ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
Different state wildlife management agencies are funded in a number of different ways.
Some like Pennsylvania are funded without any general tax funds and only have license fees, Federal P/R funds, timber and mineral sales, etc. to work with even while only the State Legislature can increase the license fee structure. Some states are funded by a combination of license fees, P/F funds and general funds from the state’s taxes.Still other states have a designated tax amount, such as 1/8 of 1% of a sales tax, a portion of the license sales funds and the Federal P/R funds.
What are the benefits and down sides of the various methods within the various states and which seem to result in the best wildlife management programs?
Do hunters in states that are funded by some form of the State’s general tax dollars feel that they have an adequate voice within their wildlife department? Do non hunters have too much voice and does that interfere with the wildlife management programs?
Let’s hear some opinions from the different state hunters about what they think are the best wildlife management programs and how they are funded within those various states.
R.S. Bodenhorn
First off, out of those states that you are inquiring about, don't you find it interesting that 47 or 48 of them have a combined Game & Fish Agency, and roughly 1/2 of those, are independent combined Game & Fish agenciesNOT under a DNCR equivalent? But,yetwe always seem to hear how that would never,ever work in PA.
My 2 cents on General Funding: There is a right and wrong way of doing that.
The right way would be that a "combined & independent" PA Game & Fish agency would push for a 0.x% or x.x%funding cut from the current PA state tax on the sales of hunting & fishing gear, equipment, etc. Then as the "combined & independent" PA Game & Fish agency improved Hunting & Fishing in the state, that would automatically result in more funding due to increased sales of said gear,equipment,etc. Of course, if Hunting & Fishing opertunities decreased they would also be negatively rewarded, and in my eyes rightfully so.
The wrong way to implement "general funding" is just to accept a 0.000000x% willy-nilly cut on all of the State Sales Tax, which allows the non-sporting sector to claim even further influence.
.