License fee increase

Seems even though pgc is raking in dough hand over fist from the gas funding and other, they are once again begging for money. This time their "man" senator Mcilhinny, doing their bidding again via senate bill 1046.


Seeing as their is very little support from other legislators or hunters, i dont suspect it will go anywhere, but worth keeping an eye on i guess.


PRINTER'S NO. 1182

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA


SENATE BILL


No.
1046
Session of

2011



INTRODUCED BY McILHINNEY AND MENSCH, MAY 6, 2011


REFERRED TO GAME AND FISHERIES, MAY 6, 2011



AN ACT


1
Amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated

2
Statutes, further providing for resident license and fee

3
exemptions and for license costs and fees.

4
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

5
hereby enacts as follows:

6
Section 1. Sections 2706(f)(1) and (g)(1) and 2709(a) of

7
Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes are amended

8
to read:

9
§ 2706. Resident license and fee exemptions.

10
* * *

11
(f) Pennsylvania National Guard hunting licenses.--

12
(1) Pennsylvania National Guard hunting licenses shall

13
be issued by the commission or county treasurer to any person

14
otherwise eligible for a resident hunting license in this

15
Commonwealth who provides documentation that within the

16
previous 24 months the person was deployed overseas as a

17
member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard or Air

18
National Guard on active Federal service for a period of

19
[180] 60 consecutive days or more or was released early from


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1
such service because of an injury or disease incurred in the

2
line of duty. Only one Pennsylvania National Guard hunting

3
license under this subsection may be issued for each

4
qualifying deployment of a person applying for the license.

5
* * *

6
(g) Reserve component of armed forces hunting licenses.--

7
(1) Reserve component of the armed forces hunting

8
licenses shall be issued by the commission or county

9
treasurer to any person otherwise eligible for a resident

10
hunting license in this Commonwealth who provides

11
documentation that within the previous 24 months the person

12
was deployed overseas as a member of the reserve component of

13
the armed forces pursuant to 51 Pa.C.S. § 7301 (relating to

14
definitions) for a period of [180] 60 consecutive days or

15
more or was released early from service because of an injury

16
or disease incurred in the line of duty. Only one hunting

17
license under this subsection may be issued for each

18
qualifying deployment of a person applying for the license.

19
* * *

20
§ 2709. License costs and fees.

21
(a) License costs.--Any person who qualifies under the

22
provisions of this chapter shall be issued the applicable

23
license upon payment of the following costs and the issuing

24
agent's fee:

25
(1) (i) Junior resident hunting - $5.

26
(ii) Junior resident combination hunting and

27
furtaker - $8.

28
(2) (i) Adult resident hunting - $19 for the period

29
ending before July 1, 2011.

30
(ii) Adult resident hunting - $25 for the period

20110SB1046PN1182
- 2 -



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1
beginning after June 30, 2011, and ending before July 1,

2
2014.

3
(iii) Adult resident hunting - $30 for the period

4
beginning after June 30, 2014, and ending before July 1,

5
2017.

6
(iv) Adult resident hunting - $35 for the period

7
beginning after June 30, 2017, and thereafter.

8
[(ii)] (v) Resident military personnel hunting - $1.

9
[(iii)] (vi) Former prisoner of war hunting - $1.

10
[(iv)] (vii) Pennsylvania National Guard hunting -

11
$1.

12
[(v)] (viii) Reserve component of the armed forces

13
hunting - $1.

14
(3) (i) Senior resident hunting - $12.

15
(ii) Senior lifetime resident hunting - $50.

16
(iii) Senior lifetime resident combination hunting

17
and furtaker - $100.

18
(4) Bear hunting:

19
(i) Resident - $15.

20
(ii) Nonresident - $35.

21
(5) Antlerless deer:

22
(i) Resident, including resident military, resident

23
disabled veteran and landowner - $5 for the period ending

24
before July 1, 2011.

25
(ii) Resident, including resident military, resident

26
disabled veteran and landowner - $12 for the period

27
beginning after June 30, 2011, and ending before July 1,

28
2017.

29
(iii) Resident, including resident military,

30
resident disabled veteran and landowner - $15 for the

20110SB1046PN1182
- 3 -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1
period beginning after June 30, 2017, and thereafter.

2
[(ii)] (iv) Nonresident - $25.

3
(6) Archery deer:

4
(i) Resident - $15.

5
(ii) Nonresident - $25.

6
(7) Muzzleloader deer:

7
(i) Resident - $10.

8
(ii) Nonresident - $20.

9
(8) (Reserved).

10
(9) Adult nonresident hunting - [$100] $150.

