News

Merging the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission into one agency might yield savings of about $5 million a year, according to a report by the state Legislative Budget and Finance Committee.

It might also, its critics charge, lead to cuts in programs, services and resource management.

The pros and cons of having one agency versus two were debated Wednesday, when the report was unveiled at the state Capitol. The document resulted from House Resolution 15, which called on the committee to study the financial impact of a merger, explore a broad range of options for reorganizing the two commissions into one, and look at various ways of funding the agencies.

John Rowe, chief analyst for the committee, noted that Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation to put the job of managing fish and wildlife into two separate, distinct agencies.

Whether that's the way it should be done has been debated before. Merger studies have been done periodically since 1947, with some favoring a merger and others opposing one.

The latest study did not offer a recommendation either way. Nor did it suggest that merging the two agencies would solve the financial crisis they face as a result of declining hunting and fishing license sales.

But Rowe said a merger "appears totally feasible," particularly at a time when the circumstances of managing fish and wildlife are unlike those at any other point in history.

"State fish and wildlife agencies have entered a new era of mounting financial demands, budgetary shortfalls, and increasing pressures to adopt a more holistic approach to fish and wildlife management," Rowe said.

The report outlined some advantages to having a joint fish and wildlife agency.

It said a merger could eliminate redundant positions, provide a better balance between law enforcement and fish and wildlife management, better position the agencies to get badly needed general fund monies, and save about $5 million by eliminating 71 staff positions, 36 of those being conservation officers.

But there are several problems with how the report came to its conclusions, according to rebuttals to the report prepared by the Game and Fish and Boat commissions.

The commissions said, for example, that the report's cost savings would take years to achieve -- if they could be achieved at all -- given the costs of standardizing uniforms, computer systems and more. Both agencies also faulted the report for not estimating what those costs might be.

Two issues drew the sharpest criticism from commission leaders.

Dennis Guise, deputy executive director of the Fish and Boat Commission, said the "illusory" cost savings outlined in the report would come at the expense of proper fish and wildlife management and "core" services the public has come to expect.

"In fact, the new report demonstrates once again that significant cost savings require major cuts in services for anglers and boaters, hunters and trappers, with resultant impacts on protection and management of fish and wildlife resources," Guise said.

"This is not about protecting our turf. This is not about protecting our jobs. It is about doing what is best for the anglers, boaters, hunters and trappers of Pennsylvania," he added.

Vern Ross, executive director of the Game Commission, took exception to the idea -- outlined in the report -- of limiting conservation officers to just law enforcement. He said such a plan dismisses the role those officers play in public outreach and wildlife management, visiting children in schools, working at youth field days and assisting biologists in tagging bears and collecting embryos for deer research.

It also ignores the fact that most conservation officers chose their jobs because they have degrees in or a desire to work with wildlife.

"What's going to happen is we're going to lose those kinds of people," Ross said.

To date, no legislator has come forward to sponsor a bill to merge the two agencies. Instead, it appears that the subject will undergo further study.

State Sen. Robert Tomlinson, chairman of the committee, called yesterday's unveiling of the report "just a beginning," and asked each commission to outline in writing the services they provide now that they would not be able to deliver under a merger scenario.

Likewise, state Rep. Dave Levdansky, an Allegheny County Democrat, said he will push for a special "blue ribbon task force" made up of legislators, sportsmen and perhaps an outside consultant. Its job would be to look at ways of reorganizing the state's fish, wildlife and forest management agencies "to best manage all of the wildlife resources of the commonwealth for all the citizens of the commonwealth."

Some type of reorganization might be needed, especially if the commissions will have to seek a share of general tax money, he said.

"If we're going to engender political and public support for alternative funding, we've got to show them what they're getting," Levdansky said. "We've got to convince the public that these agencies are going to do a better job of managing game and nongame species."

The debate over how best to do that will continue today, when the committee presents its report to the Game and Fisheries Committee in the House of Representatives.

• Most Read
• Most E-mailed
• Latest News