ShareThis Page

Game commissioners come out in opposition to merger

| Monday, May 20, 2013, 6:30 p.m.

HARRISBURG — It's official: The state legislature is once again going to explore the idea of merging the Pennsylvania Game and Fish and Boat commissions.

But game commissioners don't like it, as they made clear at their work group meeting in Harrisburg on Monday.

The state House of Representatives, by a 197-0 vote, last week voted to adopt House Resolution 129. Sponsored by Potter County Republican Martin Causer, the chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, it directs the legislative budget and finance committee to “investigate the financial feasibility, impact, costs and savings potential of eliminating duplicated duties and services by combining the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to create a new independent agency responsible for managing the fish and wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.”

Pennsylvania is the only state with separate fish and wildlife agencies.

Game commissioners Monday, though, said they want to remain independent and adopted a resolution of their own, “reaffirming” their commitment to the idea.

It wasn't easy. Board members wrangled for the better part of an hour over the exact wording of the resolution and over to whom to send it.

Executive director Carl Roe suggested sending it to the General Assembly at large and to Gov. Tom Corbett's administration since all would be involved in “the final process of any merger.”

The board ultimately decided to send its resolution first to the chairman of the House and Senate game and fisheries committees. Things will take of themselves form there, some said.

“I think the word will get out. The point is, we're opposed to it,” said commissioner Ron Weaner of Adams County.

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat commissioners adopted a similar anti-merger resolution of their own in April.

Bob Frye is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @bobfryeoutdoors.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.