HR 15 REPORT FAILS TO SHOW BENEFIT OF MERGED FISH & BOAT, GAME
AGENCIES
SACRIFICE OF SERVICE, OVERESTIMATION OF SAVINGS
AMONG CONCERNS CITED BY PFBC
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (PFBC) today expressed concerns with “An Update on the Feasibility
of a Combined Fish and Wildlife Commission for Pennsylvania” released by the
Legislative Budget and Finance Committee.
The recommended structure for a new fish, wildlife and boating agency
for Pennsylvania as described in the report would sacrifice protection and
management of the resource and customer service for possible cost savings that
may never be realized.
The report was drafted by the staff of
the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee pursuant to House Resolution 15 of
2003. House Resolution 15 called for
an exploration of a “broad range of options with regard to how to structure our
wildlife agencies to best manage the wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.” Instead, the report issued this morning
focuses on a single model for restructuring the state’s two wildlife
agencies. It devotes nearly all its
attention to how this model might save money without regard for providing the
best management for fish, wildlife and boating programs.
The report suggests that a merger of the
Fish and Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Game Commission is feasible, but
with the only real benefit coming in the form of potential savings from a
reduction in core programs and services for anglers, boaters, hunters and
trappers and a dramatic reduction in the number of field personnel enforcing
regulations and serving as informational liaisons between the public and the
new agency.
“The Fish and Boat Commission’s position on merger is not based on
protecting our turf or the jobs of our employees. Instead, we believe Pennsylvania’s way of organizing our fish,
wildlife and boating agencies should be grounded on what’s best for our
customers and what’s best for the protection and management of the resource,” said Samuel M.
Concilla, President of the Fish and Boat Commission.
According to Dennis Guise, PFBC Deputy Executive Director, “The single fish
and wildlife agency described in the report will provide less – not best –
management of Pennsylvania’s precious fish and wildlife resources. It will provide less – not best – service to
the anglers and boaters of Pennsylvania. It’s not enough to observe, as the
report does, that merged agencies are feasible because other states have
them. It must be shown that a merged
agency would work better for anglers, boaters, hunters and trappers and would
work better for the resource. The
report fails to show that any particular organizational structure, let alone
the one advocated in the report, will accomplish this goal.”
The PFBC says the
report fails in five critical areas:
·
Willingness
to sacrifice resource management and protection and customer service
·
Overestimation
of potential savings
·
Failure
to adequately address tangible and intangible costs
·
Lack
of focus on boats and boating programs
·
Lack
of adequate analysis of state-by-state comparisons
“The Fish and Boat Commission has staked out a clear policy
position on merger. Our position was –
and is – that Pennsylvania should consider a single fish, wildlife and boating
agency if, after a review of both tangible and intangible costs and benefits,
it could be shown that there would be better services for anglers and boaters and
better protection and management of aquatic resources. Pennsylvania should not copy some other
state’s organizational structure unless it is clear that there will be major
benefits for our customers and the resource.
This report contains nothing that would lead the Commissioners to
support merger,” said Commissioner Concilla.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the
report comes from the notion that the cost savings should be generated by
cutting areas critical to anglers and boaters.
For instance, the report documents no overstaffing in the current
agencies, but nonetheless suggests that, in a single fish and wildlife and
boating agency, 71 positions can be eliminated. The report reaches this conclusion with no workload assessment,
no workflow analysis and no recognition that, at least in the Fish and Boat
Commission, many employees wear two or more different hats and perform many
different functions.
“The principal flaw with this approach is that cost savings depend
almost entirely on the elimination of staff positions, the majority of which
are engaged in law enforcement or related activities. Without any assessment of current workflow or work output
requirements, the report assumes that far fewer employees would be needed to
accomplish the mission of a single fish, wildlife and boating agency. What’s more, a majority of the cuts and the savings depend on
restricting conservation officers from attending sportsmen’s meetings,
attending sports shows, helping with fish stocking, or providing education
programs. This approach won’t help the
resource, and it will reduce customer service,” Guise pointed out.
In addition to other concerns, the Fish and Boat Commission was
struck by how little attention boating programs were given in the report. More people boat in Pennsylvania each year
than hunt and fish. The model for the
future of the conservation officer program does not adequately consider the
needs for boating law enforcement to protect public safety. Boating education and boating access are
core programs.
Given that the possible savings depend on cutting core programs
and services, and the costs are understated, one could easily draw the
conclusion that the proposed merger will cost more than it saves for at least a
few years. Past studies have shown that
net savings do not, in themselves, justify merger decisions.
The Fish and Boat Commission staff cooperated fully with the staff
of the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee in preparing the report. “We do
not fault the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee or its staff for their
work on this report. We’re sure they
looked hard for benefits that would flow from a proposed single fish, wildlife
and boating agency. The fact that the
report does not identify such benefits, except for possible cost savings from
cutting core programs and restricting the duties of conservation officers,
confirms past studies on this subject,” Guise concluded.
-- 30 --