Bill Authorizing Fish & Boat Commission To Set Own Fees

[SurfCowboyXX]

Simply put, the PFBC shouldn't be forced to rely on raising the money for its budget and being squeezed out of existence by expenses. I'll confess ignorance in not knowing exactly how they're funded, but it would seem to me they should be getting funding from the Commonwealth as a whole and not be reliant on setting higher fees each year. The fact that they have to lease wild lands for oil and gas and timber exploration in order to raise the money to try to help land recover from oil and gas and timber exploration just seems a little counterintuitive to me. The PA Turnpike Commission is in a similar spot. And if they lose a trucking lawsuit, they're going to be way in the Red. We don't want them making a trip from PHL to PIT $50. Commonwealth taxes overall should reflect the requirements for providing a certain level of government services so that the PFBC can focus on its statutory mission and not on getting funding.

 

[RLeep2]

Just a couple quick observations:

1) So far as I know, the PF&BC and the PGC are the last remaining semi-autonomous state level fish and game agencies in the country. This means that to some degree, they are free to make resource-based management decisions that may not always be the most socially popular in nature. The good that has been done for wild trout management in PA over the past 40+ years are the fruits of this arrangement.

2) Anybody who thinks that our elected representatives in Harrisburg are "more accountable"' to the angling public than Commission staff and the Commissioners isn't thinking it through. The majority of seats in either house of the state legislature are held by entrenched incumbents who basically never have to worry about being re-elected. "Accountable" isn't anywhere near the first word that comes to mind when I consider the legislature. This could change, I'm sure. Than again, Elvis could rise from the dead. I'm not betting on either. We don't seem to have the time to become sufficiently involved in the care and feeding of our democracy. So, we get what we get...

Of course, the Commission should have the right to establish and set it's own fees. It's a no-brainer, IMO..

 

[IdratherbePhishing]

Should cut some of these salaries in the fish and boat and free some money. No reason the director needs to make close to half a million in salary a year. No wonder they’re hurting

 

[Susquehanna]

The salary for Executive Director is set by the Commission and approved by the Governor. The
current salary is $108,538 - $147,756, plus a full range of benefits at approximately 40% of salary.

They have little control over their pay and why should he cut his salary because of legislators tying hands? Should he be paid what he is worth?

The PFBC provides a service funded by users.
I hear no one complaining about these salaries that are entirely federally funded
https://www.federalpay.org/employees/national-park-service/top-100

If you dont pay for talent, talent goes some where else.

 

[Mike]

I read the bill today. Do you think any objections from the public will PRIMARILY about the money in general, that the agency would have the green light to prescribe certain increases, that there would be a public comment period regarding each incremental increase, that the House and Senate Fish and Game Committees would have to approve the increases each year after reviewing the proposed increases and public comments or else pass a revision onto the full House and Senate, or that the bill as proposed would only be good for what amounts to a three year "trial period?"

 

[poopdeck]

Maurice wrote:

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.

That would be those empowered by the constitution. The same constitution that empowers us to vote them out if we don't like their stewardship. It's a system that works everywhere it has been tried. This is very simple stuff here. The solution has always been right in front of us. Instead we allow our elected officials to cloud our common sense by trying to explain what is a tax, what is a fee, or a permit or a license, or what is voluntary and what is not. It's working brilliantly by the way.

 

[Maurice]

Oh so you mean me...well, I support them and their proposal. Do we need another poll?

 

[IdratherbePhishing]

Susquehanna you are right, I don’t know where I got that crazy number at. I swore I read that somewhere last week. But I was way off.

 

[poopdeck]

If the shoe fits. I'm sure another poll will have the same results. It's unfortunate that a lot of people somehow equate sportsmanship with how they would vote in such a poll. A yea vote means they are better sportsman then a nea vote. True ramifications of the vote are not in the discussion.

What totally escapes me is why people do not use their energy to get the real elected officials to properly fund what you think needs to be funded. Why is everybody so supportive of more bureaucracy and more layers. As if more bureaucracy ever solved anything. Solving problems is a lot easier when elected officials are looking for votes.

I think it's safe to say that my opinion is in the minority. I think logically and not emotionally. I think big picture not in narrow little slivers. I don't think only about trout. I think about the entire system, eco and political to name a few. It's a cross I must bear.

 

[Mike]

The reality is that this is not an election year, so the time to get things done via the existing system and elected officials is now. Nothing like this gets done in an election year and waiting for the next non-election year to pursue such legislation would place the agencies in even more dire straights.

 

[PALongbow]

Can someone send me the link to the detailed budget sheet. All I see is some high level budget discussion around where program funding is required and not so much the operational budget. As people like to say the devil is in the details.

