ORIGINAL: 4evrhtn
"The pgc crowd are talking on another board about the new bill that would mandate that pgc would set aside at least 10% of the money they get from timbering towards habitat improvement/reforestation efforts. They are DEAD SET againstit, and again we areonly talking TEN STINKING PERCENT!! "
R.S.B.,
Is this statement accurate? If it isn't could you clarify the details of this "new bill"? I would hate to think this is true and a person employed by the PAGC would be aware of this and then go forward with starting a thread that requests suggestions on how Wildlife Management be funded.
If the PAGC is reaping profit from taking from the land they should be putting just as much back into the land. You've heard the saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul" This is exactly what is happening. I understand the PAGC is in desperate need of money and the PAGC is doing what they need to in order to survive and continue to exist as they have. But, you cannot argue that they are of atmuch fault for their current circumstances as anything else, probably more so. They have been doing whatever they want despite what the hunters say or feel. The Xbow inclusionis a prime example. Reap what you sow- Now the PAGC wants us hunters to pay more yet disregard our wishes everytime they see a financial gain from doing so. I don't care if the PAGC ceases to exist. They will be replaced or forced to merge and in the long runa mergerwould be more economical, then some of that admin payroll will be able to go into habitat and wildlife/land management.
This bill appears to be just another example of the Legislature coming up with bills that don’t fix any problems and only create new problems. It also shows that they once more believe they know about resource management then professionals in those fields.
Earmarked funds frequently are the most wasted money in the system because the money has to spend to do things that frequently aren’t in need of anything being fixed or corrected. To start with mother nature plants over a billion new seedlings on nearly ever acre of mature forest each spring. If nature can’t keep up at that rate of seeding there isn’t much man can do to improve on that. In fact there aren’t enough seedlings available commercially in the entire world to keep up with what nature is already doing in forest plantings for free.
The Game Commission is already mandated to spend $4.25 for every resident and non-resident hunting license and $2.00 for every antler less license sold on habitat management and maintenance projects and that required amount is exceeded every year. Adding more earmarked funds is not the answer to having better habitat or more deer. Sometimes just throwing more money into something doesn’t result in anything more then simply more spent money.
As for your desire for the Game Commission to fold or merge I have to wonder how anyone could think that will result in something better. All of the merger studies conducted by the Legislature have come back stating there would be no significant cost saving but there would be significant expense in the initial merger years. Do you think there isn’t going to be someone to manage wildlife if the Game Commission runs out of money? Who do you think will take over that responsibility and how do think it would be funded in the future if hunters decide they aren’t or can’t continue to adequately fund wildlife management?
R.S Bodenhorn