2426
Phone: 717-232-3480 ● Fax: 717-232-3480
info@pfsc.org ● www.pfsc.org
Good
evening and welcome. My name is Melody
Zullinger, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s
Clubs.
Tonight’s
meeting is to help give you a better understanding of the where’s and why’s of
HR 15, the study on merging the agencies, and HR 222, the study on merging the
law enforcement of the agencies.
The
Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs is a statewide, grassroots organization
that has over 67,000 members and gets its direction from every one of its
members. At two conventions each year,
PFSC’s leaders listen to the needs and wishes of sportsmen and women and
conservationists. Then, with those goals
in mind, we work alongside
After
listening to our members, our delegates voted unanimously to oppose both HR 15
and HR 222. We do not believe that
either option would benefit sportsmen and women or the resources that our
agencies are mandated to protect.
Both
reports seem to focus more on how other states operate, and try to use the
“just because all those other states do it, then
Unfortunately,
neither of the reports addressed the most critical issues. The impact such mergers would have on the
resource or the sportsmen and women.
For
eight months the Committee labored over HR 15 to prepare a document designed to
justify a merger. And the best the
Committee could come up with after all that time was a gratuitous $5 million
savings. But using this questionable
savings to justify a merger makes about as much sense as cutting off a foot so
you only have to buy one shoe. And it
was stated in the report, that the report was not recommending a merger. Only showing what a merged agency might look
like. I believe the report is actually a
stunning endorsement for the exemplary performance of our two independent
agencies.
As
you know, a similar study on merging these agencies was conducted in 1989, by
the same Committee (Legislative Budget & Finance), and by the same
Committee staff members. The 1989 study
surveyed over 11,000 individuals – including license buyers, employees of both
agencies and even deputy conservation officers of both agencies. Interviews with staff at that time indicated
a need for 86 additional conservation officers, and the current complement then
was 217. The 1989 study even
acknowledged that the need was there.
This most recent study shows that today, nearly 15 years later, the
conservation officer complement is at 215, and yet the study now recommends eliminating an additional 42
officers? There is no recommendation as
to which officer districts will be eliminated.
Furthermore, the study recommends that officers should only do law
enforcement, and additional staff should be hired to perform duties other than
law enforcement. There are no references
made to any impacts, adverse or positive, on license buyers/registered boaters,
or the aquatic or wildlife resource.
And
now, we have the report on HR 222, merging just the law enforcement of Game,
Fish & Boat, and DCNR under a new bureau of DCNR. And guess what? This report states we need to hire an
additional 106 officers.
Excuse
me? Would someone please explain to me
how, under one proposal, we have too many law enforcement officers, yet under
the other one, we don’t have enough?
Also
in need of an explanation is how certain legislators completely justify one
merger because of a potential savings of $5M, yet choose to overlook an
increase of $5.8M for another merger, claiming it is still justified.
Although
we do not know of any organized group that has come out in support of either
merger, those individuals that have supported it seem supportive of defending
their position by stating that those of us that oppose the idea are doing so on
the basis of tradition and proclaim we are not concerned with the perceived
economic benefits. Yet they cannot answer our questions about consequences to sportsmen
or the resource; they only continue to revert to implying our inadequacies to
accept change and our lack of vision, claiming only that it will allow “a more
holistic approach to managing our resources.”
Does anyone know what that means?
It
means they want control of our game lands and our license dollars.
We
know our agencies are not perfect, and we believe there is always room for
improvement and it is necessary to continually look for better ways of doing
things.
We
also agree with comments made by Rick Carlson, Director of Policy for DCNR,
when during his testimony on HR 222 he stated, “I believe that all three
agencies can agree that there are opportunities for making further improvements
to our programs and that this should be done….but we do not believe major
surgery is necessary.”
PFSC
believes a merger of either capacity would be major surgery, and the odds are,
the patient would not survive the operation.
Our
position is what it is for two basic and extremely important reasons: resource
protection and trust. If any significant
information should ever be presented that would indicate an increase in
services to our resources and those of us who enjoy them, then we’d be fools
not to take the time to explore them.
However, at this time, no such evidence has been presented.
We
believe a merger would lead to a reduction in services to our fish and wildlife
resources and to Pennsylvanians who appreciate wild things and wild places,
especially the sportsmen and women who are proud of our outdoor heritage and
who want those great traditions to continue.
Right now, we believe that our natural resources and the people who
appreciate them deserve more attention, not less.
We
believe the push for a merger is for no other reason than to obtain more
political control, and has nothing what so ever to do with benefiting the
resource or the future of our outdoor heritage.
Therefore,
we stand opposed to any merger of the agencies and given Representative Smith’s
recent House Memo regarding the controversy surrounding this issue, stating “As
all of us know, the primary election is in April and the general election is in
November. I personally do not plan to
introduce any legislation relating to a merger during that time frame nor has anyone else informed me of their
desire to do so,” PFSC would like to go on record and remind all of our
legislators to keep in mind, come November, we will remember,
whether it’s November 2004 or November 2006.
We
will remain ever vigilant, and will continue to work for what is best for the
resource and