|
|
|
House
Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee Reports Reports
provided by PA Legislative Services Info meeting on HB 2878 re REAP By Nate Collins, PLS The Committee held an
informational meeting on HB 2878 Stern - (PN 4496), the Resource Enhancement
and Protection Tax Credit Program, which would be established to encourage
private investment in the implementation of best management practices on
agricultural lands, planting of riparian forest buffers and remediation of
legacy sediment. The bill provides for best management practices, a
sponsorship program, the transferability of tax credits, and the various
powers and duties imposed on the Department of Revenue and the State
Conservation Commission. Members in attendance included:
Chairman Arthur Hershey (R-Chester) and Representatives Rich Grucela (D-Northampton), Adam Harris (R-Juniata), David Hickernell (R-Lancaster), Babette
Josephs (D-Philadelphia), Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin), Mark Keller (R-Perry),
Sheila Miller (R-Berks), Kathy Rapp (R-Warren) and Jerry Stern (R-Blair). Rep. Stern, sponsor of the
legislation, stated farmers use best management practices, but there is
documented unmet demand for resources to pay for best practices. HB 2878,
which creates the Resource Enhancement and Protection Tax Credit Program
(REAP), is innovative and can help farmers pay for implementation of best
practices. He noted that he has heard concerns about the amount of money
required to implement the bill and he looks forward
to hearing on that issue from those testifying. Matthew Ehrhart,
Pennsylvania Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), said
his organization believes the healthy future of our agricultural industry is
critical to the future of the Producers could use the tax
credits to reduce their own taxes, dollar for dollar. Producers could sell unused tax
credits on the open market to any taxpayer. Producers could participate
through the sponsorship program, which would enable Pennsylvania-based
businesses to partner with local producers to finance environmental projects
and in turn receive a tax credit instead of the producer. Karl Brown, Executive Secretary of
the State Conservation Commission, stated Joel Rotz,
State Governmental Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, told
the committee that neither the Farm Bureau nor the State Grange currently
have formal policy related specifically to the REAP initiative. He noted that
the Farm Bureau has been at the table throughout the Chesapeake Bay Tributary
Strategy's development, and it supports the concept of a voluntary,
market-driven nutrient and sediment-trading program. REAP appears to be an
innovative approach in helping Pennsylvania's farm families economically
manage the additional costs they will incur in implementing environmental
improvements on their farms, he commented. He added that it is doubtful that
there will be long lines of farmers signing up for REAP because most farmers
do not have large state tax liabilities to offset with the proposed tax
credit offered through the program. REAP will provide an opportunity for
farmers to partner with a business who can better utilize the tax credit, he
said, adding that this holds some promise for farmers to generate cash they
need to implement qualifying projects. He explained that partnering could
occur in the form of the farmer selling his tax credit to another taxpayer. Rotz noted that if a farmer is seeking the tax credit for
himself, he would need to seek financing for the total cost of the project,
implement the project and then wait for approval of the tax credit before
receiving any financial assistance. The same holds true if the farmer would
want to sell the tax credit to another taxpayer, he added. "These two
approaches are obviously not as attractive to a cash strapped farmer seeking
creative financing for these types of projects," he remarked. Another
possible advantage of REAP would be the ability to reach farmers who do not
normally support receiving government assistance payments, he offered. It
would appear the success or failure of REAP will largely depend on the
participation of other businesses such as integrators and related
agribusiness, Rotz concluded. Walt Peechatka, Executive Vice President of PennAg Industries Association, remarked that anything the
State does with regard to conservation is positive. However, he expressed
concern with certain shortcomings of the legislation. He noted that the tax
credit would apply to 75% of the cost of a project but does not say if some
form of implementation of the plan is required. He believes requiring
implementation is appropriate. He then said he likes the requirement in the
bill that eligible best practices will be determined by a commission. If
projects must be certified, the person determining whether the project is
authorized should be certified, Peechatka stressed.
He noted that his association has not taken a position on HB 2878 but they
will do so later this fall. Eileen McNulty, Executive Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Revenue, offered that while the protection of
natural resources is clearly a priority, the funding of projects addressed by
this proposal is made more complex by the administrative requirements of a
tax credit. She suggested that the committee consider whether a change in tax
policy is necessary or if the goal could be better achieved through other
financial incentives, including grants and/or loans. She explained that
experience has shown that a more direct approach works better in cases where
the sale of the tax credit rather than their use by the initial applicant, is
expected to be important in leveraging the investment. McNulty then informed
the committee that the proposed tax credit would be the single largest
business tax credit offered in Rep. Miller remarked that she has
certain questions about the legislation. She wondered about the
constitutionality of the tax credit because it applies to individual
households. She said she doesn't want the court to throw out the bill for that
reason. She then noted that the farming community has been doing conservation
for 50 years. She questioned what benefit farmers who have been doing this
for years will receive under this program. Farmers who have been implementing
best practices for decades should be rewarded, she suggested. Rep. Miller
then expressed concern about the availability of properly certified staff to
implement this legislation. She then commented that HB 2878 seems to mandate
NRCS on all farmers. She suggested that the State should partner with the
federal government on programs that reward conservation instead of
"reinventing the wheel". Administration of REAP will likely be a
nightmare, she concluded. Ehrhart agreed there are
questions with the proposal. He addressed her concern about the number of
qualified people to help implement conservation plans. He suggested that
establishing work to be done by outside professionals could lead to a
certification program for those professionals. Rep. Miller countered that
there is currently a lack of professionalism and a lack of quality
certification plans. She added that she believes planners should be
certified. Brown interjected that the State Conservation Commission has been
successfully working with the private sector to develop conservation plans.
