UNIFIED SPORTSMEN OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 10, 2006

To: Members of the Senate and House Game and Fisheries Committees
From: The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania
Subject: Hunting License Increase Proposal

Dear Senators and Representatives,

Our level of concerns with the policies and direction of the PA Game Commission (PGC) have no parallel in the 100 + year old history of the PGC, yet we are willing and dedicated to defend it’s independency and help solve it’s financial difficulties. We recognize that to do this rests on the decisions that will come forth from the Pennsylvania General Assembly. We hope and pray that your final decisions will respect the needs of the one-million sportsmen of the Commonwealth in a careful and non-political process of deliberation. To contest the values of hunting shared by the sporting community for decades would be neglectful, yet to defend them would be deeply appreciated.

The value of hunting is not only about hunting per se, but also includes items directly attributed to the administration of the PGC. Like most all responsibilities falling under the umbrella of legislative authority, strong leadership from both the Senate and House Game and Fisheries Committees is essential more so now than ever.

The attached Hunting License Increase Proposal would grant the PGC a moderate and fair funding increase. In addition this proposal addresses legislative suggestions designed to initiate curative action that would directly influence many of the concerns that sportsmen share.

The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania stands ready to defend this proposal and to also assist you in your forthcoming deliberations.

Sincerely,
N. Charles Bolgiano, Legislative Director
William J. Miller, President
Gregory D. Levengood, Chairman of the Board

HUNTING LICENSE INCREASE PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION

In early 2006, Representative Bruce Smith, Chairman of Pennsylvania’s House Game & Fisheries Committee (HG&FC) began a program to provide the PA Game Commission (PGC) with a Hunting License Increase (HLI). Chairman Smith called upon a few preferential sportsmen’s groups (a Coalition) to study and recommend what action the HG&FC should take. As a result, Reps. Smith and McNaughton introduced three bills on April 3, 2006, namely HB 2600, HB 2601 and HB 2602. Subsequently (6-08-06) a HG&FC hearing was held to take testimony from sportsmen’s groups supporting the legislation. While the groups supported funding the PGC along the lines of HB 2600 and HB 2601, they objected to HB 2602. Support indicated that HB 2601 had merit which comprised a package of increases totaling a 79 percent HLI. The members of the HG&FC did not express hope that such an increase was appropriate at the time.

Unfortunately, the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania (USP), the state’s second largest sportsmen’s organization was denied the opportunity to either participate in the Coalition’s study or to testify at the hearing. The decision to not allow the USP to participate was based on the Committee Chairman’s opinion that since the USP had litigation pending against the PGC, the USP should not be part of the process. On the day prior to the hearing, several HG&FC members, including the Chairman received a letter from the USP informing them that the USP was conducting a statewide hunting license survey and that the results revealed that about 60 percent of responders would not support any license increase. The survey results also showed that many hunters that would support an increase would only do so under the condition that more game would be made available to hunt.* No other survey was reported to have been carried out by Coalition groups during the hearing. The history of the USP since its founding in 1983 has included the conducting of numerous surveys to obtain sportsmen’s opinions as a matter of policy. The results of all prior surveys were conveyed to the HG&FC.
*NOTE- This detail is worth noting since the Board of Directors and the Officers of the Unified Sportsmen will not support a HLI unless the PGC provides more game to hunt.

The position of the USP on a HLI is that the PGC be adequately funded in order to meet legislatively mandated obligations as an independent state agency. In doing so, recommendations for a HLI should provide for both continued agency independence and stem the loss of sportsmen’s support for the agency. Neither HB 2600 nor HB 2601 achieves both of these objectives. It is further recommended that the members of the HG&FC provide changes in protocol aimed at exercising Committee oversight over some agency activities in order to restore the lost confidence that sportsmen have in the PGC.

Following the 6-08-06 hearing, a letter was sent from the USP to several HG&FC members objecting to the Chairman’s decision not to allow the USP to testify with the objective based on delivering the survey results to the HG&FC, which results were germane and appropriate to the hearing. Forthcoming was a request from Representative Gordon Denlinger for the USP to produce a formal HLI proposal. The objective of this letter is to comply with that request.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS FOR RECOMMENDING A HLI

In 1997 the USP conducted a hunting license increase survey of sportsmen. The survey results were presented to the HG&FC and as a member of a Coalition of sportsmen’s groups the USP suggested that an increase to $20.00 be adopted. Members of the Coalition agreed with the suggestion and subsequently the PGC was granted an increase to $20.00 by the PA Legislature commencing with the year 1999.

