Bill Authorizing Fish & Boat Commission To Set Own Fees

[afishinado]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2019

Bill Authorizing Fish & Boat Commission To Set Own Fees To Be Considered By House Committee On March 25

The House Game and Fisheries Committee is scheduled to meet on March 25 to consider House Bill 808 (Mehaffie-R-Dauphin) authorizing the Fish and Boat Commission to set its own fees for 3 years (sponsor summary).

Tim Schaeffer, Executive Director of the Fish and Boat Commission told the Committee on February 27 securing the long-term financial future of the agency was his most pressing priority.

“While our revenue has remained stagnant, costs continue to rise. Fish Fund expenditures have increased by 27 percent or $8.2 million since 2005, while Boat Fund expenditures have risen by 30 percent, or $3.3 million,” Schaeffer said. “Inflation, increased personnel costs, and aging infrastructure have all placed considerable pressure on the Commission’s long-term financial picture in the absence of new or increased revenue.

“The Commission has taken aggressive steps to cut costs and secure new revenue where possible. Since 2005, we have sold non-performing assets like real property, vehicles, and other equipment; marketed oil, gas, water access, and timber resources; and secured revenues through the Act 13 Impact Fee,” Schaeffer explained. “We are also receiving the full amount of taxes paid on motorboat fuel thanks to the Act 89 Transportation Bill.

“On the expenditure side, we have reduced full-time and seasonal staff positions. The Commission has also deferred investments in $18 million of prioritized equipment, vehicles, and maintenance needs for its hatcheries, public facilities, and other operations.”
Last October the 4 Chairs of the Senate and House Game and Fisheries Committees promised to seek additional funding for the Commission in 2019.

The meeting will be held in Room 205 of the Ryan Building starting at 9:30. Rep. Keith Gillespie (R-York) serves as Majority Chair of the House Game and Fisheries Committee and can be contacted by calling 717-705-7167 or send email to: kgillesp@pahousegop.com. Rep. William Kortz (D-Allegheny) serves as Minority Chair and can be contacted by calling 717-780-4783 or send email to: bkortz@pahouse.net.

Link to source: http://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2019/03/bill-authorizing-fish-boat-commission_20.html

 

[Acristickid]

FYI- the phone number for Rep Kortz is a fax machine.

Good luck to the commission.

 

[tomgamber]

(717) 787-8175 IS HIS PHONE NUMBER. THEY DON'T ANSWER. LEAVE A MESSAGE.

 

[PALongbow]

I see the cuts that were made. but If this passes what will the additional funding be used for? What areas are immediate needs and what areas will need to be funded in the future. We should ask for a list of funding needs Year over Year. Hopefully those Ford F150 Eco-boost trucks or similar are in there....you know those fuel efficient vehicles.

Ron

 

[Mike]

From above: I assume that for starters this might need to be addressed...."The Commission has also deferred investments in $18 million of prioritized equipment, vehicles, and maintenance needs for its hatcheries, public facilities, and other operations.”

Not to mention the need to fund two classes of WCO's in the near future if the PFBC is to return to full law enforcement strength.

 

[allan_s]

Ron, I appreciate your desire to hold govt. accountable but in reality for them to provide the public with the level of detail you are requesting would require to hire additional staff just to do that. Which would then in turn cause more license increases.

Between the merger studies, annual financial disclosures and information from the audits there is a very clear picture where the money flows in the commission. Perhaps not down to the number of pencils bought but to specific programs there is a lot information available to the public.

 

[Susquehanna]

If the Tax Totalitarians in Harrisburg vote to allow the Fish Commission to set their own license [d]tax fee donation[/d] prices,
do we trust the PFBC now that the Tax Totalitarians trust them?
Some of you (in the other thread) seem fine and complacent to toss amazing amounts of money at Harrisburg as long as "elected officals" are doing the fleecing and giving you nothing in turn.

Think ill now go read some of the amazing studies done by the PFBC staff. Thanks for all you do and good luck!

 

[PALongbow]

So in normal business's they will manage dollars based on customer counts and money that they receive in the form of revenue. How many licenses were sold 10 years ago in comparison to now? Significant decrease right? You now see my point where the agencies should manage their budgets based on the trend in licenses sold/revenue streams and not build the empire because they are comfortable with being a large state agency.

Don't get me wrong here. I feel that the PA state game and fish agencies should probably receive increased funding but we as sportsman need to ask question before handing out money freely without having the answers as to where the increased budget will be spent. What is the 1-3 year budget and plan look like if increased revenue was approved? If they can't provide this information to us then there isn't a budget and I would find that hard to believe.

Ron

 

[HopBack]

So in normal business's they will manage dollars based on customer counts and money that they receive in the form of revenue. How many licenses were sold 10 years ago in comparison to now? Significant decrease right? You now see my point where the agencies should manage their budgets based on the trend in licenses sold/revenue streams and not build the empire because they are comfortable with being a large state agency.

Do you want them to manage the agency out of existence? That's not exactly an option because the are not a normal business and their purpose is not to make a profit.

This doesn't mean that non profit orgs run a business inefficiently but rather rely heavily on funding outside of the sale of a good or service to remain functional. PAFBC receives very little help outside of license sales.

