Cornelius08

Well Levdansky is at it again... After trying to cater to demands of nonhunting environmental extremistsat Audubon and others bytrying to find"other" funding sources for pgc and sponsoring a bill last year that would have allocated a portion of sales tax to pgc.... Then having less than good will towards hunters of Pa bypushing the version of the auditproposal thatTim Shaeffer of Audubon basically prepared...

Now this clown is yet again trying to undercut the sportsmen and women of our state by attempting to create another funding source yet again, I believe the first part of the very first sentence basically sums it up. Environmentalist and conservationist extremists are what we are talking about here. The "sporting groups" thrown in for good measure to "counter" the unsavory element of ecoextremists alone. The "sporting groups" being the usual suspects that also call nonhunting environmentalists members. Anyway, heres the article:

------------------------------

COALITION CALLS FOR ENACTMENT OF SEVERANCE TAX ON MARCELLUS SHALE

3/16/09

By Kimberly Collins, PLS

A coalition of environmental, conservation, and sporting groups; municipal officials and state legislators today called for the enactment of a severance tax on natural gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale and announced the release of a public poll demonstrating strong public support for such a tax.

Andy Loza, of the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association, spoke in support of the severance tax proposed by the Governor, stating Pennsylvania has a wealth of natural resources and as the natural gas is drilled it is imperative that the other natural resources be protected. He noted 39 other states have similar taxes and argued it is "only fair and reasonable" to implement a severance tax.

Loza cited a recent statewide poll which showed that the majority of Pennsylvanians support taxing natural gas drilling, and nearly 9 out of 10 want a portion of the tax revenue used to protect Pennsylvania’s land, water, and wildlife.

"The breadth of support for conservation funding is astounding," said Loza. "Support for the idea of dedicating severance tax revenues to conservation cuts across every region of the state and every demographic group. And that support also extends to dedicating a portion of gas lease revenues on public land to protecting our environment."

Referring to the impact that the growing natural gas industry will have on Pennsylvania’s wildlife, water and infrastructure, Loza further argued that a portion of the revenue from the severance tax should be dedicated to preserving the environment and another portion should be allocate to local government to address the increased stress on infrastructure.

Rep. Bud George (D-Clearfield), Chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, stated "implementing a severance tax is a no-brainer and failing to do so would be a no-gainer for Pennsylvania." He pointed out that Pennsylvania would be the only gas-rich state without an extraction tax and argued failure to enact the tax would be a "foolish handout" to the gas industry. He said natural gas drillers are using taxpayers’ resources for their profit and argued the governor’s proposed tax of 5% at the well head plus 4.7 cents per thousand cubic feet is "modest."

Rep. Dave Levdansky (D-Allegheny), Chairman of the House Finance Committee, discussed the risk that the extraction of natural gas poses to the environment and the impact it has on communities, and argued that the industry should bear the costs of these risks. Rep. Levdansky said he weighs five factors whenever considering a new tax: fair, competitive, market-oriented, efficiently collected, and collected in a timely fashion. According to him the proposed tax meets these standards. Referring to arguments that a new tax would stymie growth in the new industry, Rep. Levdansky argued now is the time for the new tax because the industry can build the costs into business models. Further, he said that Pennsylvania has no dedicated taxpayer support for wildlife management and argued that a portion of the tax should be allocated to the Game and Fish and Boat Commissions to help them in their missions, which benefit all Pennsylvanians.

"Our Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission are in difficult financial straits, constantly underfunded as they carry out their duty to protect our land and water," said Rep. Levdansky. "It is vital to remember that the commissions are charged under state law to protect and manage all species in the interests of all Pennsylvanians. Therefore it is appropriate and worthy to use a portion of the severance tax to invest in the work of the commissions to improve habitat and public access to our land and water, and to grow our burgeoning wildlife recreation industry."

Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware) offered his support for a severance tax and noted that the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy will be holding a hearing on the severance tax on April 3. He said Loza and Doug Hill, of the County Commissioners Association, will be testifying before the committee.

Jan Jarrett, president and CEO of Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture), said, "The Marcellus Shale offers us a tremendous opportunity to expand our supply of domestic fuel and, through the proposed severance tax, bring revenue into the state, at a time when our budget forecasts are so dire. But it also offers a tremendous risk to the land, water, and wildlife that makes Pennsylvania so special. These drilling operations use millions of gallons of water and scar our land, at least temporarily. This poll shows that our citizens recognize that it is only fair that a portion of the severance tax goes to protect the environment."

