Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Jamula celebrate 50th anniversary

web1_20151108_075538_resized.jpg

Plains Twp. Police call off hunt for driver who fled vehicle accident

<p>The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission stocks non-native brown and rainbow trout in streams, rivers and lakes throughout the state.</p><p>The Pennsylvania Game Commission has a similar program - stocking non-native ring-necked pheasants in overgrown fields found on game lands and public access areas throughout the state.</p><p>Not everybody fishes for trout and not everybody hunts pheasants, but both are avidly pursued by a large contingent.</p><p>But here&#8217;s where the two programs differ: the PFBC charges those anglers who pursue trout via a trout stamp that helps to pay for the cost of raising and stocking the fish. The PGC has no extra fee in place for the 12 percent of hunters who pursue pheasants. The cost of raising the birds - approximately $4 million, is paid for by all hunters.</p><p>Seems like a pretty good argument for a pheasant stamp, doesn&#8217;t it?</p><p>Not so fast.</p><p>On the surface, a pheasant stamp makes sense. The agency has been hit hard times financially and is currently seeking a hunting license fee increase from the state legislature. Considering it spends $4 million to raise and release more than 200,000 pheasants each hunting season, revenue from a pheasant stamp would surely be welcomed to cover or at least offset some of that cost.</p><p>But what if it&#8217;s not enough?</p><p>If a pheasant stamp is implemented and the generated revenue doesn&#8217;t cover even half of the cost of the program, will that mean that the Game Commission will raise fewer pheasants? Will there be less birds available for the junior pheasant hunts that not only provide many young hunters with a memorable day afield but also recruits them into the sport?</p><p>If the trout stamp is any indication, then a pheasant stamp at a reasonable cost is unlikely to cover more than half the cost of the program.</p><p>In 2014, the PFBC&#8217;s $8 trout stamp covered only 46 percent of the cost of the trout program.</p><p>Considering 12 percent of the roughly 950,000 licensed resident and non-resident hunters pursue pheasants, that works out to 113,260.</p><p>If they all spend, say $10 each for a pheasant stamp, the total revenue raised will be $1.13 million - about a quarter of the cost for the pheasant program.</p><p>What if a pheasant stamp was $20? Then, all 113,260 pheasant hunters bought one, it would generate $2.26 million - around half the cost of the program.</p><p>I highly doubt that all 113,260 pheasant hunters would be willing to shell out $20 for a stamp, and if the price was higher I know many would opt to forgo pheasant hunting.</p><p>To generate $4 million in revenue, a pheasant stamp would need to be priced at nearly $40. Most hunters aren&#8217;t going to pay that.</p><p>If the difference between pheasant stamp revenue and cost of the program means less pheasants are going to be raised and released, then pheasant hunting in Pennsylvania is basically doomed. When the pheasant allocation dropped below 200,000 for several years, hunters weren&#8217;t happy and the numbers prove it.</p><p>When the agency raised and released 100,000 pheasants annually from 2005 to 2011, the number of pheasant hunters dropped. According to PGC figures, there were over 130,000 hunters that pursued pheasants in 2003. In 2005, that number dropped to 105,508, and plummeted to 71,579 in 2010.</p><p>If a pheasant stamp proves too costly, few are going to buy it and the majority of the program will have to continue to be funded by the sale of all hunting licenses or it could be cut back.</p><p>I don&#8217;t believe the pheasant program can be self-sustaining through sales of a pheasant stamp. However, if the agency views the revenue generated by a pheasant stamp as a bonus and continues to operate the program without cuts - especially the number of birds allocated for the junior hunts, then it could work.</p><p>Sure, I&#8217;m in favor of a pheasant stamp if the cost is reasonable and the expectations are realistic.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/web1_Venesky-11.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/web1_Venesky-11.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>By Tom Venesky</p><p>tvenesky@www.timesleader.com</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Reach Tom Venesky at tvenesky@www.timesleader.com or on Twitter @TLTomVenesky</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Outdoors with Tom Venesky: Time to put a stamp on the pheasant program?