|
Post by bowbum on Apr 18, 2016 15:58:40 GMT -5
Search "license increase" on the Erie times news web page. Don't know why you just won't tell us... I did the search and got the headline; 'Game Commission set to increase license fees for the first time in sixteen years." But then, they want me to subscribe....I got this: "6 STORY VIEWS LEFT Thank you for reading GoErie.com. We hope you are enjoying the great content on the site. You have 6 more story views for April. If you would like to continue to have unlimited views you can subscribe to GoErie.com now for just $0.99/month or a print subscription for just $1.35/week* for Sunday! A print subscription includes unlimited access of GoErie.com. If you are a current GoErie.com subscriber or print Erie Times-News subscriber you always have unlimited story views along with survey-free access. Simply log in or register below. *$1.35/week Sunday is a new subscriber introduction rate only." So please share with us the proposed increased.... Ah,. never mind. I just did a search on WNEP TV and got this: "For instance, the price of a standard license would go from $19 to $29."
That includes turkey and small game. I would surely have not a single problem with this increase and I'm sure many others also see it as a bargain. Sure is a long way from the $120 for NY general license and turkey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 16:18:13 GMT -5
Bowbum, Here's what I found on the Erie Times website:
Pennsylvania Game Commission Proposes Hunting License Increase Ed Lawrence September 4, 2015 6:29 pm
The Pennsylvania Game Commission has proposed to increase fees for hunting and furtaker licenses for the first time in 16 years. The proposed fee increase will be used to help establish sustainable funding for the agency and any license-fee increase must be authorized by legislative action.
If the Game Commission’s proposal is adopted as drafted, the fees for hunting and furtaker licenses will increase to $39 over a five-year period. This would make Pennsylvania the eighth-cheapest place to buy a hunting license in the nation, based on existing fees in other states.
Game Commission Executive Director R. Matthew Hough said it’s important hunters and trappers understand why an increase is needed.
“License-fee increases have not come about very often in Pennsylvania,” Hough said. “In fact, this 16-year span is the second-longest period the Game Commission ever has gone without an increase. The longest span was from the Great Depression through World War II.
“Seeking an increase is not something we take lightly,” Hough said. “We understand families often have tight budgets, and everyone needs to live within their means. That’s some of the reason why our license fees are among the lowest in the nation.
“But we also want our hunters and trappers to realize we, as an agency, are facing overwhelming financial challenges, many of which are beyond our control and are certain to continue into the future. Without a license-fee increase we soon will not be able to provide the same level of service. We will have to make cuts. And, to me, that would be much more costly for hunters and trappers than the increase we’ve proposed.”
To view the complete PGC News Release, please go to: PGC News Release
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Apr 18, 2016 16:54:53 GMT -5
Because I was using my phone, I didn't think it was so far over your head to do a simple search.
Fees for most other resident and non-resident licenses also would increase over the same timetable. The price of an adult non-resident license would double to $200, but the cost of junior resident and non-resident licenses and senior resident licenses would not change.
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Apr 18, 2016 16:57:29 GMT -5
Two Senate bills are nearing a vote in Harrisburg, one that would shift the authority to set license fees from the legislature to the PFBC, and a second calling for across-the-board fee increases phased in over a six-year period. Those increases would raise the cost of a resident annual fishing license from $21 to $26.25 in 2017, followed by smaller increases over the next five years.
The fee hikes are necessary to enable PFBC, whose operating budget is derived almost solely from license fees, to continue to provide anglers with access and opportunities and offset increasing health-care and pension costs, according to PFBC Executive Director John Arway.
"We believe the public expects us to do certain things," Arway said in a phone interview. "And we believe most people realize that those things come with a certain cost, and they understand why this increase is needed."
