ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

Well said Yano.

I can see no reason not to combine the fish and game commission.
There is no real reason to support two seperate headquarters and there is no real reason for the duplication when it comes to administration. There should be substantial savings on expense in those two areas. I don't have the PFBC figures in front of me but almost 30% of the expenditure for the PGC are taken up by administration, Information and education, executive office and technology expenses. Those are the areas where I'd think one agency could savemoney by reducing duplication. Obviously they wouldnt save 30% but if each agency coulds save 10 or 15% that would be huge.

Even though I agree with much of the current deer management policies, the PGC has taken the wrong approach with the group that provides the lions share of its funds. The recent crossbow vote is a glaring example. The biological ramifications were not researched and the hunter input was overwhelmingly against it. So we have an issue decided virtually without any science and directly against the social climate of the people who pay the bills. I disagree with most of theUSP mentality and the lawsuit but the PGC just handed the USP another clipfull of bullets and also alienated much of an organization that always steadfastly supported them, the UBP.

As far as the crossbow issue, I was fairly neutral on it but I am absolutely and positively disgusted with the vote in the face of the overwhelming hunter input against it. Again, there was no science to support inclusionso the social climatewas the only consideration. The fact that a commssioner owns a sporting goods store and stands to profit should have been a strong reason for him to abstain.

RSB,I have a healthy respect for you,and the dedication you appear to have for your job. Your job is law enforcement but you spend personal time on here attempting to answer questions and provide informationrelated to your job and the policies of the agency. For that I thank you. Your recent posts however are disturbing. You accepted the job you hold knowing how the agency is funded. You have accepted paychecks, which you've certainly earned, knowing they came from hunters for all those years. When one acepts money from the public,any public, there is a certain amount of responsibility to that public.Taking criticism and having to listen to theconcernsof the public who funds you comes with the territory.Your comments were out of line and I find it deeply disturbing that that mentalityseems to be appearingmore and more from thePGC.

As for how fish and game management sholud be funded, IMHO, we should fight as hard as we can for a combined independent agency funded by those that utilize the resource. The minute we take money from all taxpayers we lose moreinfluence and we already have too little say in wildlifematters.The recent crossbow vote proves that.

That doesnt mean hunters should have the only say. Without landowners, we have no hunting anywaybecause they're the ones who provide food and habitat for our wildlife. Weneed to accept that we are not the only ones who "pay" for wildlife. The farmer "pays" with lost crops. The timber interests, which includes anyone who may sell their timber some day"pay" through lost tree regeneration. Every driver "pays" for our deer herd in the form of insurance premiums for comprehensive which covers deer collisions.

I hunt the state of Illinois and their DNR is funded by public money as well as hunting and fishing fees. This past year, the now impeached governor "swept" 9.2 million from DNR accounts to bail out the general fund. If the PGC takes money fromgeneral funds, that becomes a possibility here too.

IMHO. we need an independent combined fish and game agency that opens it's doors a bit more and we also need the extremists that brought this lawsuit to shut up and sit down. Sadly, neither is likely to happen.