Ron

 

[CRB]

I would rather have the PAFBC and PAGC in the mix than the Turnpike commission their deficit is projected next year to be bigger that the States of Pennsylvania's entire deficit. The Fish and boot have transitionally left money behind when funding the coming year bravo to them.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Setting fees is code for; 0 dollars from general fund + a management administrative transfer from Fish and Boat.

 

[afishinado]

From the PFBC site >

By a vote of 19-4, the state House Game & Fisheries Committee approved House Bill 808 today and sent it the full House for a vote. HB 808 gives @fishandboat authority to set its license fees. The measure also gives the state legislature oversight over what those fees would be.

Link to source >https://twitter.com/Arrows2010/status/1110555480160653312

 

[PALongbow]

I would be more concerned as what those increased fees would be used for.

Ron

 

[afishinado]

PALongbow wrote:
I would be more concerned as what those increased fees would be used for.

Ron

Hey Ron,

I'll just repost what Mike wrote on page refering to the info I posted >

Mike wrote:
(from article posted): 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.

All good things to fund. Don't you agree?

 

[timbow]

PALongbow wrote:
Can someone send me the link to the detailed budget sheet. All I see is some high level budget discussion around where program funding is required and not so much the operational budget. As people like to say the devil is in the details.

Ron

I too have been looking for a detailed budget, not just the generic budget/expenditures by department. Specifically, I want to see budget/expenditure details related to hatcheries and non-self sustaining fisheries.

My best estimate based on what I could find about hatchery costs shows that a single stocked trout costs the agency about $3.90. Next, I would like to see how many trout are stocked over sections that are classified as "Class A" and again how many are stocked on sections that on the "natural reproduction" list. These are areas that I would love to see budget cuts take place.

Legacy costs have finally caught up with the agency, much like the auto industry in past years. Pension and healthcare costs are going to kill many agencies due to insufficient contributions over the prior years. Cuts will HAVE to be made to make up for the shortfall in pension contributions.

 

[afishinado]

All those looking for a detailed accounting of revenue and expenditures can request it from the PFBC. It's public record.

Here is what the former Executive Director wrote in a post #53

Fishtales wrote:
The legislature’s own Legislative Budget and Finance Committee in their 2014 report “An Update on the Feasibility of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania” http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/Resources/Documents/Reports/488.pdf found “of the states for which we have expenditure information, Penn- sylvania’s PFBC has the lowest expenditures per license at $26.48”. I am proud to say we were identified as the most efficient state fish or wildlife agency in the nation in how we spent anglers and boaters money.

In the 8 years that I was Director, I made sure that our books were open to anyone who was interested in looking at them. Feel free to view the annual reports that I gave to the House and Senate Game and Fisheries Committee that detailed spending and earning where I emphasized that we would not spend more than we earned and we would live within our means. That was unheard of in state government and I believe that you will find that the agency is now beginning to spend down some the reserve fund that we saved to pacify the politicians who like to spend our tax dollars like drunken sailors. You see they don’t have to earn a nickel of the tax money we give to them. They just collect it and pass it along to government agencies as an annual appropriation. We cut staff from 432 to 376 in order to pay escalating costs of pensions and health care but were still able to deliver the public services and goods that anglers expected.

I cracks me up to see some who demand transparency and accountability. Take note that is the reason that they tried to fire me by passing SB 935 out of the Senate that would have limited my term to eight years. This was certainly a Bill of Attainder https://www.fishandboat.com/Zone1/Docu ... /2018-0304jf-straight.pdf if passed but was done to undoubtedly put pressure on my Board to fire me. Reindeer games at worst.

The PFBC and PGC are probably the most audited agencies in all of state government. The Governors Office of Administration watches everything we do and approves our annual budget to make sure that spending aligns with forecasted earnings, the LBFC does a triennial performance audit to make sure spending aligns with our Strategic Plan, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service audits our federal revenues which make up 25% of the overall agency budget.

That is the rest of the story. Time to go fishing.

 

[Fredrick]

I really hope they equip and hire a bunch of WCO's with the new funds

 

[PALongbow]

afishinado -

I agree that the agencies probably need funding to continue with their business but if you remember the last round of license increases to include the trout stamp was suppose to go to hatchery upgrades. That is how they presented the last license increase. Last time I was over to Bellefonte Hatchery it looked like it was in deplorable shape in comparison to years ago so where did the increase in license go in regards to hatchery repairs? Maybe they should cut back on stocking trout and let the local clubs and landowners keep the trout stocking programs going.

Ron