How should Wildlife Management be funded?
02-06-2009, 11:12 AM
#241
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central PA
Posts: 829
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
"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.
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.
02-06-2009, 01:23 PM
#242
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
02-06-2009, 05:43 PM
#243
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
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.
"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
02-06-2009, 05:52 PM
#244
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 3c pa
Posts: 1,212
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
ORIGINAL: sproulman
gm had problem with BALL JOINTS,they did not put grease fittings on them,NOW THEY DO.
no way a bigger vehicle is saving.it is money pit.
if rsb needs to haul a 800 pd bear, use a trailer.
go to K&l auto in renovo area.
they repair the trucks from DCNR.
go talk to them.
they are broke all time,even local WCO retired was in there a LOT with his vehicle.
smaller vehicles will break too but COST TO REPAIR IS GREAT DIFFERENCE FROM BIGGER VEHICLES.
trust me, our study for 2 years opened many eyes.
just getting a 6 cyl vrs a 8 cyl saved a ton of money on gas/oil/repairs on engine alone.
just going to bias ply tires vrs radial tires saved over million.
radials get 5 times flats as a bias ply do and the bias get hole in bottom that can be repaired BUT radial gets hole in sidewall, cant be repaired.
15 inch tire is much cheaper than 16/17
ORIGINAL: DougE
I hada 96 and a 99 Jimmy.They ate hub assemblies and ball joints on a regular basis.They also got crappy mileage.I've had 1/2 ton trucks and never replaced anything.My trucks gets used hard as I haul heavy loads of hay and horses on a regular basis.Insurance premiums were alsolower on the 1/2 ton trucks.I have a 3/4 ton HD now and while it gets,a little worse fuel mileage,it isn't much worse than the small ones.However,the ability to stand up to heavy use,isn't even comparable.
I've roade along with R.S.B on several occassions.A small tinker toy wouldn't cut the mustard.
I hada 96 and a 99 Jimmy.They ate hub assemblies and ball joints on a regular basis.They also got crappy mileage.I've had 1/2 ton trucks and never replaced anything.My trucks gets used hard as I haul heavy loads of hay and horses on a regular basis.Insurance premiums were alsolower on the 1/2 ton trucks.I have a 3/4 ton HD now and while it gets,a little worse fuel mileage,it isn't much worse than the small ones.However,the ability to stand up to heavy use,isn't even comparable.
I've roade along with R.S.B on several occassions.A small tinker toy wouldn't cut the mustard.
no way a bigger vehicle is saving.it is money pit.
if rsb needs to haul a 800 pd bear, use a trailer.
go to K&l auto in renovo area.
they repair the trucks from DCNR.
go talk to them.
they are broke all time,even local WCO retired was in there a LOT with his vehicle.
smaller vehicles will break too but COST TO REPAIR IS GREAT DIFFERENCE FROM BIGGER VEHICLES.
trust me, our study for 2 years opened many eyes.
just getting a 6 cyl vrs a 8 cyl saved a ton of money on gas/oil/repairs on engine alone.
just going to bias ply tires vrs radial tires saved over million.
radials get 5 times flats as a bias ply do and the bias get hole in bottom that can be repaired BUT radial gets hole in sidewall, cant be repaired.
15 inch tire is much cheaper than 16/17
trying to keep up to speed when the v8 can get and maintain the speed
easier
I have tryed the small engines in my trucks diffrence of a 400 getting3.5
to a 500 hp getting 4.9 miles a gallon
sometimes heavy duty parts cost alittle more because they are made heavyduty not light
02-06-2009, 05:59 PM
#246
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
here is example,real life one.
the employees that were on EXPENSE accounts,they got like 32 cents a mile.
guess what most drove,very small cars and small trucks with 4 wheel drive.
now, if a big ole a truck was better, you would think they would be driving one.
roads they were on with company trucks were very nasty too .
the employees that were on EXPENSE accounts,they got like 32 cents a mile.
guess what most drove,very small cars and small trucks with 4 wheel drive.
now, if a big ole a truck was better, you would think they would be driving one.
roads they were on with company trucks were very nasty too .
02-06-2009, 06:03 PM
#247
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
"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."
No. What it shows is they are TRYING to force the crooks at pgc to be responsible and reign in the rogue agency.For anyone to ever suggest its a BAD IDEA to designate monies for the sole purpose of habitat improvement... THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR GOURD!!! And the fact you agree shows that you are Definately no friend of the hunter.
No. What it shows is they are TRYING to force the crooks at pgc to be responsible and reign in the rogue agency.For anyone to ever suggest its a BAD IDEA to designate monies for the sole purpose of habitat improvement... THEY ARE OUT OF THEIR GOURD!!! And the fact you agree shows that you are Definately no friend of the hunter.
02-06-2009, 06:03 PM
#248
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Who cares what they drive, I am a more concerned with what they do and how the PGC is managing the herd.
Who cares what they drive, I am a more concerned with what they do and how the PGC is managing the herd.
if cost cutting is not started ion PGC ,then license fee increase is coming.
rendell just said on tv he is going to merge 500 schools into 100 schools.
no money and he cant raise taxes now in this economy.
will the PGC raise license fees in a depression.
02-06-2009, 06:09 PM
#249
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 3c pa
Posts: 1,212
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
ORIGINAL: sproulman
here is example,real life one.
the employees that were on EXPENSE accounts,they got like 32 cents a mile.
guess what most drove,very small cars and small trucks with 4 wheel drive.
now, if a big ole a truck was better, you would think they would be driving one.
roads they were on with company trucks were very nasty too .
here is example,real life one.
the employees that were on EXPENSE accounts,they got like 32 cents a mile.
guess what most drove,very small cars and small trucks with 4 wheel drive.
now, if a big ole a truck was better, you would think they would be driving one.
roads they were on with company trucks were very nasty too .
trailer better then my star let me know