ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, January 5, 1997 TAG: 9701060100
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C-10 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Outdoors
SOURCE: BILL COCHRAN
What do native brook trout streams and commercial menhaden fishing have in common?
Not much, but a General Assembly-directed study recommends the consolidation of the state agencies that manage these diverse resources, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
Board members of the game department don't like the idea one bit. The same reaction can be expected from hunters and anglers who don't want to see the game department lose its autonomy as the agency created to serve a sport-hunting and freshwater-fishing constituency.
The concept has been tried before, but without success. One of the most notable efforts was by the Hopkins Commission in the 1970s, when sportsmen by the hundreds turned out to stand up for the game department.
``How many times do we have to fight this battle?'' asked Charles McDaniel, a Fredericksburg resident and the chairman of the game department board.
The consolidating agenda comes in a report from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, which was directed by the General Assembly to determine the feasibility of merging the two agencies.
``Our findings indicate that a consolidation of DGIF and VMRC is feasible, and a number of positive benefits would accrue to the state as a result,'' said Philip Leone, director of the commission.
J. Granger Macfarlane, a game board member from Roanoke and former state senator, said the game department has one a laudable job for 80 years. He called the commission's findings ``a report that was destined to fulfill a self-fulfilling prophecy'' of broadening the base of the game department. Macfarlane predicted problems in a marriage of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, an agency he described as ``self-funded and financially sound,'' with one that is neither, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
``Everything I read in this report is cutting the hunter and fisherman short,'' McDaniel said. ``I can't understand how you can merge an agency that is funded by the users with an agency funded by the General Assembly.''
Leone acknowledged ``the argument for consolidation is not clear-cut,'' but stated, ``the principal benefit from such a merger is a unified approach to managing the Commonwealth's wildlife resources. Trends suggest that the responsibilities of the agencies have become increasingly similar.''
The benefits, according to the report, include better coordination of law enforcement by the two agencies; less confusion from the public over whom to contact on fishery and law enforcement issues; and better protection of submerged bottomlands in the western part of the state.
The report cites the merger of four agencies that formed the Department of Environmental Quality as a model, but Macfarlane called that arrangement ``a disaster.''
Richard Corrigan, a game board member from Arlington, asked: ``What's really driving this? Was it corruption? Was it because we are squandering money here? What is the problem it addresses?''
Leone's answer was that the General Assembly had requested the merger.
The report states the game department is doing a good job, that its constituency is happy with its work and that the merger is unlikely to yield significant cost savings.
That alone should make it a hard sell.
LENGTH: Medium: 64 linesby CNB