Overall license sales have dropped from more than 1.15 million in 1991 to fewer than 900,000 in 2015. State lawmakers enacted license fee increases twice during that period, with sales declining by 8.7 percent on the heels of a $4.25 hike in 1996 and by 9.6 percent following a $4.75 increase in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by buzz on Apr 18, 2016 18:17:56 GMT -5
When we look at what it cost a school district to fund those state pensions, it makes it easier to understand why the PGC needs more money. Add that to the benie package, and it easily puts the cost for a game warden with 20 years at close to 100k per year.........probably over ........
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: Medical/Hospitalization Insurance Dental Insurance Paid Prescription Care Vision Care Life Insurance Mandatory Membership in the State Employees Retirement System Paid Annual, Sick and Personal Leave Paid State Holidays Workers Compensation
|
|
|
Post by davet on Apr 18, 2016 19:04:11 GMT -5
Well, looking at the personnel cost objectively, I looked at the 2013-14 PGC budget that was submitted to our lovely legislators. The PGC went through some hoops to disclose what actual personal cost vs. total cost were in the fiscal year 1997-98. How convenient. So, I took the 1997-98 cost and then looked up the annual inflation for every year between the 97-98 and 13-14 PGC years and (of course) did the math. Well as it turns out just using normal inflation personnel cost in the 97-98 year were $40,462,000. Then for the 13-14 year they were $64,711,630. Now using the annual inflation numbers and doing the math, the adjusted 13-14 personnel cost would have been $61,056,227. So the actual cost are about 6% higher. And what that would tell me is the WCO's income and benefits are slightly ahead of inflation. And not by much. In other words, they are not knocking 'em dead in the compensation area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 19:21:36 GMT -5
Well, looking at the personnel cost objectively, I looked at the 2013-14 PGC budget that was submitted to our lovely legislators. The PGC went through some hoops to disclose what actual personal cost vs. total cost were in the fiscal year 1997-98. How convenient. So, I took the 1997-98 cost and then looked up the annual inflation for every year between the 97-98 and 13-14 PGC years and (of course) did the math. Well as it turns out just using normal inflation personnel cost in the 97-98 year were $40,462,000. Then for the 13-14 year they were $64,711,630. Now using the annual inflation numbers and doing the math, the adjusted 13-14 personnel cost would have been $61,056,227. So the actual cost are about 6% higher. And what that would tell me is the WCO's income and benefits are slightly ahead of inflation. And not by much. In other words, they are not knocking 'em dead in the compensation area. And they're less than 33% of the PGC complement when all districts and positions are filled, which they haven't been in years, if not decades. All the complainers need to check out the salaries of the executive staff including legal staff, I.T. staff, biologists, foresters, surveyors and the vet if they want to see big $$$$$$.
|
|
|
Post by buzz on Apr 18, 2016 19:31:50 GMT -5
I looked at their salary's on line, and would agree that their salaries are in line. Its the state pension/retirement that is killer. I was looking at our local teachers salary's (they just went on strike). Their salary's are posted on the Athens area school web site should anyone care to look. Anyway, the benefit;s and state retirement added $30,00/$40,000 to their annual cost to the district. Not positive, but thinking the same would apply to a WCO? ?? The 20 year scale for a WCO is over $60,000 according to the web site I looked at, which I believe is fair. I just don't think the taxpayer needs to guaranty their pension and health care after they retire. It doesn't work that way for the average guy...........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 19:45:57 GMT -5
I looked at their salary's on line, and would agree that their salaries are in line. Its the state pension/retirement that is killer. I was looking at our local teachers salary's (they just went on strike). Their salary's are posted on the Athens area school web site should anyone care to look. Anyway, the benefit;s and state retirement added $30,00/$40,000 to their annual cost to the district. Not positive, but thinking the same would apply to a WCO? ?? The 20 year scale for a WCO is over $60,000 according to the web site I looked at, which I believe is fair. I just don't think the taxpayer needs to guaranty their pension and health care after they retire. It doesn't work that way for the average guy........... The state's pension plan, established in the early 1920s, worked just fine and was considered fully funded and solvent until the state started skipping their payments to the fund in the early 2000s in order to divert funds and achieve "smoke and mirror" balanced budgets. Both Rendell and Corbett were guilty of this travesty. I guess it's easier for some to just blame state employees than acknowledge the truth.
