Sneaky back door attempt to gain more funding for PGC

Eh...I'm ok with this..after all you don't have to buy the plate. 

I really don't have a problem with the plate as it is not mandatory to purchase it. 
 
 My problem is with the fact they will probably just put the money in the bank along with the 54 million budget surplus they already have and will continue to cry about needing a license increase. 
They have done that every year for the last decade in their report to the leglislature even as their surplus has increased. When I see a change in attitude towards the hunters I will support a license increase.
 
Creating a stand alone department for non game species and hiring 14 new people to staff it at the same time they cut back on ringneck stocking  and programs to help the hunters because of a claimed lack of funds is not my idea of a sportsmen friendly agency.

Yet no increase for how many years? What other agency has gone that many years without an increase and still offered comparable services?

 
Gillz, youforget about the tags created since the last general license fee increase.   The price increase to other tags, even though the general fee wasn't raised, the Marcellus and also Pittman funds increase.   Those things have accounted for a twenty some million dollar differnce.  And growing.  And they warned of cuts significant cuts to be made several years ago....tales of doom and gloom that never came about....  Now, years later, they havent made "cuts" and in fact have increased staff number and some services as well as diverted funding for "other" things like hawk mountain...  Or the school to send your kid to to become a nice little environmeantlist "bucktails" lol.   Broke?   Hardly.    How much more do you think they should have?   
 
How many stores going out of business because they didn't raise fees have those luxuries to fall back on.?
 
And of course if there was only ONE STORE to have to rely on, similar to how there is no other option right now than pgc....  And they raised prices, lowered the quality of goods and generally mismanaged the store, There would be all out mutiny.
 

What other agency has gone that many years without an increase and still offered comparable services? 

 
Apparently quite a few.   There are quite a few states that have not had fee increases in years.  And some of them offer much better deals on license, combo licenses etc. than pa, and they also havent pizzed off nearly as many of the states sportsmen in the process.
 
By the way, no need to "count you in" for a fee increase, don't pay any mind to the huge majority of hunters that don't support a fee increase, just put your money where your mouth is.
http://www.theoutdoorshop.state.pa.us//FBG/game/GameDonations.asp?ShopperID=5060D72295EC419DAE36A932E648CD11
 
 

Sounds like a novel idea to me.  They can generate a few bucks while not creating any mandatory costs to hunters and/or PA citizens.
 
 

So, the fact that it will cost you absolutely nothing is meaningless?
 
This has nothing to do with PGC supporters, it is simply a business move that will generate a very, very minor source of revenue with zero cost or liability to hunters.  So what? 
 
Your hatred of the PGC has completely obscured your ability to form an objective thought. 
 

I know it won't support your rant, but I don't recall ever opining one way or the other with regard to a license fee increase on here. 
 
I don't have an intense love for the PGC, in fact I regularly disagree with the DMP and I frequently send letters stating my displeasure for such issues.  I have openly stated many of them on this very website!  
 
Yet, you continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of forming an unbiased opinion on any PGC related topic.      
 
 

I know it won't support your rant, but I don't recall ever opining one way or the other with regard to a license fee increase on here.

 
Uh, I believe you have.   Though its been awhile, probably no way of finding the past conversation of years ago on the topic so if youd like to now say otherwise so be it.   Maybe youve changed your mind since?   I also have read quite a few of your posts on hpa.

I don't have an intense love for the PGC, in fact I regularly disagree with the DMP and I frequently send letters stating my displeasure for such issues. I have openly stated many of them on this very website!

 
Really?   no intense love?   You have every bit as much "love" for them and the statement every bit as accurate as you using the statement I have intense hatred for them...   Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.     Perhaps you could point to these intense disagreements with the dmp?   I have been here for years and I have yet to see anything of any substance whatsoever as far as "disagreeing", but I have seen you fight over and over through the years against anyone who does. 
 
On the other hand, I have stated many times about things I have supported, Signficant things. antler restrictions comes to mind quickly.    

Yet, you continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of forming an unbiased opinion on any PGC related topic.

 
And you continue to be unable to be objective and actually understand the written word as intended with any pgc related topic.  If you werent so biased, you would know my position arent against everything pgc... Its routinely the same issues over and over.   This topic is a funding issue.  My position on that has been constant.
 
Don't know if the blind faith is due to connections you may have withpgc, friends, family whatever...  Control the pgc "love" emotions, reread my post understanding what was said without adding your own "angles" to it, and while you may not "agree" with everything Ive said or my positions, at least it may straighten out some of your confusion regarding my posts.

Ok, so you're speculating?  What happened to sticking with the facts? 
 