He noted that planners can create proposals for 3,000 acres in one year so
thousands of planners will be required to create them for Rep. Josephs asked if the
administration has a position on HB 2878 if the problems of the bill could be
fixed. McNulty replied that the administration's concern is the cost of the
program and the fact that the budget has already been passed. She reiterated
her belief that this bill should be done during the budget process. Rep. Stern inquired if the
Department of Revenue has difficulty monitoring the Job Creation Tax Credit
and the Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credit. McNulty replied that those two
credits are not monitored by the Department of Revenue. She explained that
the Department of Labor and Industry monitors the Job Creation Tax Credit and
DCED monitors the Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credit. Rep. Stern asked how
much the Department spends to administer the current tax credits. McNulty
replied that she cannot answer the question at this time because the costs
include the administration of the tax itself. She added that she would try to
get an estimate for the committee. Rep. Stern told her he is trying to figure
out if the Department would need additional staff if the bill becomes law.
McNulty said it depends on the requirements of the legislation. As currently
written, the Department would need to hire staff with certain expertise, she
explained. She suggested that the bill could be written to lessen the
Department's administrative requirements. Dave Callen,
Minority Executive Director, commented that tax credits over multiple years
would create stability for this program. Given farmers' cash flow
difficulties, would it be possible to award the tax credits to farmers before
they undertake projects, he asked McNulty. McNulty answered no, adding that
the necessity of having the money upfront is the reason that the film
production tax credit was changed to a grant program. She remarked that the
concept of pre-funding does not work for tax credits. Callen
asked if there have been discussions about a philanthropic cost share for the
remaining 25% that is not covered by the tax credit. Ehrhart
said it has been discussed but only in preliminary stages. He added that a
lot depends on the final language of the legislation. Jay Howes,
committee staff person, noted that very few farms would have a tax liability that
would be affected by this bill. He asked Peechatka
if the proposal could be a possibility for businesses to get involved. Peechatka replied that he does not have good sense of
that at this time but he likes the idea of providing the opportunity for businesses.
HOUSE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE SENATE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Joint info hearing on 2007 Federal Farm Bill By Kimberly Hess, PLS The two committees held a joint informational meeting to discuss
conservation issues in relation to the 2007 Federal Farm Bill. Members in
attendance included Chairmen Art Hershey (R-Chester) and Mike Waugh (R-York),
Senator Pat Vance (R-Cumberland) and Representatives Dave Millard
(R-Columbia), Dave Hickernell (R-Lancaster), Bob
Bastian (R-Somerset), Timothy Solobay
(D-Washington), Tina Pickett (R-Bradford), Gary Haluska
(R-Cambria), Rosita Youngblood (D-Philadelphia), Jerry Stern (R-Blair),
Sheila Miller (R-Berks), Mark Keller (R-Perry), Babette
Josephs (D-Philadelphia), Kathy Rapp (R-Warren), Adam Harris (R-Juniata) and
Rob Kaufman (R-Cumberland). Ann Pesiri Swanson, Executive Director, Impairment of the watershed, Swanson continued, comes from three
sources: point sources (sewers and pipes), air, and agriculture. She also
stated that one-quarter of the land in the watershed is used for agricultural
purposes. She discussed an analysis of the cost effectiveness of traditional
conservation strategies and stated the most cost effective best management
practices were determined to be agricultural practices. Swanson argued PA
needs to fight to receive more federal funding through the Farm Bill, which
is the primary funding source to enhance funding for agricultural
conservation measures, to promote these best practices, noting that 70% of
nitrogen, 72% of phosphorus and 92% of sediment is captured from the agriculture
community. The Farm Bill funding is largely dedicated to nutrition, she
concluded, and the agriculture community must fight to increase its share. Marel Raub, PA
Director of the CBC,
explained PA receives $40 million of the $34 billion Farm Bill, of which
$16.5 million is dedicated to CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)
for rental fees and incentives to retire environmentally sensitive land;
$13.8 is for EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program), which provides
incentives and cost sharing for the implementation of best management
practices; $2.8 million goes to the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program;
and less than a million is dedicated to the Conservation Security Program. Swanson remarked that $40 million, plus approximately $20 million from
the state and farmers each, does not come close to the estimated $215 million
cost to implement the Chesapeake Bay Strategy. She stressed the importance of
drawing down more federal funding from the Farm Bill, noting it is the third
largest bill in the nation (behind transportation and defense). Swanson
stated the top five Farm Bill priorities for the watershed are: ·
Establish a Regional Stewardship Fund to increase flexibility in the
delivery of Federal Funds ·
Implement the Conservation Security Program as a nationwide
entitlement program ·
Target funds to maximize environmental benefits and ecological
services ·
Provide increased support for the economic viability of agriculture ·
Increase funding and technical assistance for conservation-related
programs Chairman Waugh commented the state needs to start to build momentum
with federal lawmakers in developing the Farm Bill to help farmers implement
best practices for conservation. He stated it is unfair to ask farmers to
participate if legislators don't help them. Chairman Hershey remarked on the success of ground cover crops, like
