Which Resource First?

[Outdoor Talk Network by Jim Slinsky]
Broadcasted Nationwide on the OTN Radio Network

Notice: All content on this website is copyrighted. Do not copy, reproduce or distribute without permission.
© Copyright 1999-2008 Outdoor Talk Network

Which Resource First?©

By Jim Slinsky
07/12/08

Over the years I am certain you have heard the mantra “resource first”. The PA Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs is notorious for promoting this slogan in the deer management debate. Recently, Tim Schaffer of the Fish Commission has been utilizing these ambiguous words in regard to trout stocking. Our House Game and Fisheries Committee has already responded with curative legislation and the PGC and the PFBC are not real happy.

What does “resource first” really mean, you say? In theory it means the well-being of any species comes first before all other considerations. It means the social, economic or recreational benefit of managing a species is secondary to the long-term health of a species. It implies that we must take the moral high ground for the sake of the species even if we are unhappy with the numbers that are available for recreation or any other purpose. I am getting that warm and fuzzy feeling all over my body, but in truth, “resource first” has deep political roots and shallow scientific roots.

In the deer debate it was a natural to ask “which resource first”. The proponents would argue the deer must die to save our forests. That sounds like the forests are the real resource we are considering first, not the well-being of wildlife. Of course, the logical mind would state we should be doing habitat improvements so we can have both, healthy wildlife and healthy forests. That concept fell on deaf ears.

Now the Fish Commission has announced the “resource first” game plan for our stocked trout streams. Tim Schaffer has let it be known that any stream that has even marginal natural reproduction of trout will be cut from the stocking lists. Of course, everyone knows our stocking program is the financial backbone of the Fish Commission, as it is in many states. Obviously, the demise of the stocking program will have the same effect as killing the deer; a rapid decline in license sales and the financial well-being of the PFBC.

A few months ago, our Fish Commissioners fired PFBC Executive Director Doug Austen for this precise agenda, but Governor Rendell intervened. My sources tell me, if the PFBC proceeds with this agenda, he will be fired again. I smell a showdown on the horizon.

While all of this is playing out, our House Game and Fisheries Committee is ahead of the curve. Recently, the Committee passed unanimously HB2381. The prime sponsor of this bill was SR Mike Hanna, but he had enthusiastic, bipartisan support. This legislation eliminates former PGC WCO’s and/or former PGC employees from becoming PGC Game Commissioners. It also requires the PGC to manage wildlife scientifically with “equal regard” for the social, recreational and economic impacts. Bingo.

With Tim Schaffer floating “resource first” in the legislature, HGFC Chairman Ed Staback sponsored and put forth in Committee HB2672. It passed unanimously. It is essentially the same as HB2381 without the Commissioner language. The Fish Commission may soon be required to utilize “best management practices” and manage fisheries scientifically with equal regard for social, recreational and economic impacts. These two pieces of legislation are almost as powerful as rewriting the mission statements for both agencies.

At this point I must tell you that our House of Representatives get it. I can not speak for our other contentious issues, but in the arena of game and fisheries the level of bipartisan understanding and cooperation is at an all time high in my ten years of tracking them. Chairman Ed Staback has been terrific and Minority Chairman Sam Rohrer has put common sense before politics, something we expect, but seldom receive from the legislature in general. So far, we have a House that is working. I wish I could say the same for the Senate.

An issue that is completely undiscussed in all of this madness is the resource of revenue. The PGC and PFBC are very good at putting their hand out for more revenue, but their actions speak differently. One can conclude from their actions that license sales are of little concern to both agencies, but fulfilling a political agenda has taken hold at any cost. There is no other excuse for the demise of our deer herd and this new, “resource first” trout stocking philosophy.

When it comes to deciding which resource comes first, obviously both agencies have become terribly confused.

Jim Slinsky is the host and producer of the “Outdoor Talk Network”, a nationally syndicated, outdoor-talk radio program. For a station near you or to contact Jim, visit his website at www.outdoortalknetwork.com.

Return To:Newspapers Columns

OUTDOOR TALK NETWORK
11 Dogwood Drive
Jim Thorpe, PA 18229
Tel. 570-325-5560