|
|
|
Post by buzz on Apr 18, 2016 19:48:21 GMT -5
System was wrong then.......still is. Make it 401k based. You seem to think it is OK for the average taxpayer to guaranty your retirement.....when they cant even fund their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 20:33:23 GMT -5
System was wrong then.......still is. Make it 401k based. You seem to think it is OK for the average taxpayer to guaranty your retirement.....when they cant even fund their own. I can't understand how you consider a plan that worked well for over 80 years, without complaints from taxpayers, to be a failure. From 2001 up to the present you do have an argument due to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Commonwealth's politicians, both R and D. BTW all taxpayers, average and otherwise, are responsible for electing the fools who decided to not make pension payments.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Apr 18, 2016 20:33:58 GMT -5
Wish the pension system could be blown up. It can't.
Buzz, you are right, it needs to go to a system the rest of us peasants have, or, many don't even have that.
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Apr 18, 2016 20:51:10 GMT -5
Just Think of all the jobs available to our youngsters if all of us got paid to retire after twenty five or thirty years of service.
|
|
|
Post by redarrow on Apr 18, 2016 21:26:00 GMT -5
I looked at their salary's on line, and would agree that their salaries are in line. Its the state pension/retirement that is killer. I was looking at our local teachers salary's (they just went on strike). Their salary's are posted on the Athens area school web site should anyone care to look. Anyway, the benefit;s and state retirement added $30,00/$40,000 to their annual cost to the district. Not positive, but thinking the same would apply to a WCO? ?? The 20 year scale for a WCO is over $60,000 according to the web site I looked at, which I believe is fair. I just don't think the taxpayer needs to guaranty their pension and health care after they retire. It doesn't work that way for the average guy........... The state's pension plan, established in the early 1920s, worked just fine and was considered fully funded and solvent until the state started skipping their payments to the fund in the early 2000s in order to divert funds and achieve "smoke and mirror" balanced budgets. Both Rendell and Corbett were guilty of this travesty. I guess it's easier for some to just blame state employees than acknowledge the truth. It was ridge who stole the money from some of the state employees-he promised to pay it back if things went south. They did and rendell and corbett did nothing to pay it back as was agreed to be done.
|
|
|
Post by davet on Apr 19, 2016 6:42:17 GMT -5
System was wrong then.......still is. Make it 401k based. You seem to think it is OK for the average taxpayer to guaranty your retirement.....when they cant even fund their own. I won't disagree with that. OTOH, if your going to remove the Defined Benefit Pension from the state employees, then is it not fair to increase their initial compensation to make up for the loss of the DB Plan? Then the new hire's have a choice of either spending the additional compensation, or funding their 401-K's. OTOH, it will cost the District's and other Governmental Agencies an additional 7.15% in matching SS contributions for any "make up" salary increases to make a "Wage equivalent" adjustment when going from a DB plan to a compensation increase for a 401-K Plan. Just a few thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by fleroo on Apr 19, 2016 6:45:55 GMT -5
It was RIDGE ? He stole all that money, and has the nads to come on this site and b!tch about how early things green up in SW PA, and how nasty bird season should be 2 weeks earlier. The nerve. *rant*
|
|
|
Post by davet on Apr 19, 2016 6:47:35 GMT -5
It was RIDGE ? He stole all that money, and has the nads to come on this site and b!tch about how early things green up in SW PA, and how nasty bird season should be 2 weeks earlier. The nerve. *rant* Well....Son of a Bench. Ridge...you sneaky snark. I'll bet your out buying a new crossbow too.
