|
Post by johns on Mar 25, 2014 8:24:35 GMT -5
I just read the Govenor signed the term limits bill. Now the real push begins.
|
|
|
Post by fleroo on Mar 25, 2014 8:26:08 GMT -5
I don't quite understand why term limits are viewed as bad.
|
|
|
Post by johns on Mar 25, 2014 8:54:22 GMT -5
I have no problem with reduced term limits, there are already term limits on them. However, I do have a huge problem with the provision to be reappointed. If they toe the Governors line or the general assembly's line they will get reappointed, if they do not they will be gone. Once all of the BOC are lackies of the politicians, which is exactly what will happen, wildlife management will be entirely in the hands of the Governor and the general assembly, puppets. That is if there is not a merger in the interim, that gas money is burning a hole in the pockets of the Governor and the general assembly and they want the game fund.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 25, 2014 9:03:40 GMT -5
SB 895 Game Commissioners Terms Approved by the Governor (Act: 26 ) 3/21/14
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 9:08:22 GMT -5
will any member of this BOC that has more than 4 years remaining on their term be allowed to finish out his term?
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 25, 2014 9:09:19 GMT -5
I had a nasty email from a legislator that said it was not a term limits bill that in fact it allowed commissioners to serve 12 years.
He thinks he musta done a good thing?
He and his clueless cohorts now control commissioners even more.
The job is now truly for political hacks that will do the bidding of the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Mar 25, 2014 11:01:58 GMT -5
I don't quite understand why term limits are viewed as bad. It is not the limit itself, IMO, but the need for re-appointment for a second term. Essentially, if you don't follow through with demands being placed on you by politicians, you won't see a second term. It is difficult for a commissioner to champion an initiative and see it come to fruition in one term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 11:31:47 GMT -5
That's exactly it ; term limits are great when people are voted on. It works in favor of the People.
Thus on the other hand works in Favor of the Oligarchy. A farce.
|
|
|
Post by fleroo on Mar 25, 2014 13:00:03 GMT -5
I don't quite understand why term limits are viewed as bad. It is not the limit itself, IMO, but the need for re-appointment for a second term. Essentially, if you don't follow through with demands being placed on you by politicians, you won't see a second term. It is difficult for a commissioner to champion an initiative and see it come to fruition in one term. I guess that all depends on how long the limits are What are the proposed limits ? I would think 4 years is enough ?
|
|
|
Post by fleroo on Mar 25, 2014 13:01:03 GMT -5
Gosh, how does a fella type in Question Marks, and get a Frowny Face emoticon instead ?
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 25, 2014 13:11:18 GMT -5
It is not the limit itself, IMO, but the need for re-appointment for a second term. Essentially, if you don't follow through with demands being placed on you by politicians, you won't see a second term. It is difficult for a commissioner to champion an initiative and see it come to fruition in one term. I guess that all depends on how long the limits are What are the proposed limits ? I would think 4 years is enough ? Four year term with reappointment for 2 more terms, if the Legislature is pleased with you. In this case, if the Commissioners give hunters more deer and hunters don't complain, you get to stay on. That really is the heart of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by dennyf on Mar 25, 2014 15:10:08 GMT -5
Commissioner's terms at eight years were specifically designed to be staggered, so that any Gov who appointed an agency commissioner would likely not still be in office for that commissioner's full term.
Most assumed that would prohibit any Gov from exerting undue influence on anyone he'd appointed? And it's worked pretty well over the years. Rendell appointed several of the sitting commissioners. Rendell is no longer the Governor.
With four year terms it is highly likely that future commissioners will only serve under whatever administration had appointed them. With term "extensions" based on another approval, figure out the ease with which political pressure can be exerted on any sitting commissioner to do the bidding of those who will sit in judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 25, 2014 15:23:04 GMT -5
At one time Governors served one term here in PA, right? When did that change?
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 25, 2014 16:09:27 GMT -5
I can see all sorts of imagined and potentially real situations that would throw every theory under the bus. Could have two bad governors, one term each, could have three or more. Could have a great governor or two, in a row and on and on. Right now there are people calling for heads to roll at the BOC and maybe some, or all, should roll. If some of the initiators of the pay off scheme been given the boot at the end of their first term we might be dealing with a different situation.........................?
I guess old age and circumstances have led me to an altered way of thinking. I remember the old days on the Buckmasters sight, gosh, gotta be at least 16 -17 years ago......we were worrying ourselves over a merger, political wrangling for power and the same damn things that our younger brothers and sisters are now fearing. And my guess is their kids will be tossing this potato around in the future.
I've had four family members die in the past 16 months......each one considerably younger than me.....the oldest was 62. Three of the four were my first cousin farmers who I lived with for a spell as a kid. All healthy life style people......go figure! I suppose that makes aware of more important things in life.......and me not quick to stand up and shout conspiracy theory...... or the sky is falling stuff. I also recognize that none of the players is of unimpeachable standing, whether or not they are elected or appointed................at PGC or the capitol. Some things will never change when it comes to political wrangling "NEVER."
And if we would not remain so different than most other states, with term limits or merged agencies, would life as we know it, and our pursuit of happiness, really be so terrible? smileys-whistling-823718
|
|
|
Post by johns on Mar 25, 2014 17:01:55 GMT -5
There are no conspiracy theories here, the take over by the general assembly is happening as we discuss this. Those who remain blind and are content to wait and see instead of actively opposing what is happening will be as culpable as the general assembly and the Governor when is all goes to hell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 17:07:03 GMT -5
At one time Governors served one term here in PA, right? When did that change? "
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 25, 2014 17:21:19 GMT -5
And the first governor to serve back to back was Shapp. and it went downhill from there. LOL
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 25, 2014 17:45:03 GMT -5
Fleroo,
Four years is not long enough. There is a two year learning curve; even for those who go in with a wildlife background.
