Recently, State Representative Mike Hanna issued a statement that demonstrates his " disturbing disregard " for the Pennsylvania Game Commission> ' s legislated wildlife management mission.

Created as an independent state agency in 1895, the Pennsylvania Game Commission is responsible for managing all 465 species of wild birds and mammals and preserving the state's rich hunting and trapping heritage. Also, the agency has acquired 1.4 million acres of State Game Lands to serve as wildlife habitats and areas for public hunting and trapping, hiking and other wildlife related activities.

Unfortunately, in framing his decision to not support a license fee increase, Rep. Hanna has based his decision on his support for one side of the ongoing deer debate. While listening to those who want higher deer populations despite all other factors, he has seemingly ignored comments from foresters, farmers, biologists, hunters and others that the agency has a legal obligation to do what it can to balance the deer herd in terms of the three goals of the agency> '> s deer program: improve habitat health, deer health and reduce deer-human conflicts. He obviously hasn> '> t received any of the public testimony provided before two recent meetings of the House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee from those who are demanding additional relief from excessive deer damage to their property, their crops and their livelihoods.

Rep. Hanna also cites the recent Legislative Budget and Finance Committee reports to support his claim that there is something "wrong " with the Game Commission, and that the Game Commission has yet to implement its strategic plan. Yet, Rep. Hanna completely misses the basis premise of the LBFC reports, which is that without a more stable stream of funding, the Game Commission has been rendered fiscally incapable of implementing its strategic plan. The LBFC clearly states:" In fairness to the PGC, it is very challenging to implement such as plan when the agency's resources are being reduced. Because it has been necessary to maintain many programs at a minimum level, it is difficult to accomplish various objectives established in the Strategic Plan."

Also, the LBFC said:" The PGC' s current Executive Director has, however, expressed a strong commitment to the current plan and the strategic planning process."

The LBFC also notes: " While the PGC has continued to experience problems in operationalizing its Strategic Plan, the agency' s financial condition represents its most significant near-term challenge. Despite expenditure cuts and ongoing cost-containment measures, the Commission is in need of a substantial revenue augmentation in order to stem the decline in the Game Fund balance and avoid further reductions in programs, services and staff. "

Had Rep. Hanna, a member of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, been able to attend the recent LBFC presentation to the committee, he would have heard Executive Director Roe state the following:"Our attempt to integrate the strategic plan into our budget has not been as successful as we would have hoped due to our limited resources. For FY 2005-06 we built a zero-based budget based on the strategic plan. As I recall, that budget came to around $81 to $83 million dollars. We had to reduce that budget to around $68 million."

What does all this mean? It means that we still are accomplishing many of the objectives of the current strategic plan without adequate funding. To fully implement our strategic plan, the > agency will need an increase in its current revenues. Ensuring that the Game Commission is adequately funded is not within our authority; that power rests with the Legislature.

As a three-bill package has been introduced to initiate the discussion on increased funding, we are disappointed to find Rep. Hanna opposed to these measures. His continued opposition to increasing the agency' s revenues merely creates a Catch-22 situation.

Also, Rep. Hanna dredges up a report from almost a decade ago in another attempt to discredit the agency. We believe that if you compare the Game Commission and its focus today to the one that the MAT report describes, he would see that we are miles ahead of making substitutive changes to the agency' s functions, culture and programs.

Finally, I'd like to say to Rep. Hanna, if he has positive solutions or suggestions, we'd be happy to sit down and talk with him.

Jerry Feaser, Press Secretary, Pennsylvania Game Commission