Published: May 03, 2008 09:55 pm            

JOE GORDEN | Revenue sources drying up

There are two schools of thought on whether the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission should receive operating money from the state’s general fund.

Right now, the fish commission funds its budget – estimated at about $50 million annually – largely through the sale of fishing and boating licenses. The game commission spends about $65 million a year, with about half coming from licenses sales and the rest from other sources, chief among them sales of timber and minerals from game lands.

But lately, those internal sources of revenue haven’t been enough, and people looking down the road see the shortfall worsening as the percentage of the population who hunts and fishes continues to decline.

Past attempts to supplement the incomes of those agencies from the state’s General Fund have not been successful. It isn’t hard to justify such a move, based on the services both provide for the citizens of the commonwealth. And, it is arguably justified because some of those taxes are paid by hunters and anglers on equipment related to those pursuits.

One of the latest such endeavors – House Bill 1676, sponsored by Rep. David Levdansky, D-Allegheny – was the subject last week of a public hearing by the House Finance Committee, of which Levdansky is also majority chairman. The bill would shift .00116 percent of sales and use taxes to the Game Fund and .00058 percent to the Fish Fund. Levdansky estimated that the game commission would get about $10 million a year from such taxes, while the fish commission would benefit to the tune of $5 million.

Mike Schmit, deputy executive director of the game commission, and Dorothy “Dot” Derr, director of the agency’s Bureau of Administrative Services, testified in favor of the bill, as did J. Gary Moore, legislative liaison for the fish commission. So did Jan Jarrett, vice president for PennFuture, an environmental organization, and Ed Wentzler, legislative director of the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania.

Melody Zullinger, executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, also testified in favor of the bill and named several other organizations that she said support such a funding mechanism.

Pumping more money into the fish and game commissions would seem like a good idea.

But the more astute members of the fishing and hunting public – especially those on the hunting end – fear that money from the General Fund would also bring obligations the agencies do not have now. One – suggested by Rep. Scott Boyd, R-Lancaster – would be in-creased influence by the state Legislature, which has recently shown strong desires to dictate deer management policies.

But the factor sportsmen fear most is that accepting money from the General Fund might open the door for animal-rights activists to demand representation on the boards of commissioners that direct the fish and game agencies. It’s a fear well-founded. It was pointed out during the hearing that most other states provide funding for wildlife management out of general tax revenues. It was not noted that the practice has been used as leverage to force appointment of anti-hunting representatives to the game boards in a number of those states – including neighboring Maryland and New Jersey.

However, it was mentioned that times have changed and the cost of wildlife management now exceeds the ability of our resource agencies to keep up.

Until something better comes down the pike, HB 1676 may be the best hope we have of keeping the lights on for the future.

That’s just reality.



Joe Gorden is the outdoors writer for The Tribune-Democrat.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.