|
|
Lake Erie Charter Captain Dave Adams of D & D Charters answers questions and provides tips and insights into fishing the region.
If you would like to Ask the Captain a question, please click HERE.
November 26, 2003
Less than one hour after the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee's report, An Update on the Feasibility of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania was released, my phone rang. I was asked, will the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Game Commission merge?
It might happen this time, I said, unless, of course, enough people voice their opinion against it or another solution is found for the fiscal problems of both agencies.
Four times previously (1947, 1962, 1972, and 1987), this issue has been addressed. Twice a merger was recommended (1962 and 1972) and twice it was not (1947 and 1987).
The current report, also, did not recommend a merger. It did, however, study the bottom line (what will a merger save in dollars) as well as propose the structure for a new Commission. In all fairness, though, the report did not delete any of the functional areas within the two agencies such as deputies, state game lands, game farms and hatcheries, and boat titling and registrations.
Personnel and salaries are a major part of the proposed new structure
The single greatest savings, the report stated, would result from reducing the number of WCOs by 36 positions (from 215 to 179), for a savings of $2.0 million annually. The remaining 179 would be considered Fish and Wildlife Officers (FWO). Other areas reviewed for cost savings include: facilities, vehicles, purchasing, training, information technology, publications, equipment, and supplies.
Are these savings enough to ensure a sound fiscal future?
The PF&BC last received a license increase in 1996, and is currently seeking an increase. The last PGC license increase was 1998. But because of declining fishing and hunting license sales, the savings from the legislative report would not be enough to ensure fiscally sound agencies.
"It is our assessment that, even in a merged agency, new revenue sources would be needed," the report stated.
At the time of the report, the PF&BC reported having funding needs of $150 million for infrastructure needs such as $85 million for hatcheries, $55 million for dam repairs, and $10 million for access area improvements. Also, according to the report, the PGC is projected to have an operating deficit of $13.2 million for the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
While further license increases might provide temporary relief, other revenues are needed or expenditures such as trout stocking, pheasant stocking, or ramp repairs might be severely reduced.
Other possible sources of revenue
The PGC has suggested: Establish a Game Commission Foundation; Increase the PGC'S access to grants, mitigation, reimbursements, and foundations; Seek General Fund augmentations; Create a Friends of Game and Wildlife program; Review license program for economies and efficiencies; and Set license fees to inflation index. Meanwhile, the PF&BC has suggested General Fund augmentations, an allocation of state sales tax, and a state sales and use tax on fishing, hunting, and boating equipment.
Presently, Pennsylvania's General Fund does not contribute to either any agency. But many states - most, in fact - do help fish and wildlife agencies.
For example, "37 states rely on license sales and federal revenues to provide two thirds or more of the funding for their fish and wildlife agencies, we found that state General Funds are used to supplement these agencies in at least 28 other states. Such General Fund support ranges from less than one percent of total agency funding in three states to more than 25 percent in eight states," the report stated.
Missouri is frequently cited as a state that has solved the funding dilemma. Missouri's constitution provides that one-eighth of one percent of the state's sales tax be shared by the Conservation Commission and the Department of Conservation. In 1997, Arkansas took a similar approach.
Other states use alternative means of funding such as: user fees, state income tax refund check off, portion of state lottery proceeds, portion of state fuels tax, dedicated portion of sales tax, vehicle license plates, or a portion of real estate transfer fees.
Should tax money be used to support hunting, fishing, and recreational boating?
A 1999 report by the Izaak Walton League of America called General Fund support, "a sensible and practical funding mechanism" available to every state. This report stated that state legislatures could begin to provide adequate General Fund appropriations to their fish and wildlife agencies. As has been demonstrated, recreation activities supported by these agencies provide significant tax revenue to the state. Returning an equitable portion of those tax proceeds to the agency for fish and wildlife management simply makes sound business sense.
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania studied the economic impacts and values of hunting, fishing, and trapping activities in Pennsylvania. They found that the economic impact for Pennsylvania was about $4.8 billion for hunting, $4.7 billion for fishing, and $19 million for trapping. A recreational boating participation survey conducted by Chilton Research Services found that Pennsylvania residents spend over $1.7 billion on boating annually.
How would the merger occur?
The merger could be achieved by one of two methods of enabling legislation by the Pennsylvania General Assembly (Senators and House Representatives). It could create an entire new code under which the new merged Commission is created and its powers and duties are merged. Or amend the state's administrative code to establish a new Fish and Wildlife Commission while leaving the codes essentially in tact, with only technical amendments to reflect the new commission.
A common fear
I prefer two separate agencies because I fear we will lose the expertise and dedication - particularly in law enforcement and biology - that separate agencies give to their respective fields. But I think the merger will happen because of very little public opposition to it and no other equitable solution has been found.
Also, with the continued decline in hunting and fishing license sales and increased fiscal needs, the agencies cannot ask for General Funds and request independence at the same time. The only choice left is to receive tax money and accept a new structure.
Is there an alternative?
Yes, contact your elected representatives, including members of the House Game and Fisheries Committee and request that alternative funding be found and that you wish to keep each agency independent.
Why?
"To me, it seems obvious," retired Pennsylvania Waterways Conservation Officer, John Bowser said, "that more than just hunters and anglers benefit from our outdoor resources, whether it be in tourist spending, nature walks, or increased property values ..."
Also, "Why don't they tackle the real issue of a sustained funding source from either a tipping fee percentage or a tax on outdoor items like Missouri?" Bowser added.
Good Fishing,
Capt. Dave Adams
Additional Information
Charts from the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee's report
Dave Adams is an author and professional charter captain who operates D & D Charters on the Pennsylvania waters of Lake Erie.
|
|