The current HLI proposal by the USP is largely predicated on the USP 2006 hunting license increase survey results including the many comments received from the survey responders including those comments that oppose any increase and those that support an increase. Overall about 60 percent of the responders said that they will not support any increase. Many of those that stated that they are willing to pay more for a hunting license also stated that they will only do so if there was more game to hunt. The results showed that the vast majority of responders want a change in how deer are managed and seasons set. As a result of hunter feedback through the survey, any increase that approached the proposal of HB 2601 (79%) will likely compound the rate of hunter loss from the sport of hunting and hasten a continuing deficit spending by the PGC. Hopefully our proposal, which contains significant changes in deer management and seasons will have more appeal to hunters (than HB 2601) and yet provide the PGC with some needed new revenue.

In this proposal for a new hunting license increase the USP in recognition of its interest for the concerns of the many sportsmen of the Commonwealth and the welfare of the PGC suggests that several conditions aside from the proposal be adopted and mandated by curative legislation.

Habitat
A sustainable timber harvest of one percent of timber resources be realized on a yearly basis by the PGC.

Deer Population
A sustainable, accurate and verifiable harvest of a minimum of 150,000 antlered deer be reached by the year 2010.

Wildlife Management
The Bureau of Wildlife Management of the PGC be reorganized into a Bureau of Game Species funded exclusively by sportsmen and a Bureau of Non-Game Species funded by general revenue funding. We strongly suggest that the Legislature explore the possibility of dedicating a small portion of the state’s sales tax revenue amounting to approximately one-sixteenth of one percent to finance non-game wildlife.

Communications
The PGC will operate in such manner to reassure sportsmen that it’s operations and obligations are directed to serve the best interest of sportsmen, the wildlife resource and game lands.

PADMWG Recommendations
The recommendations of the PA Deer Management Working Group be re-visited by the Legislature and portions thereof codified ( see ADDENDUM below).

DCNR INFLUENCE
The continuing influence of DCNR threatens the independence of the PGC. It is recommended that DCNR be removed from PGC decision making processes including deer management and the selection of new commissioners.

PREDATOR CONTROL
The PGC has permitted large predators populations to increase dramatically. Predator populations need urgent control as they have become a pandemic to wildlife health and a threat to the peace and tranquility of residents living in rural areas of Pennsylvania. Placing a bounty on mountain lions, wolf-coyote hybrids and coyotes would solve the overabundance of large predators. A public hearing should be held by the legislature on large animal predators.

UNIFIED SPORTSMEN’S HUNTING LICENSE INCREASE PROPOSAL

The USP recommends that a $30.00 hunting license consisting of one antlered tag and one antlerless tag be adopted. Each hunter will receive his or her antlerless tag as part of the general license at the time and location of his or her license purchase. The current lottery system of mailing for antlerless tags will be eliminated in its entirety. The following parameters would also apply.

a) No hunter in Pennsylvania would be permitted to harvest more than one antlerless deer per season. No exceptions would be permitted except for the provisions listed in item (d) below. Antlerless tags can be used on public lands during archery season, early muzzleloader season and the late flintlock season.

b) Return to the old system of an antlerless season following a two week rifle season for antlered deer only. Since every hunter would possess one antlerless tag , antlerless season on all public lands would be regulated by days ( 0, 1, 2 or 3) to achieve harvest goals recommended by CTFs (Citizens Task Forces – see Addendum) in each WMU. The length of the antlerless season shall be set by determining the carrying capacity of each WMU and the current deer population of each WMU.

c) The antlerless tag may be used only on private land during the two week buck season , the archery season , the early muzzleloader season and the late flintlock season.

d) A properly licensed hunter is permitted to only harvest two deer per season except in Special Regulation Areas and on private property which is permitted to operate under a Private Land Deer Management Assistance Program.

e) A $10.00 annual pheasant stamp with funds dedicated to pheasant habitat, rearing and release. The pheasant stamp requirement shall not apply to Junior License Holders or to Seniors License holders.

f) A turkey stamp is not recommended as no additional license monies are required for the propagation (rearing and releasing) of turkeys.

