Financial Troubles May Loom for Fish and Boat Commission

[LarryFine]

PA might start saving money by consolidation and elimination of redundancy in agencies.

How many other states have separate agencies for fishing, hunting, state parks, conservation, and environmental issues; all with separate directors, officers, HQ's, budgets, compensation packages and separate EVERYTHING?

It's ridiculous and wasteful.

Merge the PFBC, PGC, DCNR & the DEP into ONE agency with ONE director and ONE of everything else and you will save a ton of money and don't tell me it wouldn't work. That's AFSCME talk. If other states can do it so can PA.

And don't stop there, merge PennDOT and the Turnpike Commission so we can afford the tolls to get to some of the places we want to fish and privatize the PLCB so we can afford a drink afterwards.

PA wastes money like it wasn't theirs...

...oh wait, it isn't...

...it's OURS!!

 

[JackM]

"It's ridiculous and wasteful."

Who is to say? You contend 4 directors merged into one is efficient, but your hidden assumption is that one person can do the work of four for the same price and without needing additional staff to allow this great economy of labor.

I think these assumptions are without support and I believe that quality of service would suffer.

This said, there is a lot of waste within agencies of the government, and so I agree this would be good to ferret out and correct; however, I am reluctant to believe merely merging agencies will magically solve the waste problem.

 

[LarryFine]

The numbers are out there to be crunched. Just take a look at the budgets & expenses of each department for a start.

FWIW those numbers have been crunched numerous times in regards to a PennDOT/PA Turnpike merger during contentious budget talks a few years back even with the nonsensical AFSCME supported position that "one person will have to do the work of 2". The savings were there to be realized but politics always gets in the way of saving the peoples money.

Believing that the status quo of four separate agencies with separate everything is the most cost effective way to handle things when most states DON'T do it that way is also hard to understand. Does PA know something the the majority of other states don't? I really doubt it as evidenced by the way this state pisses away cash.

Sadly nothing will ever change in PA except how much it will cost for everything because the state's head is up the arse of labor interests when it comes to saving money.

 

[Acristickid]

The stocking information handout booklets that the state reps put there name on is waste. Those booklets look like the cost $5-$10 a piece.

Let's see, drive gas guzzlers with heavy loads of water and fish to hundreds of waters in every corner of the state. For some waters its hours of a drive Humm, let's see how we can cut costs. Wonder how??

 

[JackM]

Larry, God bless you and you zeal, but saying "crunch the numbers" does not answer my inquiry. Do you believe every Commonwealth employee works half as hard as he/she should? I challenge you to produce evidence.

 

[LarryFine]

Jack:

I never said “that every Commonwealth employee works half as hard as he/she should” although how hard certain PA State employees work compared to their private sector counterparts will always be open to speculation. I have LOTS of firsthand experience with state employees and have seen firsthand how they maliciously waste time but back to my original premise…

What I am implying is that to have four separate agencies to manage the affairs of the State’s fisheries, hunting, state parks, and environmental issues is a colossal waste of money and it begs the question:

How come Pennsylvania is almost totally alone in the fan club of such agency separation amongst its neighbors and the rest of the country?

Why don’t you think having WAY less bureaucracy and redundancy in government would save money? I am surprised that the Bureau of Mines still doesn’t exist as a totally separate agency with that mindset. It used to, but it is now part of DEP.

In my mind (and the more qualified minds of persons involved in fiscal management), you would have one huge salary for an executive director versus four huge salaries as a start. In addition, you wouldn’t have four separate budget negotiations every fiscal year which are a waste of money and I am sure you could operate one agency for far less than four with the same number of Conservation officers because the bloodletting would almost exclusively be at the top.

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania must have a commandment in place that prevents saving money. As has been demonstrated by the Turnpike Commission and the implementation of EZ-Pass, labor deals will almost always eliminate any downsizing of the labor force regardless of the ridiculousness of keeping someone employed who isn’t needed. That means that when PA goes to 100% electronic toll collection, it will still have “toll booth collectors” on the payroll…

…totally and utterly moronic!

It’s a good thing that the lamplighter trade wasn’t run by the Commonwealth or we would have had a separate PLLC (PA Lamplighters Commission) and would still have lamplighters on the State payroll.

