Any additional tax revenue such as that should go to DCNR or DEP because PFBC is running a failing state business and not listening to business consultants(penn state smeal college of bussiness). Purely from a fiscal standpoint giving someone being so financially irresponsible MORE money is a bad investment.
I understand that people are happy with the wild invasive brown trout regulations(slot on penns, c and r downstream of stocked trout waters(made for brown trout), and the only catch and release rules for a trout species (brown trout) in the state in the stocked class A’s. This makes some fishermen happy but from a resource management/conservation standpoint protecting invasive species still does nothing for brook trout, hellbenders, threatened/endangered darter species which we know or highly suspect their destroying right now. What their doing amounts to a D day on biological diversity. There is no way around the fact that 10’s of millions are being spent annually in this state to wipe out what we have left. DEP may take a while to protect a stream but their not spending millions wiping out the stream, its the opposite usually their funding 319 grants. I agree DEP could be better but you need to look at the PA house and senate who have crippled it on purpose to make it ineffective for industry’s benefit not DEP. They are so understaffed its nuts.
I vaguely remember that study. Could you remind us why it was determined to be a failing business. I thought, but could be wrong, a major reason was that it was unable to charge for licenses needed to meet expenses. On top of that, costs for public pensions (although I doubt they would address this- its a business school but still at the university) makes it a bad business model. Note: not coming after the men and women of PFBC, just stating the obvious that govt agencies in most states have this albatross around their necks. Businesses (and universities) have moved towards contributions to savings plans for a reason.
Basically they (PSU school of business) determined that they had already cut costs to the point where there was nothing left to cut (except for closing hatcheries), and revenue is expected to continue to decline while expenses (salaries, pensions, fuel, utilities, fish food, etc.) will all continue to rise.
Yea let me dig up executive summary here
I just think it's cheating.
If you're self funded, you're self funded. Make it work.
It's because the legislature used to have control over the license cost process. That isn't so now. So they'll keep raising license fee costs to try to make up for the revenue shortfall, but it's a double edged sword. Every time they bump the license cost they lose buyers.
They are not required to buy a trout stamp. Much of the non-trout stamp license money supports bass fishing as well.
That would be a mix of apples and oranges. There is separate Fish Fund and Boat Fund. I had always been told that monies do not cross between the two.
Agree. And support warmwater/coolwater stocking programs for other species as well along with a host of other activities that have nothing to do with stocked trout.
The boat user scenario is a bad example then. The bass angler is more appropriate. I think it applies to trout anglers who don't want the stocked trout too. It's bad enough my trout permit mainly pays for trout factories and even more so that the tax on my fly reels does too.
Mike was talking about tax on sporting goods going to pay for infrastructure (hatchery) upgrades. Not about the trout stamp. Just sales tax (dingle johnson act).
Not a critique, Silverfox, just a clarification. In this specific case I was talking about recommendation to continue working toward getting some of the state sales tax monies collected in the purchase of fishing and boating equipment, not the D.J. fed excise tax monies already built into the price of fishing equipment. The PFBC already receives the DJ monies.
thank you Mike. Its what I had a vague memory of. Any idea for the disproportionate jump in retiree benefits around 2015 which led to the divergence of the revenue/expense curve? A large number of people retiring? A change in benefit structure?
Got it. My mistake.