I said if before but you didn't pick up on it.... if you want to consolidate the agency to make it run more efficiently I'm sure that it can be done but it will cost your even more licenses sales because of the inferior product you will be putting out.

 

[afishinado]

PALongbow wrote:
So in normal business's they will manage dollars based on customer counts and money that they receive in the form of revenue. How many licenses were sold 10 years ago in comparison to now? Significant decrease right? You now see my point where the agencies should manage their budgets based on the trend in licenses sold/revenue streams and not build the empire because they are comfortable with being a large state agency.

Don't get me wrong here. I feel that the PA state game and fish agencies should probably receive increased funding but we as sportsman need to ask question before handing out money freely without having the answers as to where the increased budget will be spent. What is the 1-3 year budget and plan look like if increased revenue was approved? If they can't provide this information to us then there isn't a budget and I would find that hard to believe.

Ron

The info you seek is available. The PFBC has provided a budget for next year and future years to the budget committee all of which is a public record.

We elected the member of the legislature to evaluate the budget and act on the data put forward. The politicians just keep kicking the can down the road and never vote on it. That precisely why this proposal for modest increases has been put forward.

 

[moon1284]

I think they should go 100 percent EcoBoost. Then, since less people are buying lisences they should sell off public land so private owners can post them or charge people to access them. But definitely priority 1 should be a 100 percent EcoBoost fleet.

 

[PALongbow]

Moon1284 -

Most people and companies have to do what is necessary to survive in down turns and also held to budget/program cuts if necessary. I don't think anyone is asking them to sell off any property but the Eco-boost truck that doesn't guzzle gas would be a good step in the right direction. I would go as far as cutting out some of the trout stocking areas if necessary, especially if local trout hatcheries and landowners stock the creek. In my area landowners & local sportsman clubs put more trout in the creek than Fish & Boat. Before you go there those fish have a tendency to swim upstream and downstream from private properties which have greatly benefited fisherman of all types.

Ron

 

[salmonoid]

acristickid wrote:
FYI- the phone number for Rep Kortz is a fax machine.

Good luck to the commission.

You just need to know how to speak the language. Send a tone in the 1100Hz range and it should pick up. Given the past attempts to work with the legislature on funding issues, you might have more success speaking in beeps and fax squeals...

 

[Dave_W]

I'm not sure what the odds are, but I hope this bill passes.

 

[MBWCC]

afishinado wrote:
The info you seek is available. The PFBC has provided a budget for next year and future years to the budget committee all of which is a public record.

I challenge you to accurately compute the cost of a PFBC stocked trout based on the numbers publicly available to you in any form provided by PFBC.

No, the cost number quoted by PFBC is not sufficient -- you must prove the number is accurate based on budget or expense records provided.

Good luck.

 

[poopdeck]

Well I called. This bill better not pass. It's stunning how everybody wants to follow their emotions at the expense of common sense. This call of support is mystifying to me and highlights how easy it is to fool a constituency with a very narrow focus.

It's stunning how nobody even knows what this entails yet will blindly open their wallets to an unconstitutional, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat. This bill is as bad as a bill could be. Being a true sportsman is more then just blindly supporting broad focused and ill defined unconstitutional legislation.

I'm hoping it's nothing more then a power play to get the true stewards of our money to properly fund the PFBC.

 

[Maurice]

poopdeck wrote:
Well I called. This bill better not pass. It's stunning how everybody wants to follow their emotions at the expense of common sense. This call of support is mystifying to me and highlights how easy it is to fool a constituency with a very narrow focus.

It's stunning how nobody even knows what this entails yet will blindly open their wallets to an unconstitutional, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat. This bill is as bad as a bill could be. Being a true sportsman is more then just blindly supporting broad focused and ill defined unconstitutional legislation.

I'm hoping it's nothing more then a power play to get the true stewards of our money to properly fund the PFBC.

I am glad to see a solution for the problem rather than just pushback. But I am a not sure who the "true Stewards of our money are". Please identify [them] and how this would work. Help me understand.

 

[PennKev]

Maurice wrote:
Please identify [them] and how this would work. Help me understand.

An elected politician rather than a professional with biology and/or business management background.

You know, someone trustworthy!!!
:roll:

 

[PALongbow]

I think its our job as sportsman of PA to hold these agencies accountable for providing the detailed budget and plan. When big state says something it seems to me that most are simply followers and maybe even afraid to ask tough questions. It's a problem with our society today. As license purchasers are we not stake holders in these agencies?

Ron

 

[afishinado]

PALongbow wrote:
I think its our job as sportsman of PA to hold these agencies accountable for providing the detailed budget and plan. When big state says something it seems to me that most are simply followers and maybe even afraid to ask tough questions. It's a problem with our society today. As license purchasers are we not stake holders in these agencies?

Ron

I have taken the time to read the budget plan of the PFBC.

Why do you assume all of those in favor are uninformed?

My conclusion is the FBC should be allowed raise fishing license fees.

Ironically we as members of PAFF have had the chance to speak directly the agency with the former Executive Director of the PFBC as well as Fisheries Managers and others agency officials with questions and comments to receive answers.