Trending
So, the long-awaited report from the Wildlife Management Institute is finally here. Many sportsmen expected the report to recommend a merger of the Fish & Boat Commission and the Game Commission; some even speculated that the report was requested to justify a merger. While the report did not go as far as recommending a full-on merger, it did recommend some drastic changes, including what is being called "shared services." But what does that mean, and did WMI get it right?
BACKGROUND
The report in question is the result of a study commissioned by the PFBC & PGC leadership. Although rumors and speculation suggest that some people hoped the report would justify a merger of the two agencies, my sources do not go that far. Instead, it has been suggested that the report was exactly what it appears to be -- a third-party study of whether, and if so where, the commissions could cut costs by sharing resources.
In preparing the report, WMI personnel reviewed relevant information from each commission and interviewed personnel, verified information via third-party sources, and compared collected data against similar data from five other states sharing characteristics with Pennsylvania in terms of size, population, license sales, etc.
So, what did they find?
Some of what WMI reported should be of concern to the commonwealth's sportsmen, especially the projected financial situation each commission faces. According to the report, within the next decade, PGC is projected to have only 5% of its reserve funds remaining, while PFBC will have completely depleted its reserves. At that point, the agencies will not only operate at a deficit, but they will also have no reserve funds to cover the shortfall.
The combined workforce is approximately 221 positions stronger than comparable agencies of similar size. By combining law enforcement and other overlapping positions, the agency would realize an estimated savings of $34 million per year.
The commissions operate 89 field offices, minus hatcheries, commonwealth-wide; the average among the comparison states is 19.
Despite the potential savings, legal and legislative hurdles remain to implementing the WMI recommendations, or any other identified alternatives.
RECOMMENDATIONS
All told, WMI made 20 recommendations. Rather than going through each one in detail, which WMI needed 81 pages to do, I will stick with the highlights.
• Created a unified conservation law enforcement organization with an estimated manpower of 222 sworn officers.
• Consolidate overlapping functions and roles to further achieve the projected 17% personnel decrease.
• Reduce the number of field offices and, when possible, co-locate personnel from each commission at a shared site.
• Establish minimum fund balances, study license price options, and consider funding models that broaden public contributions.
So, what do I think?
My broad-picture response is that I agree with some of what WMI recommended, but not everything. Furthermore, I believe that while the information WMI personnel relied upon is accurate, I do not think the same can be said for how some of that information was interpreted.
It is true that Pennsylvania is the only state that has two distinct agencies handling fish & wildlife management. It is also true that having two agencies leads to increased personnel and more field offices than comparable states. I also agree that manpower and infrastructure could be reduced in some areas.
Now let’s look at where I think WMI got it wrong.
Having two agencies is not the only reason there are more personnel than in comparable states. The mission is also different. The commissions not only address hunting and fishing but also regulate boating & water pollution. Additionally, the PFBC raises approximately 3.2 million trout per year, more than any of the states to which it was compared.
An alternate means of funding the agencies have been kicked down the road for decades, but it can no longer be ignored. As the report points out, in 10 years both agencies will be out of funds. But broader public contributions could spell death for conservation as we know it. General tax money means every Pennsylvanian becomes a stakeholder not only in how the commissions operate, but in their resources as well, especially game lands and access areas. As soon as that first dollar is collected, you will see non-sportsmen and anti-hunters demanding accommodations such as picnic tables, BBQ grills, and biking trails.
Any changes commissions or legislators attempt to adopt need to consider more than the bottom line and how much money can be saved. They need to be rooted in keeping our wildlife and aquatic resources' protection the No. 1 goal.