Reappointment means simply "If you fall in line with what I want, I MAY reappoint you- but maybe not; if my friend wants in there."
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 26, 2014 7:20:30 GMT -5
I'm just saying that this has been going on since I can remember having Internet discussions ans I believe it will never change ----- it is the nature of politics.
"And" in the worst case scenario would it truly be a life altering event? Some live in a bubble and think the outside world, (other states), can't possiby function without our system.....but they do and they provide, in most cases, excellent hunting and fishing opportunities.
I "don't want" to embrace a dramatic change but I also am not worried for my grandchildren's loss of opportunity when that very agency has been steadfast in refusing to support, publicly, Sunday hunting............ When I am no longer criminalized for carrying a gun or bow, in my own woodland, on a Sunday.....during an otherwise open season, then I'll believe all is good as it is!
I'm not sure why two years is required as a learning curve!!!! Most serious, (qualified), decision makers will have the experience to take off running. If not, they don't belong there!
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 26, 2014 8:29:54 GMT -5
I'll agree with you on that! And hence why I wouldn't have a problem with a 4 or 5 year term, without reappointment unless you sit out a term. Just don't like the possible "strings attached" that come with political reappointment opportunities. The appointments are too political already. If there was an official policy for allowing real input from Sportsmen's groups, it wouldn't be so bad, but each Guvs office does what ever they want, and most don't seek out input from sportsmen.
|
|
|
Post by dennyf on Mar 26, 2014 9:25:00 GMT -5
Bob, many of the points you raised are valid and worthy of consideration.
But I seldom give up easily and while we've stumbled along for years with these "imperfect" conditions and systems in place, I tend to look to the future, doing what little I can to try and improve things - so future generations might benefit from a better system than what we've learned to tolerate.
And in my opinion that's what hunters and anglers have done for generations: Tolerated a management system that is vulnerable to entirely too much political meddling from those with their own personal agendas and goals.
If something is not the best possible course to follow for the continued success of wildlife and habitats, then it doesn't belong on the table.
Don't give a damn how many pockets another course could line, how many temporary smiles it puts on the mugs of the dimwitted, or whose ox it gores.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 26, 2014 10:12:20 GMT -5
" If there was an official policy for allowing real input from Sportsmen's groups, it wouldn't be so bad,"
Mel, and Denny, I very much respect your rationality, knowledge and sincere efforts made over the years.....but Mel, I have to rattle your cage a bit. I'll reword your statement a bit to make a point; "If there was an official policy for allowing real input from Sportsmen's groups, we would have USP tying up the entire process with cougar, wolf hybrid and rattlesnake breeding farms closures!
The point is that all entities have their set of views and not all are entirely good or bad. I know that some states also have disgruntled hunters and fishers, but I've hunted Saskatchewan 7 times, Manitoba, New Zealand and from Montana to Texas and all across the midwest and eastern USA and participated in many sportsmen's forum in those states. I simply do not see the level of complaints and second guessing of the wildlife/conservation agencies that I see here in PA. Michigan would be one exception that seems to have many parallels to PA.
The ease of licensing, availability of over-the counter permits, landowner enhanced access programs, Sunday hunting and mentored youth hunting really make us look like we do need some changes.......
The myth that the PGC is "independent" is slowing becoming recognized as a myth.
|
|
|
Post by johns on Mar 26, 2014 11:03:04 GMT -5
Perhaps that is because those areas do not have long history from day one of complaining and second guessing by hunters as PA does. The PGC was never independant per se, they are independant in that they are self funded, independant of the general fund providing operating Capital and independant from the Governors direct control in as much as they do not have a cabinet position head (sec) directly appointed by the Governor to do his bidding. Anyone who thinks the PGC is independant of some control by state government is greatly mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 26, 2014 12:42:59 GMT -5
Gee Bob, they passed a resolution in support of SH and I believe Carl said he welcomed it.
What more can they do when they have assinine legislators that say, "Sunday is a day of rest", then go out and do whatever THEY want on a Sunday, including campaigning and such.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Mar 26, 2014 13:23:57 GMT -5
Perhaps that is because those areas do not have long history from day one of complaining and second guessing by hunters as PA does. True, and that will change ....how? Hunter input and crazy requests will always be a fundamental function to deal with "because of" the belief that somehow hunters own the agency, or have a stakeholder say, even on biology issues, since they are told they fund the agency and it is therefore independent. It ain't gonna change.....just look at another thread and all the expert opinions on deer season/antlerless allocations, per every square mile. We all have our opinions..................! Dutch when my feet are to the fire I squiggle and can be made to say uncle! It took many years of evasive action by PGC to bring "any" sort of public comment in favor of SH......? When other states, with combined agencies have been successfully doing it for many years, we were told; "Pennsylvania is so different" that it won't work here. What is happening now with PGC treading very lightly in support is 10 years late and quite short of a strong campaign to educate and garner support for SH. Back to commissioner term limits.....I've met and known several, campaigned for one and even went to the confirmation dinner. I believe that particular commish was ready from day one, very up on issues and very, very involved with wildlife and promoting youth in hunting and a person who dedicated much family and free time to a job that rewards are few and criticism is common. However, even if it had been a 4 year term only, with possible reappointment, I guarantee you he would still have thrown his hat in the ring. Quality people do not fear a failing score, only a mediocre wannabe is in it for the notoriety and protected status, (which isn't for real anyway).
|
|