BTBowhunter

Interesting.

You'd probably be applauding Ledvansky if you weren't supporting the USP's blackmail campaign over the deer program.

Cornelius08

1st off its not "usps" blackmail. Its the system of checks and balances in effect because Pa HUNTERS have demanded it. Myself andmany I know included, NONE of which are usp or even know a usp member, though if ups members did their part as well, I guess for THAT they should be commended. Same reason the audit is being done....because ofunacceptably high level of hunter dissatisfaction.

Levdansky has proven himself as not hunter friendly time and again. I wouldnt applaud anyone who attempts to further audubon and other nuts" agendas at our expense. Even if our satisfaction level as hunters were currently excellent, I still wouldnt approve alternate funding.OUr sports well-being or lack ofcan changequickly with the wrong people pulling the strings. Imho, alternate funding should be an absolute last resort necessity before ever even being considered.

When the "problems"are resolvedvia audit or other route, Idsupport a license fee increase. But never the foolishness of "alternate funding"...

BTBowhunter

What's the uspostal service got to do with this?

Ok, you're not USP.I agree with that. I also agree that taking any outside could be a step on to a slippery slope.

Where we disagree, (besides on that little deer thingis that this financial blackmail thing is going to backfire on all hunters no matter where they stand on deer management. You worry about the ecoextreme influence yet the resistance by ( a minority IMHO) hunters to a license increase is setting us up for the money to wind up comingfrom those that you claim already have too much influence.

It's kind of like having a marriage with problems and then telling the wife to go live with the guy next door for awhile and expecting that to patch things up.

If we as hunters don't provide funding the PGC needs, someone else surely will and that just sets us up to have less clout than we do now.

Cornelius08

That money isnt gonna come from them. I dont expect the bill toget the support, just as similar past bills have not. Andcertainly not in the economic situation the state is in currently. Also, ourlegislators who are prohunting definately dont wantto see that happen. Also, if an audit goes through within a year asis being stated, and pgc complies with the findings,Itsvery likely legislators are going togrant the fee increase, and that can and will be pointed to any time an argument for alternate funding arises.

I also find it interesting that even though Levdansky knows the audit is in the works, and so is addressing of the funding through license fee increase that will result thereafter, he still pushed forth this legislation. So one must ask themselves, is this because he is so extremely concerned that our wildlife management be funded or that we take a first step in further removing hunter voice from the equation? Im guessing his motives arent ALL bad, so Id guess a combination of both.

As I see it, we have no clout now. Only good thing at all is the fact pgc cant completely ignore the legislators and the legislators cant completely ignore us! (LOL) I see zero sense in not attempting to change things for fear it might get worse, when its much more likely the outcome would be favorable or at the very least no worse.

Pgc is still operating, still holding out and the cuts to this point have not been staggering. Wildlife management hasnt been significantly effected, and there is at least some time to seek solutions or for pgc to have a change of heart. Can also look at it as SOMETHING has been done. The audit proposal and the fee increase that hinges on it.

Also, I find it curious that you support pgc, even if they were to allow themselves to be in asituation where wildlife management COULD suffer because of decision making and inflexible deer plan, orperhaps even themselvesbe "dissolved". What does that say of responsibility? Could that ALSO not be considered blackmail?? Seems like the attitude they have, and which you seem to support is pgc basically saying to us"The hunters of PA must pay us more, no matter what, no matter who we cater to, or anything else we so choose,or the wildlife of this state will suffer.....So no matter wether you guys like it or not we AINT changing no deer plan and your gonna pay us or else, and if worse comes to worse YOU GUYS are the ones to blame!!"

Sorry, I do NOT think they should be rewarded for going on a "hunger strike" for not very good reasons. I dont see things as totallypanic timeand no reason to rush immediately to any conclusion right this second. 3 commissioners are being replaced, and we have an audit hopefully soon on the horizon which could have significant policy effects. IF neither solve any problems and the trends stay the same or worse, and pgc stays on their "hunger strike" I saylet them starve, because things CANT get any worse if pgc is THAT DEADSET against the hunter and their duty to wildlife management which they are willling to watch go down the toilet. PGc is waiting for legislators to blink and vice versa. Problemwith that is legislators are listening to the people, according to their very job description!! Pgc on the other hand is NOT doing its job if they are neglectingtheir dutiesby allowingtheir financial situation to prevent proper management of all the game and nongame species in the near future.

