Proposed Second Buck Tag: Admitted Money Grab

[free]

That's $8,849,793 surplus and the greedy fuckers want more.:

Well, let's examine this for a minute.

What's the basis of the supposed greed? Are the commission members personally profiting from the increase? Do they get a cut? I kinda think that's not the case.

If their entity gains more funding, it is true that it potentially gains more power, and therefore THEY gain more power. But is that really "greed"? It may be power hungry, but I don't think that qualifies as greed.

If they predict, or want to hedge against future revenue decreases (remember, everyone bitches about how hunting is in decline), is getting more money now to make up for less later greedy? I don't think so. Note: I realize they may not be allowed to carry over funds (I don't really know) - I'm just putting this out there.

Maybe they have some capital improvement plan that would really benefit their constituency - and while they may have a surplus now, it's not enough to make this improvement. Is that greed? No, I don't think so.

I don't think it is at all reasonable to take the position, "the commission wants more money, therefore it is greedy." You need to fill in a lot of details to substantiate that assertion.

As for pheasant farms....maybe they closed them due to lack of constituent interest, relative to the cost? I don't know....but kinda need to know what they say about it to make a determination.

[P89]

I don't think it is at all reasonable to take the position, "the commission wants more money, therefore it is greedy." You need to fill in a lot of details to substantiate that assertion.
.

I'm as reasonable as the PGC is...and I like saying fuck a lot.
There's a long history of questionable ethics that has lead me to make those assertions.

[Parrisk]

In 2016 there were 912,000 buck tags sold with the general license, only 149,000 were used. That is just over 16% of the total available tags,....

Kills reported and tags used are completely different.. many hunters have a buck tag, and tag their harvested buck.. but never report the kill to PAGC.

I have no problem with it, but would prefer it be done just like the Elk raffle. If you to into Central and North PA where there are an abundance of camps, and many HIGH $ camps.. I don't want to see camp upon camp with hordes of money hunters with all with double buck tags
I would rather see hunters pay $10 for a buck tag raffle and if you win one of the 10,000 extra tags you pay the additional money

I believe I have also noticed a drop in deer population that I would attribute to the growth in Coyote population and how active the yotes are around the time fawns are hitting the ground

[Williamsmith]

Let's look at PGC's 2016 budget:
http://www.pgc.pa.gov/InformationRes...e%20Report.pdf

$108,306,212 in REVENUE alone.
$99,456,419 in expenditure (and most of those are a joke...43 mil in habitat management, HA!)

That's $8,849,793 surplus and the greedy fuckers want more.
Yet in the mean time they closed the pheasant farms.

If you look at the pie chart on revenue, notice a large chunk of 30% that is labeled “Natural Resources And Rights of way”.....almost 39million. Now you would think that the annual report would feature something in reapgards to how the Game Commission is realizing this revenue and how critical it is to their budget.......no a word. Not a word, because the Game Commission is involved in the sale of the Commonwealths Natural Resources to shale gas operators in the form of leases and royalties. The Game Commission “owns” about 1.5 million acres of which about 90,000 acres are under lease.

So, why doesn’t the Game Commission ever talk about the other large piece of the pie? Why is it always....license fees? The shale gas industry is returning to Pennsylvania to “uncap” many of those wells and also they have found that not only is there shale gas.....but more oil. In 2011, the Game Commission made 4.7 million and it was up to 22 million a few years later and according to the pie chart it has almost doubled again?

Is the Game Commission crying with a loaf of bread under its arm?

[Rosco the Iroc]

fuck I can't fill the 1st tag

[Qtrborecrazy]

Are you addressing me?

We paid a lot of money go to rafting down the Grand Canyon. We paid a lot of money because that's what it cost us. That's a resource that is supposed to be for "all" of us - but it certainly isn't priced that way. Should it be? Should pricing on raft trips down the Grand Canyon be set at a token amount, so that anyone who wants to go do it can afford to do so? Would that make sense? If you think it would, practically-speaking, how do you think that would work out?

Not addressing anyone in particular just questions.

The boat load of money that you paid to raft the Grand Canyon, who got the lions share, raft operating company or national park service?

[P89]

Is the Game Commission crying with a loaf of bread under its arm?

You forgot forest products as well.

At it's core we all know what it is and it has nothing to do with hunting.

[Williamsmith]

You forgot forest products as well.

At it's core we all know what it is and it has nothing to do with hunting.

Oh, they actually report that as a separate piece of the pie...6.5 million.

I’m curious what the outlook for the shale gas lease and royalty income is......I can’t seem to find that out. Huh? I know it must be here somewhere.

[free]

You forgot forest products as well. At it's core we all know what it is and it has nothing to do with hunting.

Previously in the thread, it is pointed out that the PGC needs to be self-funded, to give it autonomy and avoid interference with science-based decision-making.

How do you propose it fund itself?

OK, license fees is one way.
Taxes on hunting-related products is another.
Anything else?

Would you prefer to disallow it from using the resources under its control to generate revenue for itself to pursue its mission? If so, would you object if license fees increased to the amount necessary to cover this lost revenue? Or would you prefer it cut back its activities to the level necessary to only fund them with the existing amount of money it receives from license fees and taxes on hunting-related products? From what I gather reading this thread - that would cut the agency down to about half of its current size - with the corresponding cut in its activities and/or scope of work is is able to accomplish in any given year.

[Williamsmith]

Previously in the thread, it is pointed out that the PGC needs to be self-funded, to give it autonomy and avoid interference with science-based decision-making.

How do you propose it fund itself?

OK, license fees is one way.
Taxes on hunting-related products is another.
Anything else?

Would you prefer to disallow it from using the resources under its control to generate revenue for itself to pursue its mission? If so, would you object if license fees increased to the amount necessary to cover this lost revenue? Or would you prefer it cut back its activities to the level necessary to only fund them with the existing amount of money it receives from license fees and taxes on hunting-related products? From what I gather reading this thread - that would cut the agency down to about half of its current size - with the corresponding cut in its activities and/or scope of work is is able to accomplish in any given year.

Not to butt in here, but 25% of the pie ....@26.5 million is federal reimbursement aid.....and if you review the US Fish and Wildlife Agency data on all states of the Union you will find PA to be a leader in license sales and it has been consistent for the last half century. It never varies much from 2.5 million licenses sold.