04/22/24 - 117 New Stories - REAL Environmental & Conservation Leadership In PA: http://tinyurl.com/9bh4zbtr
| Share this: | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report Critical Of Game Commission Program For Managing Timber, Gas, Mineral Leases
|
|
The Joint Legislative Budget and Finance Committee issued a report on the system used by the Game Commission to generate revenues from timber, natural gas and mineral leases because the agency lacks up-to-date management plans for two-thirds or more of its lands.
The report also found the current hiring freeze and lack of resources within the Game Commission has held it back from developing these resources.
The study was conducted by the School of Forest Resource, Pennsylvania State University as a result of House Resolution 193 (2207).
“I have to say that I was disappointed in the report, and we have major concerns with the report,” Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe said. “At the beginning of the process, I asked that two things be taken into consideration as this audit was being conducted. The first was to keep in mind that, at all times, we produce habitat first; forestry is a by-product of that operation and is not the primary mission of this agency. Every part of the evaluation has to be taken in the habitat context and not a forestry model.
“Second, we asked that this not be an academic exercise, but that the team would understand our situation and produce a report that takes into the context the real world environment we are operating in. We are a wildlife agency; we are not the forestry division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources or the U.S. Forest Service. Unfortunately, I believe the report failed to take into consideration the two concerns we raised.”
Roe continued: “As I stressed to the team, the Game Commission operates under a habitat enhancement model; not a forestry model. If I may give some examples as to a habitat approach compared to a forestry one. First, suppose we have growing on our State Game Lands an oak stand that is 125 years old. Under the forestry model, this stand is at its primary value and should be harvested. For the Game Commission, operating under a model which emphasizes maximizing habitat for wildlife, if that oak stand provides hard mast for wildlife living in the area, then we will likely let it remain untouched for the next 50 years.
“The second example is that if we have a State Game Land that is surrounded by either state forest or commercial forest. A forestry model would mandate an attempt to maximize regeneration in order to increase the commercial value of the forest. However, using a model which focuses on habitat, we would attempt to create a landscape that is 90 percent early successional forest or grass lands, so as to provide a diversity of food and cover for the wildlife in the surrounding area.
“I believe these cases are anathemas to a forestry model because we strive to create habitat which benefits wildlife. Unfortunately, in creating the report, the team based its recommendations and findings upon an analysis which is based upon the forestry model, not the habitat model under which we operate.
“We also were disappointed with the report’s examination of our oil, gas and mineral program as the analysis is superficial at best. To come up with an outlandish figure of $1 billion for the specified State Game Lands is beyond comprehension. If you use the data presented by the report, it rightly states that we only own 24 percent of the gas rights in the northeast region of the state.
“Nonetheless, the report includes projections that we could realize revenue in excess of $1 billion dollars, based upon assumptions that we own all of the mineral rights, an assumption that the report itself noted is false. The revenue projection also failed to take into account market factors and environmental concerns and limitations. To include such outlandish projections has no basis in the real-world limitations under which we operate.
“I believe the quickest way to summarize our concerns was that we anticipated a report that was going to attempt to answer the question of whether we doing everything we can based on our current resources to maximize our programs. We all know we could do more with more resources and clearly the report points out things we can do with more resources. But are we doing what we can with what we have? I will offer that we are exceeding standards in our wildlife habitat approach to both timber and OGM with the resources we have."
A full copy of the report is available online. An executive summary is also available.
Sen. John Pippy (R-Allegheny) services as Chair and Rep. David Levdansky (D-Allegheny) serves as Treasurer of the Committee.
|
|
2/19/2010 |
| Go To Preceding Article Go To Next Article |