barley, to prevent erosion in the winter. He said ground cover practices save
soil and nutrients at minimal cost. Rep. Millard asked how closely the CBC works with the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission. Swanson replied the two organizations, and all river
basin commissions in the watershed, work closely, especially when the issue
at hand relates to the specific basin commission. Rep. Pickett remarked it is difficult to convince farmers that CREP is
a good program because they feel it takes tracts of productive land out of
production. She noted farmers also feel sediment is leaving by creep damage
but they cannot get assistance with that problem. Swanson replied those
complaints are frequently heard across the watershed and stated now is the
opportunity to change the shape of policy and target CREP money to buffers or
highly erodable land, as the program was originally
intended. Rep. Miller expressed concern with taking funding away from
commodities and other programs because it results in less money for the farm
community and instead suggested that PA ask for more money from the Farm Bill
instead of trying to "shift the pot". She remarked "streams
have been meandering for centuries" and agriculture should not be
targeted; urban, recreational and point sources shouldn't be let off the
hook, she concluded. Chairman Waugh discussed legacy sediment, a concept in which sediment
builds up behind mill dams. He remarked this isn't an agriculture issue, but
is nonetheless another challenge and mitigation of legacy sediment is not
recognized as a best practice. Chairman Waugh concluded we need to get
funding to agriculture without taking away productivity. Matt Ehrhart, PA Executive Director,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), stated "one of the most serious threats
to the health of our local streams, groundwater and the Chairman Hershey concurred that CREP needs to be reigned in, remarking
the program "grew legs" and needs to be returned to the original
purpose. Rep. Miller commented that more staff is needed to help write
conservation plans, noting that regulations require plans to be updated every
ten years, but the needed technical assistance is not available. She noted that
only serious needs should be targeted to spread out that assistance to where
it is most needed. Russ Redding, ·
Provide greater funding for highly successful programs and allow these
programs to expand to help PA meet its water quality challenges ·
Reform EQIP to provide funding to support implementation of
alternative manure utilization or treatment technologies to address nutrient
imbalance issues ·
Ensure that only highly environmentally sensitive lands are being
enrolled in CREP so that high productivity soils are not being taken out of
production unnecessarily ·
Strengthen the crop insurance program to provide more effective risk
management opportunities for producers ·
Develop a national energy policy that encourages contributions from
agriculture and complements efforts to improve water quality and farm
profitability ·
Require greater equity in Farm Bill spending based on farm production
of all crops ·
Continue to reward those producers that have demonstrated a high level
of commitment to conservation by fully implementing and fully funding CSP ·
Ensure that adequate funds are available to provide technical
assistance for Farm Bill programs Rep. Miller suggested the Department of Agriculture can also help in
this effort by looking at internal policies to determine how to make things
easier, such as obtaining seed for cover crops. She also urged the Department
to look at getting encouragements to the counties to make sure they get their
fair share. HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Public hearing re deer damage, continued… Eric A. Failing, PLS 4/26/06 The
House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee held another public
hearing on deer damage. Members
in attendance included Chairman Art Hershey, Minority Chairman Pete Daley
(D-Washington) and Representatives Martin Causer (R-McKean), Tom Creighton
(R-Lancaster), Richard Grucela (D-Northampton),
Dave Hickernell (R-Lancaster), Babette
Josephs (D-Philadelphia), Rob Kauffman (R-Cumberland), David Millard
(R-Columbia), Sheila Miller (R-Berks), Rosita Youngblood (D-Philadelphia),
Gary Haluska (D-Cambria) Kathy Rapp (R-Warren)
Sandra Major (R-Susquehanna), Jennifer Mann (D-Lehigh), and Jerry Stern
(R-Blair). Chairman
Hershey began the meeting by advising the Committee that he extended an
invitation to the members of the House Game and Fisheries Committee to attend
the hearing as well. Gregg Robertson, President of the Pennsylvania
Landscape and Nursery Association (PLNA), testified that virtually every
segment of the state's agriculture business is impacted by deer overbrowsing. He cited a statistic released by the PA
Farm Bureau placing damage to agricultural crops caused by deer at an
estimated $90 million per year with losses to the state's actively managed
forest at $73 million per year. Robertson
added that because of an overpopulation of deer, PA now leads the nation in
Lyme disease, and regeneration of our hardwood forests has virtually stopped
because of overbrowsing. He stressed that our
current wildlife management system has to change, especially the fact that
the system is funded predominantly with hunting licenses. Robertson cited a
statistic from the National Shooting Sports Foundation in 2005 showing the
actual number of licensed hunters in PA dropped from 1.3 million in 1983 to 1
million in 2003 (a drop of 22% or double the national average). Stating
he is pleased with the Game Commission's release of its urban/suburban deer
management strategy, Robertson added that now is the time to consider using
the state's General Fund for wildlife management in the state. He also said
if the Commission wishes to remain a recreation-only agency, he proposes
funding a deer management unit in the PA Department of Agriculture to assist
farmers, landowners and communities in controlling deer population through
alternative means. Rep.
