Cornelius08

Carl Roe in the annual report the other day:

"To move to our fiscal situation, at the end of June 2008 we had a Game Fund balance of $35,590,000 on a cost accounting basis. This was an increase in the anticipated balance of $32 million. Part of the increase was due to marginal increases in revenue, but the greatest impact was a conservative approach to spending that allowed us to lapse almost $8 million forward into this fiscal year in anticipation of lower revenues this year due to the collapse of the timber industry. If our projected revenues come to fruition, we anticipate this year’s balance to be below $34 million. Although a balance of $34 million sounds like a lot it does not cover anticipated expenses over the next few years."

Now explain to me btb, WHYshould they be concerned with having on hand the finances for THE NEXT FEW years at all times? Keep in mind, that balance most likely had been even higher previously, because theydidnt need to rely on itas heavilywhen the license fee had been previously granted. I included the rest of the paragraph so as not to omit anything, but the above covered the gist of it.

"As you well know since we receive no appropriation from the general fund, our revenues as in the private sector are based on earnings. We need approximately $23 million in the game fund to cover expenses for the first three months of the fiscal year. That leaves a difference of $11 million. Our increase in personnel costs for the next two years is almost $6 million. This leaves a minimal balance to cover decreased revenues from the downturn in timber and interest revenues. "

Now also keep in mind the anticipated earnings from gas are not fully known, estimated VERY conservatively and also that pgc has been wasting one helluva lot of money on preaching the antideer sermon with manpower and "teaching aids"... Then throw in the fencing and other things that shouldnt be going on due to timbering practice etc...and its easy to see this all is a bunch of hooey. Also nice to see how vague the financial report is...

How much of our money was blown on things pushing promoting and continuing to brainwash us and fencing etc.... That is shown as "GOOD" expenditure. Where does it fall in the chart? Looks a lot better when it anonimously adds to the total spent on "wildlife" or habitat, when it should be placed in a separate area of the pie chart....the "screw the hunters" slice. Not really interested in the totals themselves. $1 is $1 too much in that regard.

mikepsu54

Approved two separate oil and gas leases that were won by competitive bid to the highest bidder, which was Chesapeake Energy Appalachia, LLC, of Charleston, West Virginia. Both leases are in Bradford County, being portions of State Game Land 289, containing 1,529 acres in West Burlington Township, and State Game Land 250, containing 443 acres in Terry Township. Royalty rates will be greater than 20 percent and provide accumulated rental values in excess of $1.9 million, as well as provide the agency free gas usage, well location fees, and protect the recreational and wildlife habitats of the SGL through varied surface use restrictions; and

mikepsu54

Thats just one lease...I think they receive 50 thousand for each deep well site. Dont quote me on that. I know they got a bunch of these lease's. I would think that they would get money(commission) from the wind turbines as well. I agree with you that the PGC acquires grant money for studies like the woodrat. Knowledge about the life history of all species is important,- But dont tell me that they dont contribute anything to these studies. Grant money rarely covers the whole expense of a study- usually it goes on a dollar for dollar match bases. I never said that i didnt agree with the studies i was just saying that some of them are not great studies.

mikepsu54

As far as the "Fat". I can assure you that there is alot of that. All State agencies have that. One of these figures that amazes me is the wildlife habitat management. almost 41 Million dollars. Thats allot of money. Whats so expensive. Machinery i guess..I would think thatthe PGCwould make money on crops too though.Creating thickets and edge cover is cheap too- mostly manpower. THe thing that makes you think though- If you owned a chunk of land like the gamelands would you run it the way the PGC does. I know that for most of them i wouldnt.

R.S.B.

This is certainly an exception rather then the rule. This was one of the few areas where the Game Commission owns the minerals.

Actually there are very, very few game lands in the state where the Game Commission owns the gas or any other minerals. When the lands were offered up for sale the mineral rights were, and are, generally retained by the seller if he even owned them. Sometimes there have been several owners since the owner that owned the minerals actually owned the land too. If the minerals had been included the cost would have been so high the Game Commission could not have bought the land and it well might be owned by someone else that didn’t permit anyone to hunt on it now, so the land purchase even without the minerals was still a good investment for the future of hunting.

Sometimes the Game Commission even buys the land while the seller keeps the right to remove the timber on the land for up to ten and even twenty or more years.

The Game Commission can’t stop them from going in an taking their timber, their gas or their coal and they don’t have to pay the Game Commission anything to do so, other then sometimes they have to pay some surface damage if we do own the trees.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08

"This is certainly an exception rather then the rule. This was one of the few areas where the Game Commission owns the minerals."

And it doesnt take a large percentage ofthe vast acreage of gamelands in our state for a substantial penny to be made.

"The Game Commission can’t stop them from going in an taking their timber, their gas or their coal and they don’t have to pay the Game Commission anything to do so, other then sometimes they have to pay some surface damage if we do own the trees."

Its ashame ALL the gamelands werent that way. Then maybe pgc would worry less about timbermoney, more about habitat, andappropriate amounts of cutting would be done, and not solely dicatated by the timber market and the rediculous 1% goal.

R.S.B.

Boy are you mixed up on that.

The Game Commission frequently goes in an cuts trees, including marketable timber, they have no intentions of selling just to create habitat for wildlife.

When we don’t own the timber we can’t do that and the ENTIRE cutting is market driven instead of having anything being cut to the benefit of the wildlife. When the Game Commission owns the timber it managed for wildlife, for both today and the future, with timber being marked and sold even when we don’t make as much money on it. That doesn’t happen when we don’t own the timber.

Where do you get these notions you come up with? Are they all just hate driven or can you possible explain where you get such ideas?

R.S. Bodenhorn