Keep Fish and Game Commissions as separate, autonomous bodies
Would you want to see someone with a degree in parks and recreation management or travel and tourism managing Pennsylvania’s Fish and Game Commissions? That’s exactly what could happen if House Resolution 222 passes into law.
The resolution directs the Joint State Government Commission to study combining the enforcement functions of the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission into a new Bureau of Law Enforcement within the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).
That resolution came out in April. House Resolution 15 preceded it earlier in the year, which asks the House Game and Fisheries Committee to examine the impact and cost savings by combining the Game and Fish commissions.
The idea of merging the Fish and Boat commissions has come up many times in the past, and each time it was defeated.
Recently the Fish and Boat Commission signed off on a study to look into the possible merger.
Being heavily in debt and greatly in need of a license increase, the Fish and Boat Commission has the most to gain from such a merger.
At present, Pennsylvania has two autonomous bodies in the Fish and Boat Commission, which are responsible for their own funding, answering only to state legislators in the form of an annual budget, which has to pass state approval.
There are many questions that need to be answered before any type of merger can even be considered, especially for the hunters, fishermen and boaters of Pennsylvania who have for years been paying the bills.
The DCNR is funded by general tax funds.
If the agencies are merged, where is the license money going to go? If the agencies are placed under the DCNR umbrella, is the money going to go to the DCNR? And if just the Fish and Boat commissions merge, is the money going to be intermingled or placed in separate accounts, which would accomplish little.
It is already starting to look as though a pre-nuptial agreement is in order.
No matter how we slice this, it’s the sportsmen and sportswomen of Pennsylvania whose money is being messed with.
Pennsylvania may only be one of a few states with separate fish and game commissions, but that is how it was originally set up.
Many states with combined agencies wish they could separate them. Forty-five states formed their fish and game enforcement agencies under one roof. Within the last 10 years, four other states brought their agencies together, and currently, two states are trying to dissolve the marriage of fish and wildlife law enforcement bodies.
Before any type of merger is approved, legislators must show the sportsmen of Pennsylvania that a merger would be best for the resources and guarantee that the state’s general fund is not going to end up with sportsmen’s dollars.
Plus, if everything was lumped together under the DCNR, does that mean that game lands and state fishing lakes – that were purchased with sportsmen’s dollars – would be open to everyone to use as they please for bicycling, horseback riding, snowmobiling, canoeing and sailing?
I sure hope not!
Fish and game officers help each other now with law enforcement. Would combining the agencies make enforcement better? It might make it easier, but not better.
Each job is unique.
Park managers, wildlife conservation officers and waterway’s conservation officers all undergo specific training in a specific field.
Are park rangers going to go out on night patrol to help curb poaching? I doubt it. They are used to a more structured lifestyle and working hours.
To be effective, enforcement officers have to be trusted and allowed to set their own hours.
Officers have to be on the job when the resources they protect are being used – or abused- the most.
When a man or woman sets out to become a fish or wildlife officer, he or she knows the job requires sacrifices and working hours, unlike those of other family members, friends and neighbors.
In order to have an effective “police” force, the state would need to cross train every officer in the field at the cost of millions of dollars or just do away with the specialists that we now have.
At present, timber sales on state game lands are wildlife managed. Timbering is done only to improve habitat, earning money is secondary.
If the legislature gets control of the game lands, are they going to timber them off just to raise money?
As a concerned sportsman of Pennsylvania, I don’t want to even think about that possibility.
The sportsmen of Pennsylvania have been paying our own bills for decades, and there is no reason we can’t continue to do so.
Yes, there are problems. The Fish and Boat Commission is hurting badly and is in need of a license increase.
If an increase is what it takes to keep these to bodies functioning individually and independent of one another or other government control, then I’m all for it.
Sportsmen of Pennsylvania should stand up and be counted.
Let your state representatives and senators know how you feel about any merger involving the fish and game commissions.
Herald-Standard outdoors writer Rod Schoener can be reached on line at rschoener@heraldstandard.com.