|
|
|
Post by fleroo on Apr 19, 2016 6:59:10 GMT -5
Just about EVERY private corporation (and their mother's), have done away with a "Defined Pension Plan", or what is called a "Traditional Pension Benefit Plan". It's not complicated. You "freeze" the old plans monthly payments to future retirees, and going forward, you can either continue with a Lump-Sum type of Pension contribution, IF funds dictate you can offer such a thing, or you can abolish the notion of a pension plan altogether, and offer nothing at all, or perhaps 401K. So, those that had money "frozen" at a given point in time, would receive whatever monthly payments that equated to upon retirement, and of course, those state workers already retired, would be grand-fathered in and continue to receive their monthly pension allotment. THAT is REAL WORLD. Private companies have realized they cannot sustain this notion of traditional pensions any longer, and it should be no different from the state level.\
NOW, what that does, is force the state to structure their pay, to be commensurate with the private sector. That is how fair-market, free-market thingies tend to work. Every company worth their salt, want to attract the "bestestest and brightestest" in their respective industries. And to do that, sure you have to pay-to-play. It's no secret that folks chasing money, did not apply for state jobs, as their salaries (though livable), fell below the private sector standard for the same job type. Working people, perfectly willing to live a modest life-style, applied for, and took state jobs for, here it goes..... THE BENEFITS. This hen't Brain Surgery folks.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Apr 19, 2016 8:19:53 GMT -5
Because I was using my phone, I didn't think it was so far over your head to do a simple search. Fees for most other resident and non-resident licenses also would increase over the same timetable. The price of an adult non-resident license would double to $200, but the cost of junior resident and non-resident licenses and senior resident licenses would not change. Thanks Stan. Bawanajim, Not over my head at all, just not worth my time to do the research to evaluate "your" statement. I usually provide information if I make a dramatic statement...? When comparing license values I always look at what we, in PA, get in the basic license as residents. Even considering the most extreme interpretation of the proposed, over years ahead, increase....there ain't no way it would be cheaper to hunt as a non-resident in New York fort he same species. Pennsylvania hunting license, is and always has been, dollar-for-species, one of the best bargains in the USA!
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Apr 19, 2016 10:32:38 GMT -5
$100 (ages 16+) $5 (ages 12-15)
(Note: It is no longer necessary to purchase a separate bear tag when buying a hunting license. Small game and big game hunting is now included in the annual hunting license for both residents and nonresidents. These changes went into effect on February 1, 2014. For more information, see 2014 Sporting Licenses Changes)
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Apr 19, 2016 10:43:31 GMT -5
$100 (ages 16+) $5 (ages 12-15) (Note: It is no longer necessary to purchase a separate bear tag when buying a hunting license. Small game and big game hunting is now included in the annual hunting license for both residents and nonresidents. These changes went into effect on February 1, 2014. For more information, see 2014 Sporting Licenses Changes) Yes, for an adult non resident to hunt NY for basic and turkey it is $120. Quite a bit more than it is for resident in PA.
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Apr 19, 2016 11:00:03 GMT -5
Not if those increases take effect.
|
|
|
Post by davet on Apr 19, 2016 11:30:12 GMT -5
Working people, perfectly willing to live a modest life-style, applied for, and took state jobs for, here it goes..... THE BENEFITS. This hen't Brain Surgery folks. Yes. It's called "A pay cut." So what your saying is by freezing the current DB Plans is those who are currently in them, stay in them and for any new hires, they are not in the DB Plan. Yeah....I get that. So...going on the theory of attracting "the best and brightest" how do you now propose to do that since you have just cut the total compensation package? Hey....I'm just asking.
|
|
|
Post by GlennD on Apr 19, 2016 14:20:13 GMT -5
Even the Feds have 401K type plans these days.. No more Civil Service Retirement System. Been gone since the early 80's.
|
|
|
Post by davet on Apr 19, 2016 16:07:13 GMT -5
Even the Feds have 401K type plans these days.. No more Civil Service Retirement System. Been gone since the early 80's. This is true. I have no idea how it has affected (effected?) recruitment.
|
|