improved and limited hours from the 24/7 that was the code. The PFBC took on the Boat portion back when DUI was being introduced. It could have been the role of the state police, but it seemed better to have the fish commission take the responsibility since they had boats and were out on the water surveilling for fishing violations. Larger number of employees because of the changes and they need to be compensated! IMO it should be considered that actual cooperation is strongly needed for water quality, fish and insect habitats and wildlife and game animal considerations to be made within the same land areas.)
Ignoring stream health and focusing only on hunting and game does not address the environment in which the game is to live.
Ignoring concerns for land and air animals is not good for managing the health of flowing and impounded waters.
Ignoring invasive plant concerns should not be allowed.
Both those agencies and DEP and the federal agencies and academics all have a mutual concern for the outdoor health, but IMO they are not that well-coordinated in pursuit of the goals.
Various reasons - from agency administrators not wanting to jeopardize income for employees and maintenance and buildings and a bunch of other management concerns, to some agency administrators having a more personal goal, especially if they become the funnel of information to the appointed commission members. If an executive secretary or similar wants, they can alter truth and point fingers to others if questioned about the veracity and responses of reports and data provided by the agency. In these scenarios the executive secretaries don't put their name on the alterations to reports, but they sure can change the original.
Nutshell, all the agencies should be in close cooperation with environmental issues.
No stream and its floodplain should only be the concern of one or two agencies.
The environment is all connected. So should the agencies be!
(But money is needed to pay for all the enforcement personnel, especially since they had pay rate and benefits allegedly improved and limited hours from the 24/7 that was the code. The PFBC took on the Boat portion back when DUI was being introduced. It could have been the role of the state police, but it seemed better to have the fish commission take the responsibility since they had boats and were out on the water surveilling for fishing violations. Larger number of employees because of the changes and they need to be compensated! IMO it should be considered that actual cooperation is strongly needed for water quality, fish and insect habitats and wildlife and game animal considerations to be made within the same land areas.)
Great post! Sounds like Leopold’s Land Ethic.
greywolf
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 198
The problem with taxpayer funding of the PGC and PFBC is that they would then be run by politicians completely. That has ended in big issues for hunters and fishers in some other states.
greywolf
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 198
At the very least PGzc and PFBC should combine their warden / enforcement together. That increase resources during peak hunting and fishing times and be more efficient.
tjsingle
Well-known member
I understand that, however I don't think it would be a bad idea to supplement it.
The Rodfather
Well-known member
I think it will be as long as they have a massive trout stocking program that caused this issue in the first place....you give them more access to capital funds and immediately they will announce "we are going to stock more fish"
tjsingle
Well-known member
I wish they would use more funds for improving access via easement/agreements with landowners, can care less about stockies.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
There are programs for that in place.
The problem is many are supplemented by donations and/or nobody knows about the programs, including more than a few folks at the PFBC.
There also is a a place to make donations for access on HuntFishPA and there is the CAP Program that gets matching funds that I have been donating to since it's inception.
Trico3
Member
I'm not positive but I believe PA DCNR does not operate in the red and receive no gov't funding. Funds are generated from fees and sale of natural resources.
tjsingle
Well-known member
Good to know. I guess my perception is that they do lots of easements up in Erie, but why not more widespread throughout the state? Not trying to knock what we have already, but rather to bolster it and I also would like to see more funds directed that way instead of stocking streams that don't need it (That topic has been beaten to a pulp on PAFF already).
For example on the Apply for the Voluntary Public Access-Habitat Incentive Program, it states that "Easement acquisition is contingent upon the completion of due diligence, Commission approval, and funding availability."
Last edited:
Yes. US Patent and Trademark Office
My brother is appellate judge there and whenever the government shuts down, he has to keep working because they generate enough in fees to cover their operations.
I'm sure there are others.
tomgamber
Well-known member
My mom lived in Allentown for 30 years. There is more than one street there.
DomR
Well-known member
Treading into dangerous areas with that logic. Messing with politicians gravy trains.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I'd think I'd be messing more with the egos of agency directors/heads than politician's gravy trains...