The bottom line is the PFBC and the rest of the agencies will ALWAYS need money because they can’t manage what they get. One only needs to look at the license button situation to understand how bad they are with our money. The button costs the PFBC $5 to produce (not including administration costs) and they sell it for $5 BEFORE postage!! (In case you doubt my numbers, this tidbit of information was conveyed to me by someone at the PFBC who shall remain nameless).

Then they sell them individually for $5 so if you buy two, two are ordered in two totally separate transactions and they are shipped in two packages versus two in one package. If you buy four…well you get the idea. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that selling a button that really costs around $6.50+ for $5 isn’t a money making idea.

Sort of like discounting license fees and then saying...you need money.

I could go on but you get the idea. Too many cooks and all that stuff… One agency, single oversight committee, single budget, less payroll (ideally) and you might save some of that much-needed cash instead of constantly raising tolls…

…which in reality is what our license fees really are.

 

[JackM]

Ok, so you are saying one person can do the work of four. My bad.

 

[LarryFine]

Just wondering if your ilk stays awake at night with concern over the 40,000 military troops Obama plans to cut (who will do their work?) or is it just rank & file labor that generates your concern and support...

hmmmm, let me guess....

 

[JackM]

If I (my ilk) wanted our military to be killing more rather than less, I would favor more troops not less.

 

[TimRobinsin]

Another armchair qb with anonymous sources. Lets stop pretending costs are not going up with usage going down. DEP, PFBC AND PGC all are struggling with less income. How does consolidation fix a deficit in subscription? Your logic doesn't work. In fact, you will only amplify the effects of a dropping income across the board. Sorry, dude, but many in our state would rather see our agencies focus more on their mission statements independently and with more efficiency than pander to political interests that seek to weaken their effectiveness because it benefits their political sponsors who could give a shizz about our commonwealth. The PFBC is our best defense, why do you think its under attack?

But by all means, delude its effectiveness by merging it with other agencies who couldn't care less about angling. That's a recipe for success!

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

+1^

 

[FishTales]

Hi Larry,
Not sure who your inside source is but they don't really understand the button process. Buttons were offered as a convenience to our customers, not as a way to pay pension costs. Would advise Curly, Moe or Schemp to verify their information since we have an independent PA-based button manufacturer make and ship the buttons with the personalized customer identification numbers (CID) on them for the total cost of $5.00. That is packaged, mailed and delivered to your doorstep. Only sold 6682 buttons last year when they were only available through our Outdoor Shop on-line. Made $0.25 per button. This year we were able to have our 900+ licensing vendors sell them and thus far have sold 29,593 pink buttons and make $0.50 apiece this year and 1274 SOS buttons at $10 each with our profits ($6693.75) going into a restricted fund for SOS projects. We also received 337 SOS donations totaling $1453.96 through our PALS system as of 07/07/15.

As for your thoughts about merging all agencies into a mega agency to save money, it doesn't work. Just ask the other states that have. That's why Governor Ridge separated DER into DEP and DCNR. More focused and effective government. You should check out the LBFC's report and analysis of the merger of Fish and Game. They found that the PFBC is the most efficient fish or wildlife agency in the country in how we spend angler dollars.

FishTales

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

1274 SOS buttons at $10 each with our profits ($6693.75) going into a restricted fund for SOS projects. We also received 337 SOS donations totaling $1453.96 through our PALS system as of 07/07/15.

That there is good stuff. I just purchased my SOS button this morning and I'm hoping to donate some monies coming next month.

I have had my issues with the PFBC and how somethings are done but you guys ARE a great agency. Thank you John for sticking up for our resources and really hope this all pans out for the PFBC, we as anglers need you guys here and in one piece.

Just so you know I have to renew my multi year liscense in 2016. I'd pay triple if I thought it would get you guys out of trouble.
Anyways thanks again.

 

[troutbert]

acristickid wrote:
The stocking information handout booklets that the state reps put there name on is waste. Those booklets look like the cost $5-$10 a piece.

The cost of printing those booklets is probably somewhere around 50 cents apiece.

They are printed on cheap paper (newsprint). And printers give very substantial discounts when printing in large numbers.

