RSB

Thanks for your thoughts in the preceding lenghty post.

I'll apologize in advance for the length of this response

On the subject of combining the PFBC and PGC, you bring up some issues thatmany, mysel included, may not have considered. IMHO, any merging of the two agencies should leave the field personnell pretty much the way it is. The cross training issues you raise make sense. On the other hand, an old friend of mine whohas since passed on was a waterways patrolman in Forest County. He assisted the WCO's or DGP's as they were called in those days in his "off season" by acting as a deputy or an assistant to the WCO. He gave me the impression that the two agencies regualrly helped each other out when one was more busy than the other. I would think we could keep the specialization among field officers intact under a combined agency. My case for combining the two is more about headquarters, admin I&E, licensing and exectutive offices. Surely we could identify substantial duplication in those areas and save money while being more effective at the same time. Lets face it, any time a government agency faces the idea of reorganization, combining or streamlining, we are going to see resistance to change because peoples comfort levels get threatened. It happens in any business butis even more likely in the public sector. Both agencies arealready downsizing staff by attrition and perhaps both could benefit froma merger.The fact that the two agencies started seperate and that its been that way a long time isn't sufficient reason for either to resist the idea of considering a merger. BTW, I'd rather see PGC and PFBC take the initiative now rather than have a governor mandate a DCNR/PGC/PFBC merger whenthey start taking general state funds.


As for the crossbow issue, I understand why you may not want to get too deep into that one. I will say again, this one is not personal with me as far as the weapon goes. It is personal as far as the BOC's degree of arrogance. I realize that it was a decision made essentially by 4 people but it was quite possibly one of the stupidest moves the BOC could have made at this time. At a time when they need to keep every friend they have, they took a serious dump on a strong friendship. Apparently that friendship wasn't important to those 4 BOC members. I also find it especially appalling that the owner of a sporting goods store would not be asked to abstain from a vote thatstands toobviously produce personalfinacial gainfor him.

The UBP enjoys a small but very politically active core group as its membership. Last I looked, btw, the membership number was substantially larger than the USP. If this had been an issue of science, I would not be saying a word and, I trust, neither would the UBP. But it was not. It was purely a social issue and the BOC may have really shot themselves in the foot on this one. They alienated a friend that has the capability to be at least as big if not a bigger thorn in their side than the USP fanatics. Imagine for a moment,if, as a few here have implied, that the UBP threw their arms in the air and filed a suit of their ownor joined forces with USP. I doubt that will happen but who could blame them?

You said
Perhaps it wont be the problem we envisioned but what if it does become that big? Even with the sunset clause, if it does present problems it will be because of widespread use and this will bean infinitely bigger battle the second time around. Besides,that kind of smacks as a "they'll get overit eventually " mentality which is just as irritating.


Now the big one, who should fund the PGC in the future?

First, apology accepted for the "flying leap" comments. I also wish to take this opportunity to recant my emotionally charged suggestion that maybe it's time for another line of work. We're all human andentitled to our personal feelings and tend to get emotional when it's something we care about deeply. I do agree that you are on here on your own time and for that, I thank you. On the other hand, you have identified yourself and your position to this forum and that mere fact makes you an ambassador for the agency when you post here, like it or not.I acknowledge I have posted some far more incendiary statements on here from time to timebut they were directed as rifle shots not shotgun blasts. I'm also not an officer of any agency or any organization at this time.

You make some valid points when it comes to the nongame efforts and expenditures the PGC incurrs. It does seem right for the public to pay that part of the bills. You also have an excellent point regarding thedecline in our numbers. All our best efforts will still only slow down the bleeding.
If I take the grand total I spend on PA resident licenses, stamps, and doe and DMAP tags in a year, it still wouldn't buyme one good seat at a Steelers or Penguins game.BTW, I give the Illinois DNR well over $700 everyyear as a nonresident and thats just to hunt deer!Are the satisfied hunters out there being vocalenough? Nope. But thats always been human nature. Guys that are happy tend to simply not complain. Hell, if it werent for Bluebird and a few others posting big lies on here and getting me irritated with those distortions, I wouldn't post near as often as I do. I think you and I both know that we can'treasonably place blame on those who don't complain for the problems.Whether we like it or not, it's the PGC's job and the job of concerned sportsmen to get the message outand get the hunting public behind a method of adequately fundingthe agency. That means an effort on all fronts including not pissing off their benefactors with unnecessary, unscientific, ill timed votes that go directly against popular opinion. It also means, selling the science when good management may be less than widely welcomed. Gary Alt did a great sales job, I believe he overstated his case and promised too much but it was a program that needed selling.Unfortunately he thenslapped us with more harm in theend than we could have imagined. Remember, I'm talking image and PR here, not what he did with deer management. Had he been more truthful and realistic in the beginning, it would have been a tougher sell but we wouldn't be experiencing the backlash we now face. He also went way out of line with his parting comments IMHO.

All that being said, I personally would still rather pay the whole bill as a hunter. I strongly fear that once we take general funds, the PETA types will demand a voice. Perhaps even seek a seat on the BOC and once we've taken money from the general public, that may not be preventable. The only way I'd be comfortable with bringing in outside money is if it were designated specifically and exclusively for nongame programs. Maybe thats possible maybe not. But it's one way tokeep making the case for hunting issues to be decided by those who truly have hunting, as well as the resources, best interests at heart.