PFBC fishing license fee increase

As an example among what are probably many that could be recited, being down by 20 WCO positions and another 20 more projected due to upcoming retirements is not business as usual.
 
Like everywhere else, payroll, benefits, pensions and workmens comp are probably a majority of the budget. Savings from fuel efficient vehicle probably matter the least.

My next response is in regards to giving bureaucrats the checkbook. No way! They are not elected officials and in no way shape or form should have any authority to raise rates. Call it a license, registration, fee or whatever, it is money collected by the state to fund a state program. It's a tax and only publicly elected officials have any authority to raise, spend and collect taxes and fees. The legislature should absolutely oversee every cent that goes through the PFBC.
 
Nothing like that. All of my utilities and water are provided by private companies.

If yours are publicly owned then yes.
 
poopdeck wrote:
Nothing like that. All of my utilities and water are provided by private companies.

If yours are publicly owned then yes.
Click to expand...

Many utility companies are private, but they can't raise their rates without goobermint approval. In this respect, it is very similar to PFBC.
 
poopdeck wrote:
Like everywhere else, payroll, benefits, pensions and workmens comp are probably a majority of the budget. Savings from fuel efficient vehicle probably matter the least.

My next response is in regards to giving bureaucrats the checkbook. No way! They are not elected officials and in no way shape or form should have any authority to raise rates. Call it a license, registration, fee or whatever, it is money collected by the state to fund a state program. It's a tax and only publicly elected officials have any authority to raise, spend and collect taxes and fees. The legislature should absolutely oversee every cent that goes through the PFBC.
Click to expand...

I believe the proposal to allow the PFBC to raise license fees at the rate of inflation is solid proposal. I agree that oversight/audit of their budget should continue by state government.

Unlike paying taxes or paying for utilities which are mandatory, the purchase of a fishing or boat license for recreation purposes is optional.

The state legislature has done a lousy job regulating both the game and fish commission revenue sources. A political game of football is being played running both organizations into the ground in PA. It is preposterous to believe one can freeze revenues for a decade or two and expect any organization to maintain their level of services.

A modest raise to meet inflation is reasonable rather than running an organization into the ground by starving it for revenues and having a shock increase 15 years later, which alienates the license buyers.

 
Wonder why Fish & Boat doesn't rely on the PA DCNR and EPA for additional funding. Seems some of those agencies overlap in a few areas....Maybe they already share funding??

Ron
 
troutbert wrote:
The license fee should be increased simply to keep up with inflation.

The increases to keep up with inflation should be done often, even annually.

Rather than waiting for many years and making a big political brouhaha out of it.
Click to expand...

Why? The rest of the world outside government continually improves productivity. The PFBC has shown they actually can make those efficiencies as well as they have operated for over a decade without a license fee increase. Yes, they should be allowed an increase. But it should be budget driven. Not simply spending more than last year just because.
 
franklin wrote:
troutbert wrote:
The license fee should be increased simply to keep up with inflation.

The increases to keep up with inflation should be done often, even annually.

Rather than waiting for many years and making a big political brouhaha out of it.
Click to expand...

Why? The rest of the world outside government continually improves productivity. The PFBC has shown they actually can make those efficiencies as well as they have operated for over a decade without a license fee increase. Yes, they should be allowed an increase. But it should be budget driven. Not simply spending more than last year just because.
Click to expand...

^ One thing to ponder about how the PFBC must cut spending to allow for rising costs and expenses with static or decreasing revenue.

There is spending on hard assets that is required like hatchery maintenance and repairs, fish food along with fuel, vehicle maintenance and purchases. The number of personnel has also been cut, especially hard hit have been the number of WCO's in the field, but wages and salaries must be paid as well as all the pensions and benefits for all PFBC personnel.

All the above spending is mandatory and takes up the vast majority of the budget. The PFBC Balance Sheet and Income Statement is public, check it out for yourself.

So, in reality the only things that really can be cut, are spending on programs that are optional. Optional spending are the programs to enhance fisheries, survey streams and rivers, acquire or lease land for fishing access and maintain and/or build parking and launch areas for fishing and many other worthwhile projects to enhance and even to maintain fishing quality.

I for one am glad the FBC has created funds to fill in the spending gaps, most especially the wild trout fund. Again, I am in favor of allowing the PFBC, within limited parameters, raise the price of license and permits. The Legislature has proven to me they are politically motivated as well as fiscally incompetent.
 
afishinado wrote:
I believe the proposal to allow the PFBC to raise license fees at the rate of inflation is solid proposal. I agree that oversight/audit of their budget should continue by state government.

Unlike paying taxes or paying for utilities which are mandatory, the purchase of a fishing or boat license for recreation purposes is optional.

The state legislature has done a lousy job regulating both the game and fish commission revenue sources. A political game of football is being played running both organizations into the ground in PA. It is preposterous to believe one can freeze revenues for a decade or two and expect any organization to maintain their level of services.

A modest raise to meet inflation is reasonable rather than running an organization into the ground by starving it for revenues and having a shock increase 15 years later, which alienates the license buyers.
Click to expand...

Non elected officials should never ever be given the checkbook under any circumstance. Should we not like how they spend the money how did we fire them?