A healthy pheasant program is imperative to maintaining an independent, financially stable agency. The agency needs more than just a major deer program to maintain stability in hunter numbers. It should not be solely dependent upon one element (deer) as it is today. A vigorous, energetic pheasant/small game program can again be the most productive element in enticing our youth into the sport of hunting.

We older hunters can accept limited success in the field. We’ve learned to appreciate the beauty of the world surrounding us and the true essence of the hunt. Young hunters and new hunters require frequent game sightings to sustain their interest in the sport of hunting. They require successful days in the field. These will become their future tales to tell their offspring and perpetuate our traditions. Small game habitat is critical to the future of hunting. Small game is simply the stage upon which we teach our young hunters how to act. Deer hunting is an endeavor which young hunters mature into at some time in their future. Deer are not the best introductory species into the world of hunting.

g) A resident Bear Hunting License increase from $16.00 to $20.00

h) A nonresident Bear Hunting License increase from $35.00 to $40.00

i) A nonresident adult hunting license that conforms to the reciprocal cost of the applicants home state.

j) A resident and nonresident adult muzzleloader license increase of $15.00 to $20.00 for residents and $25.00 to $30.00 for nonresidents.

k) A resident and nonresident adult archery license increase of $15.00 to $20.00 for residents and $25.00 to $30.00 for nonresidents.

l) The use of rifles during the early Muzzleloader season shall cease to be an option.

m) All other permits, resident and nonresident, except for Juniors and Military shall increase by 25% for residents and 35% for nonresidents.

ADDENDUM

The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania being the first group in the state to recognize and promote special youth hunting opportunities realize that successful youth hunting opportunities must be met with adequate game to hunt. According to the USP Hunting License Increase Survey, nearly 100 percent of responders suggested:

a) Game Lands should be managed for more abundant game.

b) Hunting for deer in the Commonwealth is POOR ( the lowest rating on a scale of 1 – 5 with 5 being the best). The USP Hunting License Increase Proposal is geared to both increase the number of deer on game lands and to provide more pheasants, both of which are responsible, justifiable and critical objectives.

In January 1999 the Pa Deer Management Working Group (PDMWG), created in 1997 by the PGC presented its recommendations to the PGC. The recommendations had the unanimous support of the sportsmen’s and environmental organizations that were members of the PDMWG. The highest priority item in the recommendations was that Citizen Task Forces (CTFs) be established in all counties in order to make recommendations on deer management. The next priority item was that smaller deer management units be established to better manage deer as the current 22 Wildlife Management Units (WMU) were too large to effectively manage the deer resource.

The PGC recently initiated the Citizen Advisory Council (CAC) system for making deer population recommendations for WMUs. There is a fundamentally large difference between CTFs and CACs that should be addressed. The history of CTFs has proven to be useful especially in New York State. It is a New York State approved process wherein members of a CTF are appointed by county officials rather than one select group of individuals (as is the current practice) in Pennsylvania who appoint CAC members for each and every WMU. County officials know their people and select capable and caring individuals to serve their own area rather than have an outside group make that decision for them. The Unified Sportsmen recommend that CTFs be implemented in each county within the next two years. The process should be adopted by the Pa Legislature with the option of sunsetting it after ten years.

A third high priority item of the PDMWG was to give greater recognition to the management of deer on all private lands. The PGC reacted to this recommendation by establishing the Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) that also included all public lands including DCNR holdings. While it is the objective of the PGC to manage game lands for wildlife, it is the objective of DCNR to manage their lands for timber. DCNR management plans include removing all deer from lands that are scheduled for reforestation. Therein lies a major conflict pitting land use management objectives against hunting opportunities, a conflict that resides within DCNR. A codified initiative should be adopted by the Pa Legislature giving sportsmen rights to hunt and trap on all eligible public lands of the Commonwealth. Within that initiative, the DMAP program should be restricted to private lands only as the PDMWG recommended. The option to remove all deer from selected public lands is unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate that the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania recognize the PGC’s need for additional revenue. However, it has become glaringly apparent through direct communications from our members that the sporting class of Pennsylvania is deeply concerned about the current policies of the PGC and their unacceptable direction. It is with this deep concern that the Directors and Officers of the Unified Sportsmen of PA put forth the above recommendations. We truly wish for the PGC to continue on in history as an independent wildlife agency is a financially solvent status. We also wish for the PGC to address their obvious deficiencies that threaten the future of our grand tradition of hunting.