Hopefully less anal commissioners will make a difference or theaudit...because if not,nothing short of significant legislative actions will ever rectify the situation of treehuggers dictatinggame management, which imho is DEFINATELY a fight worth fighting.

blkpowder

Corn! Where've you been these last few days? Thanks for the article. This is one of the reasons I've become involved on this site.[/align]To learn more about the politics that involve our PGC. The only thing I can state about this article is,I too at this time am a little concerned about outside funding. With the other Shareholders involved and with funding coming from other outside sources. I just cannot help but think,down the road if this will lead to any influenceor even a "take over" if you will, over our PGC? Like I stated, I've been kind of ignorant in this area of the PGC. So anyone who wants to add to my reply,please do![/align]

R.S.B.

For the majority of my career I have been apposed to any outside funding being used for wildlife management. But, it has become very obvious in recent times that it simply isn’t going to be possible for hunter dollars alone to keep wildlife management financially solvent and I’m not sure hunter dollars should.

Everyone in this state benefits from wildlife management, some just more directly or more obviously then others. But, just like the situation that occurring right now with this white-nose syndrome killing bats we are dealing with something that has a potential to be not only a serious environmental issue but perhaps even a human health issue. The hunters are presently funding the research on this issue and even much more money should be put into trying to find out what is happening, why it is happening and how to control it. Why should hunters be the only people in this state paying for the research and management of non-game species? How long can hunters continue to be the only ones paying for the research of the species for which everyone benefits?

The day simply has to gone when tax dollars will have to be used if we are going to have proper and effective wildlife management. Many wildlife management programs are already GREATLY suffering from a lack of research due to the lack of funds to conduct the research. How long do we want to have wildlife management that is less then it could be should be before we say it is time for everyone to pay their fair share.

I understand, all too well, the concerns about non-hunters having a voice. But, they already have a voice. They are already in the game and even winning the pot at times. If they are already in the game and winning part of the wildlife management pot, why in the heck are we so opposed to making them ante up?

Nearly all other states use at least some tax dollars for the various programs of their state Conservation Agencies and it seems to be working pretty well there. I think if hunters worked with both the Conservation Agencies and State Legislature toward some form of equitable split between tax dollars, of some form, and hunting license dollars it could work to everyone advantage. I can tell you right now the day has to come, if it isn’t already here, when hunter dollars alone just isn’t going to get the job done. The sooner hunters realize that and start to work toward a logical funding solution the better chance hunters have of maintaining a strong voice in the future.

Though I don’t like this tax of oil from public or private lands I think Representative Levdansky is on the right track for the future by trying to find alternative funding solutions that would put more money in the coffers of wildlife management then just hunting license dollars.

R.S. Bodenhorn

scorp

But the hunter would still be getting screwed. We would have to pay more than the non hunters . Taxes and the price of a license= hunter being screwed more and not gaining a thing still but paying more. Hunters just getting doubled screwed is all that will happen. Deduct the tax increase from the hunters license and also no license required for land owners. Tha t won't happen will it though.

blkpowder

This isan exampleI was refering of my concerns of outside funding. This is one I don't prefer either. I'm not against outside funding,[/align]again, just concerned where this funding comes from and "if" or"what" influences it may have on the PGC and our game management. Do you have any suggestions or a formula for outside funding? [/align][/align][/align]And for those who cry about the cost hunters pay to hunt. Many of you are not going to like this but, It is a bargain anyway you want to look at it. I and my family go out for dinner once a month. That's $60 minamum. Many times it is almost doubled that.But at $60 dollars,that's $720 a year just to go out once a month. So for me, a hunting license is priceless! I know I'm going to see game, I know that I'm going to harvest birds and animals. But most important, I'm particapating and enjoying my favorite pastime![/align]

Cornelius08

If anyone has a solution to 'alternate funding': while still in the process IMPROVING and not even further diminishing the hunter voice in matters, as well as having pgc accountable for management decisionsIm all ears.