I agree with everything else you said. If you do not like how the PFBC is funded or operated then vote the elected officials out who are not addressing the needs of the PFBC. This is how government for the people and by the people works. Giving the checkbook to unelected officials who have no mandate to safeguard or be accountable for taxpayer money is an insane fix to a perceived problem with elected officials.

Just imagine the flood gates this would open. Imagine every bureaucracy having this ability. It's breathtaking just thinking about it.
Click to expand...
 
Giving the checkbook to unelected officials who have no mandate to safeguard or be accountable for taxpayer money is an insane fix to a perceived problem with elected officials.
Click to expand...

What tax monies are you referencing? :-?

https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AgencyOverview/Funding/Pages/default.aspx

Paying taxes is mandated, buying fishing license is not

If you do not like how the PFBC is funded or operated then vote the elected officials out who are not addressing the needs of the PFBC. This is how government for the people and by the people works.
Click to expand...


If you do not like the PFBC raising fees then dont buy gear, a license or a boat and watch them go under. This is how the free market works.
 
Susky, Call it a license, a fee, a registration, call it voluntary, call it whatever you like. Money collected and spent by the state for a state run program governed by people appointed by elected state officials is a tax. I'm sorry that you can't understand that.

All this talk about buying a license being voluntary is silly. The purchase of a fishing license is not voluntary. It is mandatory if you like to fish. I like to fish so it is mandatory. Just like taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, soda, and a truck load of other commodities and services that are "voluntary" acts.

This lack of understanding is a part of the problem and is only trumped by your second comment. There can be no serious response to an imagined scenario like the PFBC being a private company.

Your comments highlight how easy it has become for government to be for government and not for the people, the environment, or anything else. Voting the bums out of office is the American way.
 
I bet there is a correlation between the people that volunteered to do stream improvements, pick up trash, knock on door of landowners etc...who bought a voluntary permits and those that do nothing.

To be clear the loser users will ***** and do nothing and hold on to that $26 with a death grip. Hah.

 
I was wondering when the discussion started how long it would take for the discussion to slide down this path.
 
One problem with your analogy and thinking.

Yes taxes are levied on cigarettes, and you pay a PERCENTAGE. You can control what you pay in taxes by smoking less or more. A fee is static. Generally, taxes are applied to various transactions, often as a percentage, as a means of raising revenue or, in some cases, as a means of incentivizing behavior.

Doesn't matter how little I fish ( if past the 1 day or 3 day license) or 365 days, its the same price. Fees, unlike taxes, are directly linked to the cost of providing a service.

Further a fee is related to a tax, in that it is also a charge paid to the government by individuals or by a business. However, a fee is specifically applied for the use of a service. The fee rate is directly tied to the cost of maintaining the service. Money from the fee is generally not applied to uses other than to providing the service for which the fee is applied. For example, a government may charge a fee to visit a park. Taxes are whole 'nother ball game.

The PFBC is pretty transparent where the money goes and sure enough if people get unhappy they could be dismantled by people not purchasing a license with in a few years. You can look up their fiscal spending very easy and see where the money goes.

Can you tell me where your taxes go? No so easy.

I understand you confusion, but I assure you that you can call chicken, beef and while both are meat, it's still chicken.
Taxes or Fees both generate revenue but act in different ways.
either can leave a sour taste ;-)
We are not calling it something different, you are.
 
Perhaps better explained for anyone interested.

http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/government/taxation/difference-between-tax-and-fees/17448
 
It takes more then a word change and a convoluted definition to fool me.

For the record, I am not against an increase. I spend more for lunch every two days then I do for a yearly fishing license. I'm simply against the notion of unelected officials controlling state collected taxes, or fees.
 
...because elected officials have proven to do so well with our money?

Just sayin'.

I understand your point about the electorate having a measure of "control" over who gets elected and controls our money....in principle. In reality, nearly all elected officials have agendas other than our best interests (which vary widely and often are in conflict with one another).

At least PAFBC has a specific purpose that is often well realized. We tend to get pretty granular with our criticisms of them, but they have done a good job overall.

There are far worse places we can put our hard earned money.
 
poopdeck wrote:
I'm simply against the notion of unelected officials controlling state collected taxes, or fees.
Click to expand...

Well the elected officials have not done a good job of seeing to it that the PAFBC is adequately funded via refusal to allow a license increase.

As for worrying about un-ellected officials, you make it seem like that there is no oversight of the PAFBC by legislature.

At any rate, I see no problem in allowing the PAFBC to control license fees as they see fit. They ultimately live and die by license revenue and past studies have shown a direct correlation between license fee increases and decreases in participation. At some point an increase in license fees will cause a net decrease in revenue. While you may buy a license regardless of cost, many fair weather anglers will pass if they feel the cost has become too high, some deciding to not buy a license even after a modest and fair change in price. In this way, the cost of licenses is self regulating. The PAFBC can't just decide upon an insane price increase and jeopardize their future revenue by chasing away fisherman with high prices. At the very least, the PAFBC should have the option to increase prices at a rate that matches inflation without it becoming a political battle or a case of legislators being upset with the director.
 
I still haven't seen what the license increase would be used for other some high level items. I want to see current budget, programs/misc items that could be eliminated and what the license increase specifically is going to be used for. If you randomly buy into something without first understanding the facts then I have a bridge for sale.

Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top