11
(10) (i) Junior nonresident hunting - [$40] $5.

12
(ii) Junior nonresident combination hunting and

13
furtaker - [$50] $8.

14
(11) Seven-day nonresident small game - $30.

15
(12) Junior resident furtakers - $5.

16
(13) Adult resident furtakers - $19.

17
(14) (i) Senior resident furtakers - $12.

18
(ii) Senior lifetime resident furtaker - $50.

19
(15) Adult nonresident furtaker - $80.

20
(16) Junior nonresident furtaker - $40.

21
(17) Resident disabled veteran hunting or furtaker under

22
section 2706(b) (relating to disabled veterans) - no cost.

23
(18) Replacement license - $5. Antlerless deer and bear

24
licenses shall be replaced by the original issuing agent

25
only.

26
(19) Owners or possessors of land open to public hunting

27
under section 2706(d) (relating to owners or possessors of

28
land open to public hunting) - $3.

29
(20) Migratory game bird hunting license:

30
(i) Resident - [$2] $5.

20110SB1046PN1182
- 4 -



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1
(ii) Nonresident - $5.

2
(21) Elk hunting license:

3
(i) Resident - $25.

4
(ii) Nonresident - $250.

5
(22) Special wild turkey license:

6
(i) Resident - $20.

7
(ii) Nonresident - $40.

8
(23) (i) Adult resident combination hunting, furtaker,

9
archery and muzzleloader license - $67 for the period

10
beginning after June 30, 2011, and ending before July 1,

11
2015.

12
(ii) Adult resident combination hunting, furtaker,

13
archery and muzzleloader license - $72 for the period

14
beginning after June 30, 2014, and ending before July 1,

15
2017.

16
(iii) Adult resident combination hunting, furtaker,

17
archery and muzzleloader license - $77 for the period

18
beginning after June 30, 2017, and thereafter.

19
* * *

20
Section 2. This act shall take effect as follows:

21
(1) The amendment of 34 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(9), (10) and

22
(20) shall take effect July 1, 2011.

23
(2) The remainder of this act shall take effect

24
immediately.

20110SB1046PN1182
- 5 -

I agree. I say the exact same thing every time pgc begs for more money.

I'll quit when and if i ever want to quit, and wont need your invite to do so. It will most likely occur when they throw me into a hole and cover it with dirt.

But an increase to me personally on the individual level isnt at all worrisome. I can afford to and would pay more if need be whether i liked it or not if i want to hunt. But thing is, i can, and have given my input on the issue. Sportsmen can choose to support or not support legislation that effects them. Even though things are pretty anal in Pa these days with how things work, this still isnt "quite" a dictatorship where noone should give any input or have any say about anything.

What i dont like is more cash funding things to the detriment of we sportsmen. Thats exactly why they havent already been granted a fee increase by the usual route, so their "political muscle" is trying to get it done by circumventing the system as it was set up.

Also, you can point to the fact they havent gotten a fee increase in years, yet you may not (or may) realize a few things that make that inconsequential. 1st, the fact they are already one of if not THEE highest funding wildlife agency in the nation, 2nd, they have OTHER forms of funding and more of it rolling in that they DIDNT have in 1999 (heck they got 18,000,000 in ONE gas deal alone!), and 3rd....Their reserve fund that they would have to "dip" out of when in financial trouble, is NOT being reduced, and is actually GROWING!

So what on earth would lead you to believe they need more money, or deserve it just to use it against those of us who'd actually be paying it?

Or is "they havent gotten a fee increase since 1999" the beginning, middle and end of your argument?

If you support giving more, there is a donation button on the pgc site. Im sure it doesnt get "overworked" and probably still works. Put your money where you mouth is and use it, and anyone else who'd like to can do the same, and its a respectable thing to support what you believe in. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

All depends on what ones thoughts are on the expensive deer plan i guess. Because keeping it in place and pr for it is sucking up a rather large chunk of change and will be even moreso into the future. Thats what i was referring to. If you think that is a "beneficial" thing for we hunters, then i guess you are entitled to a differing opinion.

We now have Open houses on a regular basis and they were brought about because of the deer plan, as well as other "presentations" held in the last several years. We have habitat tours geared towards helping us accept whats best for us. We have Hiring of human dimensions specialist that will be a part of the "pr" team which was a direct result of the high level of hunter dis-satisfaction. Then we have the fact that even though some pgc "insiders" have argued its too expensive to require EVERYONE to report whether a harvest was made or not to improve accuracy.....It wasnt too expensive to print up several flyers on deer plan. We have umpteen pamplets that were printed and regularly distributed on deer management which werent cheap.

