PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

The game commission and fish commission both receive the majority of therefinances from license sales. RIGHT... THat is what they are suppose to survive on. THE QUESTION IS>> Why do i spend 30 dollars max on fishing compared to at least 80 dollars to hunting?? I could see paying the 80 dollars for fishing and 30 for hunting. Game commission sells timber and oil(wells,royalties,etc). THey produce what.....Pheasant.. THe fish commission stocksthousands of trout a year.THey dont get oil and timber money-I think.The fish commission probably even has more employees. What am i missing? Is the fish commission just better with money??Where does all the PGC money go to....? TO do studys. I have had a bunch of buddies work for the PGC as seasonal. THey told me about some of their study...WOW some of them were such awaste of money

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

Mike:
Just asking,,,do you feel like you pay too much to hunt and if so,,,what do you feel is a reasonable fee for the opportunity to hunt,,,im not criticizing just trying to get a feel for how the average hunter feels.

Thanks

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

Georgia is 60$ a year for hunting and fishing combo license and your allowed up to 12 deer a year and hunt all game animals there as fish also.
Sportsman license it's called. All tags included for all weapons also.
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=31

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/Assets/Documents/Hunting_Regulations/08-09_Hunting_Regs.pdf

Now ask yourself if we are paying to much for 1 deer and small game hunting license at 20$ compared to Georgia? Hell yea we are and for what?

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/browse.asp?a=491&bc=0&c=69956&pgcNav=|

Thats a link to the Agenceys reports including fiscal.
Most of the studys that are ongoing are paid for from grants.

Here is the last income and expenditures

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=523&Q=173309

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=523&Q=173316

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

I'm pretty sure that the water world doesn't have any thing as valuable to study as wood rats,so the Fish Commissioncan justify a lower license cost.;)


The wood rat study report could provide us with some in depth reading material, Some random title ideas?

"Wood Rats not just for Breakfast anymore"

"Wood Rats for dummies"

"Wood Rats for both Fun and Profit"

"Where to have all the Rats Gone"

"Wood Rats the other Red Meat"

I can hear theBud Light Real Men of Genius commercial Playing now.

Heresto you Mister wood rat study coordinator,through the wild woods you travel ,searching far and wide for the ever elusivefairly dangerous far ranging and highly nonvenomous Pennsylvania wood rat............

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

You are right, it does seem like a big differential between income and service performed. When you consider all the various tags, the timber other resources etc. etc. And also consider the fact the fish commission ALSO does studies, electro-surveys, has threatened and endangered species to take into account ALSO, like paddlefish, various other fish reptile and amphibians.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

The financials are right there Cornelius.RWJ posted the links. Why dont you show us where the fat is?

BWJ, I would tend to agree to some extent on stuff like the wood rat if we were paying for it but we're not, those studies are almost always funded by outside grant money and not by hunter dollars anyway. Same for the fisher reintroduction etc etc

Not that I object to some of our money going to nongame species either. I don't. But most of those things are funded by outside sources anyway. Even the elk habitat projects got a big helping hand from the RMEF

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

Obviously you havent been following the general fund surplus. Have a gander at it, even currently, and get back to me on it.

I also have no problem with funding for nongame.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

Obviously you havent been following the general fund surplus. Have a gander at it, even currently, and get back to me on it.

I also have no problem with funding for nongame.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

My point is that while we whine about man power shortages we study the life and times of a valuable species such as wood rats when here in Crawford county your more likely to run across a breading pair of pterodactyls than flushing a grouse,which by the waywas the state bird.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

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.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

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

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

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.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

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.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

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

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

"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.

RE: PA- Just cant figure this one out?
 

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