|
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
i feel sorry for the sheep they all must be cold
|
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
The sheep will always have that warm and fuzzy feeling , because that is what sheep do.
|
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
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  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. . |
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
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. |
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
That was perfect BTB. I was thinking of starting this topic all over again tomorrow. Because I think we jumped on this with a little left over frustration from the crossbow vote. [/align]
|
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
1.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.
2.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. BTB are you feeling O.K. Your statements say otherwise. Its quite clear your giving the USP a blast there but their the only org that are fighting the GC. on their policies. Everybody agreed to the audit wheres it at. Give me 1 reason why WMI cant do the audit just 1 while the lawsuit is going on. Thats like saying douge I beleive he sells insurance and say he works for Erie insurance and their pulled into court over something does that mean douge should,nt sell anymore insurance till the lawsuit is settled.If WMI does,nt want too do the audit let another company do it.Your second statement is nothing but politics at it,s finest. Prime example yesterday on KDKA radio they were talking about Surra getting his $95.000 job according to some people on different boards he was hated by hunters and he was a thorn in the GC. side. Well Gov. Rendell was live on there yesyerday saying he got hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails and corrospondents from the folks up in the Wilds area saying they wanted Surra in the DCNR making $95.000 a year so thats politics at it,s finest |
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
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. |
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
good post BTB well said
|
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
BTB,
I'm actually stunned to hear you say something negative about the PGC or to RSB. I have to agree with you though! Many feel that the Hunter's voice was not heard when it came to the crossbow issue. The PGC shows its true colors. THEY DO WHAT THEY WANT The comments made by RSB also true his true colors. Several people on here side with the PGC on many issues. Its good to see them start to shake their head and wonder what is going on. Even if they don't admit it on here, they have to be scratching their head. BTB, you must be an upstanding kinda guy to come out and say how you feel even if it means going against someone you have defended many times. I respect that. Perhaps you can understand how some of us feel when it comes the the PGC and AR or HR. I see guys like DougE always supporting the PGC no matter what the issue. I realize he and RSB are friends but surely he understands how the PGC does what they want, how they want, despite what hunters think. Crossbows? Really? Why? Just think, us hunters foot the bill while decisions are made despite how we feel. The real reason the PGC wants crossbows legal is to sell more archery tags. What is it, $16 a pop. How much will they make on a move like this? Every Tom Dick and Harry will be out in the woods with their crossbow trying to get that big buck they saw while spotting. No need for practice. Just grab it and go. Its all about money. How to make more money. There's nothing like biting the hand that feeds you |
RE: How should Wildlife Management be funded?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 ORIGINAL: DougE They were DCNR's demands several years ago and the PGC got none of them.Tell me again how DCNR is running the PGC. But here is a challenge for you. Explain why 2F is being managed at 22 DPSM and 2G is managed at 12 PS DPSM when the forest health is poorer in 2F than in 2G based on regeneration? What PGC criteria justifies that descrepency? DougE, Weeeeeee're waiting!!! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:28 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.