There were polls taken to try to support the plan and minimize hunter dissatisfaction by paid third party. We also have director of education and otherstaff spending alot of time "educating" folks on the pros of the deer plan through various venues. We also have new environmentalist school programs that have large segments on deer and effects to habitat. And we have Pgc h'burg lobbyists/legislative liasons that are paid to discuss issues with our legislators and many of those paid hours the last 10 years have been in regard to pushing the deer plan. How many hours has carl roe and others spent defending the deer plan at house & senate hearings etc?

And im sure im not aware of everything, and probably leaving some out as well, but these things are just some of the PR aspects. I also heard it through the ol' grape vine that these efforts will be multiplied into the future, and have little reason to doubt it. General public polls etc. are being planned as we speak to try to manufacture support for the "plan".

Remember, just about NONE of these costs were necessary prior to the controversial plan. They didnt need to exert the effort to "sell" everyone a normal, routine, run of the mill deer plan.

Course you are right, that the huge lions share of the costs are in the implementing and maintaining of the plan itself. I dont think im going out on a limb by saying that our plan is probably the most expensive in the nation. Since not another is "habitat based" and having the complexity that brings with it.


Btw, i also read a discussion on another board where someone claimed that there are paid pgc personell who "work" a couple of the message boards on the clock. Not sure if its true or not, but at least one wco addressed the statement, and did not confirm it, but also did not deny it. HE had every chance to deny it flatly, but instead told the poster Something like "You dont know that, there is no way you could know if that is true or not".

Would be curious as to if that were indeed true. Not sure it would be in pgcs best interest to divulge though. Until confirmed with certainty, i wouldnt pass it off as true, just something of interest. And im not gonna hold my breath sitting around and wait for an honest answer to that question either.

NO REASON FOR YOU TO WAIT


And if there is not a denomination large enough specified to meet your needs, please feel free to fill in the "other" field.

The main reason I am against the fee increase is that I don't think the PGC should be rewarded for lying about the need for statewide HR and ARs. I doubt that the PGC would have reduced the length of the antlerless season in any WMU if they had got their fee increase when they ask for it. The 2011 antlerless allocations show beyond a doubt that they don't give a darn about the future of deer hunting and that they couldn't care less about recruiting new hunters.

I still buy my license regardless, put this will drive more hunters away, which will just cause more $$ troubles


lose-lose situation

I still buy my license regardless, put this will drive more hunters away, which will just cause more $$ troubles


lose-lose situation

If we look past the potential possibilities of the gas funding which is just starting to be realized for a minute, that aside, its only reasonable to expect that sooner or later they wouldve or may in the future NEED a fee increase. And they also need to realize that they need to have a much better relationship with those to whom they approach with their hands out.

Problem is, they dont care about a better relationship, and they dont want to rely on us for money any longer, what they want is to have alternate forms of funding so they can just circumvent us all together, but of course not turning down the license funding that remains either.

Thats the type of agency we are dealing with. They arent currently our "friends" by any stretch of the imagination, and that really is ashame, because so much more could be accomplished if a better relationship existed. With all the lands we now have access to, if better management of the most popular game species were ongoing, and more intensive lands management for that and other popular species on top of it, I have no doubt we could be one of the very best hunting states in the nation with our potential for funding pgc etc. if those things were indeed a higher priority.

Alot of states only wish they had the funding totals pgc has available to them RIGHT NOW.

Personally, I'd rather them scale back the push for gas money and hold that in reserve if needed. Maybe the tech. to extract will get better, causing less damage, and the gas will always be there and the cost of the gas will never be lower than what it currently is. For now, only lease lands that are adjacent to property that is already being drilled since the gas will be getting tapped anyhow.

Still say, time for a modest increase in the license fees. PA residents would still be getting a great bargain even after the license fee increases compared to many other states. Going on 12 or so years now without a license increase and what has happened to the cost of fuel, vehicles, salaries and benefits since then, not to mention decreasing hunter numbers?

Four reasons not to be in favor of increased license fees.

1. They currently have a budget that is at or near an all time high without a increase as a result of other funding sources.

2. They currently have a budget surplus that is at an all time high. $39,000,000 surplus plus another $7,000,000 for land purchase at the end of last year. That is not a sign of an agency facing hard times.

3. They told the leglislature that if approved they want to use a portion on the increase to allow their WCO's and certain other employees to retire with full benefits after 20 years of service. Hard to imagine how that is going to improve our wildlife.

4. They are using current funding to hire 14 non-game biologists while holding hunting related issues hostage by claiming they have no money to persue them.

The PGC has become too fat and needs to be reduced. What a waste !