Some of the recent letters I have sent to the PGC (and state reps where appropriate) regarding issues I disagree on involved: X-Guns, mentored youth, early 2B archery doe and the 2 weeks of archery doe in 2B between archery and gun season, early flintlock season, late antlerless in 2B, reduced AR criteria, WMU boundaries, trespassing laws. 
 
And guess what?  Not one of them went my way and I still disagree with certain parts of every topic above. 
 
The topic at hand was the PGC finding a very minor alternative source of revenue at no cost to hunters.  Honestly, I'd be suprised if enough money is generated to pay Roe's salary this year and yet you have entirely blow this out of proportion with your lame generalizations, speculation and emotionally charged rants.   

Btw, i also opposed some of the things you mention esox. But none of them are enough for me to take as drastic a step as to oppose a fee increase or any other source of funding, and apparently it isnt for you either. It would be petty for me to base it on that. I base my opinion on the proven documented fraud being committed which is doing nothing but damage to our sport, along with the absolutely horrendous pgc attitudes towards hunters, and their insistence on keeping a miserably failed management plan largely in place along with alot of necessary facilitating deception (which is no emotion based rant, but absolute fact). Thats all is very significant in my view. And that as I see it is worthy of NOT increasing funding for the agency until it is significantly addressed. Funding is the issue, because it is generally our only effective means of possibly ever dealing with these issues at least until some better option arises.
 
The issues are much larger than whether we get my way when we whine about unit boundaries (which I dont like) or whether I support ar (which I do).   And I dont take the position of opposing funding lightly.   Its a well thought out position.

That also brings up the debate of how much is enough?  I say 100million sure as hell oughta be.

No offense taken, and actually a  good, reasonable question.
 
First, not just "anyone" is going to be "picked" for the boc.  Going by all that I have heard and the commissioners themselves historically especially recent history, you have basically no chance if you don't have realtionships/pull from legislators.    Most, usually have backing of sportsmen groups conservancies etc...   And as of last 15 years plus, the majority of the board has been consistently picked with environmental, forestry, or ag background according to their bios.    It also surely doesnt hurt to be "known" or have relationship with some on the governors advisory committee.   Having your dad a retired pgc employee as was the case with Putnam, or being a deputy wco as in the case of schlemmer doesnt hurt either. lol.  Guessing being a penfed member doesnt hurt either since like 6 of the current 8 are and most of those that have had terms expire in the last several years have as well. 
  
Everything just stated and more... does not pertain to me. 
   
I have also seen how the majority is kept to a certain mindset due to the screening process, at least has been the case for some time now.   I don't have a huge desire to be the next board lame duck whipping boy when it comes to deer management, as Tom Boop was, due to no fault of his own.
 
I also would be "known" for my positions, via communications with the senate, house of reps, and even the governor a time or two for years now, and would have ZERO shot with my positions so well known they would be common knowledge well in advacnce. My name would come up and through information sharing Id be done before I ever got started.  I have seen it time and again with others that had attempted to take the path that you speak of. 

And lastly, you are only allowed to apply for your region of residence, with that position only coming up once every 8 years.   When one does become available, usually several candidates are "pushed" by backers, such as Penn Fed for example.  Or have a "good word" put in for you by some honcho at pgc, dcnr or some other form of political clout...
 
I also am about as far away from where meetings would be held as you can get in Pa.   Only way lengthy meetings coupled with 8 hour round trips would be worth the effort for anyone,  is if a difference could be made.
 
The odds of me getting a boc seat would be akin to a snowflakes chance in hades.    I understand the politics and how things work.  There have been plenty of people through the last several years who couldve done a fine job that were never selected.   And there can be good argument made for "changing" the system of commissioners.   But thats another story...

 Its really simple.   I am a hunter.   Hunters hunt.  Born and raised.  3rd generation.  For me its a lifestyle.  Judging by many of your posts, Im sure you can understand what thats all about.  Thats also why I am so passionate on the topics involving hunting.   I love to deer hunt and its usually the management of that gets my complaints, but if deer fell off the face of the earth I'd still hunt turks and fur.
 
I don't hate hunting.   I hate what pgc has been and will likely continue to do to the sport i love.  There are alot of hunters just as disgusted with things as I and far moreso...   Around here and more yet, guys who certainly have it alot worse than I do, in the worst parts of the state etc.   Some quit maybe.    But alot of others still havent.   And its not because they are happy about what pgc has done.    Hell, Im usually not even what you would call pizzed off about the situation just appears much moreso than actual when I am forced to argue specific points and counter points over & over in graphic detail.
 
Anyway, you asked why I buy a license, I wish I didnt have to buy a license to hunt and I wouldnt have to support all that I strongly disagree with.   But I buy a license because I need one to hunt, not hunting is not an option for me, and buying that license would probably end up cheaper than the alternative.