And there are 6 pages of ads in the booklet, and those ads are not cheap, so they are defraying some of the cost through ad revenue.

I don't think the booklets are a waste, I think they are useful. Many people still do not have internet access.

And having all the regs in a booklet makes the info much easier to find than going online.

Even if you buy your license online, you can pick up the regs booklet at stores that sell licenses, such as Walmart.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

K-bob, a simple example of inelasticity.

@$1.00 each, 10 people purchase trout stamps TR = $10.00
@$2.00 each, 9 people purchase trout stamps TR = $18.00

Although simplistic, the example is realistic. Everyday consumers make decisions at the gas pump. In response to fluctuating prices, consumers decide how may gallons to purchase, miles to drive. For a few, cost is immaterial and are willing/able to purchase as many gallons as they want/need.

Fly fisherman are going to fish, trout stamp demand is inelastic. For basic fishing or hunting licenses, the casual consumer, demand is elastic.

 

[JackM]

I was employed for a while as an attorney-advisor to an agency. They needed me on-hand and I had a certain flow of longer-term work, but a lot of times, I was not terribly busy and this freed me up to be able to respond promptly to legal "crisis," and also to use the extra time to develop in my field. This had value to the agency.

Could I have been assigned to more than one agency as to "busy-up" my docket? Probably, but my attention to crisis advice would be necessarily divided. Moreover, I would have to be skilled and knowledgeable in two areas of government. Some of my knowledge would transfer easily between the two, but some would be distinct to the agency I served.

So, without continuing to draw conclusions from my own anecdotal experience, you can see, I think, that true economy in management is not just the number of employees, but also the quality. Unless you can truly identify an employee who is working half as hard as he should, and that he could do double the work by splitting his workday between tasks benefiting more than one agency, then merging agencies is not going to have any positive effect and may, in fact, have a significant negative regarding quality of output.

 

[Acristickid]

TB- just to be clear, I mean the booklet that lists all the stocking info that the state reps have their name and face on not the regs booklet that comes with your license.

 

[Maurice]

acristickid wrote:
TB- just to be clear, I mean the booklet that lists all the stocking info that the state reps have their name and face on not the regs booklet that comes with your license.

I believe the Reps print those at the cost of their office, albiet stil public money. It always baffled me why they would print the stockings from EVERY county and hand them out locally. I always thought what a waste.

 

[k-bob]

fish bait: "Fly fisherman are going to fish, trout stamp demand is inelastic. For basic fishing or hunting licenses, the casual consumer, demand is elastic."

historic sales numbers of fishing licenses and trout stamps linked below (scroll to bottom for stamps). my quick take: when the cost of both the license & stamp was raised in 2005, sales in units of both products fell, but at the higher prices, revenue from both products increased.

http://fishandboat.com/licsal2.htm

so: what if they raised just the stamp, and not the license? or, is it doable to have a small regular annual fee increase ($.50) to get away from flat revenues with less reduction in the number of licenses sold? (raise the license $2 and $.50/year after that) ... would the rules, procedures on raising fees allow that, and would it work?

(seems like a dilemma where the pfbc cant live on flat revenue for ten years but does not want to discourage fishing.)

thanks also for the reading and responding in this thread, fishtales.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

In my opinion, dropping the price encourages the casual fisherman. Elastic demand.

@$20.00 each 5 people purchase license TR = $100.00
@$15.00 each 7 people purchase license TR = $105.00

Notice, % change in price < % change in purchasers. 25% change in price < 40% change in purchaser.

Two friends and you go to the bait shop to buy licenses. $60.00 is a bigger bite then $45.00. Difference is a case of beer?

When prices drop or a sale is offered, the state is providing an incentive. Also, you are richer and more able/willing to purchase.

In this case, the drop in price is significant. In the trout stamp case, the increase was not.

K-Bob, cited data strongly suggests demand for licenses and trout stamps is inelastic. Based on your data, dropping the price of the basic license should result in a decline in TR for licenses. Not the desired result of increasing TR.

A large marginal increase in price will cause more consumers to leave the market. Incremental smaller price will cause fewer to leave the market. An staggered series of increases should, long term, result in greater TR.