Yep, if you don't like it, don't purchase and instead, hunt in OH or WV or NY where you think it is such a good deal (Wayne).  
 
Esox, agreed, the chart/press release is horrible and doesn't give a good explanation of cost breakdown.  As I am a person that does not trap, bear hunt, muzzleloader hunt, hunt migratory birds or get the extra turkey tag for the spring, I know I am not near $105 all in to hunt each year right now and I still have plenty of opportunity to hunt.
 
PA is definitely a great bargain when comparing to most other states (from a resident and non-resident standpoint) and provides boat loads of opportunity.  
 
Maybe if they received the increase they could hire better PR and Communications people!  That should make Wayne and S-10 happy..............
 
 

With all this extra fees I hope they can afford to have someone get these ringnecks out of my yard they're scaring the rabbits.

You're also free to express your support, by purchasing a license every year. 

 
 
But according to pgc and some of their supporters, that's not enough.
 
How can anyone support pgcs claimed "need" for a fee increase, yet let a little thing like lack of fellow hunter support and lack of legislator support stop THEM from doing THEIR part?
 
I don't get it.
 
Especially since I provided everyone with a perfectly good donation link!

BeenThereDoneThat.
You got that right 'eyes', regarding the PR people and, they need personnel able to use common sense.  No need for a rate increase just get rid of 2/3 of the over paid biologist, riding on the hunters dime, waiting for a 20 year retirement.  Then their off to someplace new for another 20 year career.

BTDT - You may want to double check that.  I believe the 20 and out contracts only cover WCO's and all others employed with the PGC are covered by other state contracts (AFSCME maybe?) 
 
A quick check on PennWatch shows that a Wildlife Biologist 3, which is the highest level for a staff biologist at the PGC, makes between $60-80k/yr.  That is far less than an experienced biologist in the private sector would make, and when you consider that many biologists have an MS or PHD, $60-80k is peanuts.  

walcat
BTDT: What's the story on your comment of too many biologists? I'm not trying to be a jokester, I really don't know what the story is.

 
Just me being me ole buddy.  
 
I much rather see more enforcement personnel in the field versus scientist (using the term lightly) chasing collared deer and bear or, burning leaves on forest floors trying to get special plants growing.  I'm pretty sure most, if not all, the "research projects" conducted by these educated (using the term lightly) people have cost the PA. hunters a pretty hefty sum of money.  Need I mention the great job of managing the white tail or how about the ditch chicken (a/k/a; pheasant) fiascoes?  How many times have they wasted money supposedly looking for the "perfect bird" that will survive the ditches of PA.    I liken the ditch chicken waste of revenues to the trout program controlled by the PA Fish Biologist Commission.
 
The way I see it, had there not been such a waste of money on scientific projects over the past 25 years, no drastic fee increase would be necessary.
 
Now I'm sure there is a need for some (as in some) biologist but it appears that, there is a scientist (using the word lightly) for every animal, bird, flower, and tree in PA.  With each group having a specific supervisor dreaming up stupid studies to generate bogus reports supporting the need for, additional biologist to conduct more studies.
 
But that is just, me being me. 
 
Thanks for asking.

They will get their bump in the near future whether you like it or not.  When the time comes you will be presented with the same choice you have now, buy a license and continue to express your support, or give it up.    

 
I don't expect to prevent a fee increase forever.   I will support one when I feel they need it legitimately and when the time is right imo.    If one is granted before then, I will voice my displeasure to legislators, vote accordingly when the time comes and life goes on.   I also don't know if fee increases will even be a viable option much longer into the future.    Hunter numbers will be declining.   More and more won't be paying more and more for hunting licenses.   At some point, some other funding will be likely needed.   I don't think that time is now, and think that is a discussion for some future time.
 
But currently I have 2 options and I am exercising option one.   That being opposing a fee increase as opposed to supporting one.   And yes, I feel hunters voices should be given weight in the matter, and according to legislators I have talked to both recently and in the past, agree.
 
And the same claims of NEEDING that increase have been ongoing for years and years including just prior to them tapping the wells, which they kept very secretive at the time even when they knew it was to be a vast financial resource about to be utilized, yet they tried to get their money grubbing paws on more of our money anyway with a large and vocal fee increase campaign.  They did not get it, yet are now in as good a financial situation as they have ever been.    The fact is, they will take every single red cent they can get ahold of, and find ways to spend it regardless of actual "need".  Its typical government for ya. 
 
And of course Im sure circumventing political pressures is a lot easier with their pockets full, as opposed to knowing sooner or later  they will have to be on bended knee begging.
 

Inflation has caught up with the PGC and the Marcellus windfalls are drying up, so the need for additional funding has been demonstrated.  If they don't secure additional funding, they've said that the first things to be cut will be the habitat management and disease control programs.    

 
Couldn't care less.    They are doing basically NOTHING of any substance in the "disease control program" which is basically a joke, no attempts to eradicate and very little done to legitimately contain it.  And basically they have stated they are accepting that it will likely spread no matter what.   And with what they have done, its pretty much a certainty.  Basically amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.   I also see no cuts of any significance habitatwise on the horizon.    I watched livestream meetings and the financial situation discussed was FAR less concerning than they are now making it out to be.   What they said there and what they are saying now publicly and to legislators is as different as night and day.
 
And if that's how they prioritize and hold in regard "habitat" then I guess that says a lot about THEM.
 
I have absolutely no interest of even thinking about supporting a fee increase currently.   They see that PFBC actually NEEDS one, and they want to hop on that gravy train and get "their share" also even though they aren't in the dire straights that fish and boat are closing in on.
 
Btw, people also have a third option.    Hunting without a license.     I don't support that, but even for myself it would be more of an option than "giving up".   Which isn't one.  Pgc will never run me out of the lifestyle that I have lead my entire life.   They can kill off ALL the deer.   Make the license $1000 a year.   Ban ol' Wayne from the forest forever lol.   Whatever.   But one way or 'nother, this dogs gonna hunt....  n'at.

I'm thinkin the PGC is already feeling the political pinch forced by the hands of the hunters.  Some very real, radical changes have taken place, as we all know.  Hopefully, the results will be positive and not take anywhere near the 25+ years the PGC has taken to screw things up.
 
 
PS  I don't have another 25 years to wait for those "3 Up" bucks behind every tree, to materialize.

Looks like a drastic need for some substantial downsizing in the near future as in, getting back to the basics.  Say 2/3 cut in personnel should reduce the pension obligations to a more manageable level.  
 
Not to worry, getting back to the basics will still allow for the stocking of "ditch chickens" and/or, elk habitat projects.  
 
May have to lose other "fun time studies" like setting the woods ablaze under the premiss of "things [really do!] grow" after a forest fire?
 
 
Not to change the subject but, does anybody know what happened to all the chain-link fence the PGC used for the study of, "Can white-tailed deer jump higher than a fence" to eat the tops off of trees?   Just wondering if "Uncle Charlies Chain-Link Fence Co." donated or, did the PGC buy all that fence and post?
 
Anyone know where I can find the results of the "infra-red studies" conducted about 9 years ago.  You know the project where a private company from out west was paid to fly over select areas of PA. to, conduct a survey of white-tailed deer population using infra-red imagery.     I hear the white-tailed  images didn't show up because it was snowing during one and, (I believe) it was windy during another attempt at conducting the survey; just wondering if the images may have revealed any elk in the select areas?