Haluska asked how Robertson would envision the
process working with farmers if the Department of Agriculture would become
involved with deer management. Robertson replied that his first choice is for
the Commission to retain control over the management of deer and the
Department of Agriculture would only be his second choice. Rep. Haluska worried that programs to eradicate deer would go
against the Commission's purpose of enforcing Title 34. Robertson stated this
is why he proposes using money from the General Fund to supplement losses
from a decreasing number of hunters. Debbie Plotnick, a homeowner in Bryn Gweled Homesteads, spoke about problems in her community
caused by too many deer. According to Plotnick, 70%
of families in the development have been infected by Lyme disease and much of
their forested land and gardens have been harmed or destroyed by the overbrowsing of deer. She
said solutions to the deer problem have been divisive so qualified bow
hunters were used to cull seventeen of the estimated fifty deer residing in
and around the community. Additionally, she reported the community has
installed five 4-poster feeding devices that use tickicide
to attempt to eradicate deer ticks. Plotnick said her community commends the Commission for its draft
Plan to Reduce Deer-Human Conflicts in Developed Areas. She quickly lamented
that game laws and regulations were designed for recreation and not to help
with an overabundance of animals devouring private woodlands, gardens and
landscaping. She urged the representatives to enact statutory changes that
would facilitate new and creative wildlife management regulations and funding
sources that will ease the burden caused by deer overpopulation. Rep.
Hershey asked if there are members in her community that resisted using bow
hunters to cull the herd. She confirmed it was a difficult decision with some
residents sponsoring protests to object to the hunting. Asked by the
representative if any of the protestors had contracted Lyme disease in the
past, she confirmed they had. She added that some of those who were
originally against the idea of killing any of the deer were more receptive to
the idea of allowing a controlled hunt. Rep.
Daley asked how many people live in the community and what the infection rate
is. Plotnick said there are about 200 people in the
community and while she knows that approximately 70% have had Lyme disease at
least once, it is hard to count the numbers who have contracted the disease
multiple times. Dr. James Logue, Acting Director for the Bureau
of Epidemiology for the Department of Health, testified next giving an
overview of Lyme disease and its impact. According to Dr. Logue, the
instances of the disease are most prevalent in the southeastern portion of
the state with Rep.
Daley asked if the community of the previous speaker (that has an infection
rate of 70%) would be considered a hot spot for Lyme disease. Dr. Logue
confirmed that it would. Asked what the Department is doing to combat this
issue, Dr. Logue stated the Department is trying to educate PA residents
about the disease and how to prevent it. Rep.
Daley next asked if a tick is pulled off of a person but the head remains
imbedded in the skin, can the person still acquire Lyme disease. Plotnick interjected, saying that deer ticks are
different from other ticks in that they are very, very small. She also
stressed the entire tick has to be removed. Questioned
if spraying for deer ticks can prevent their spread, a Department of Health
staff member sitting in the audience said that aerial spraying is not effective
against deer ticks because they often stay in the underbrush. She added that
treatment can be applied directly to the land. Rep.
Miller asked if the Department is working with the Insurance Commissioner to find
ways to pay for expensive drugs used in the treatment of Lyme disease. Dr.
Logue said the Department is only engaged in education efforts on Lyme
disease at this point but would be willing to work with the Insurance
Commissioner. Asked about the costs associated with treating Lyme disease, a
staffer from the Department of Health said that if caught early, Lyme disease
is treated by inexpensive antibiotics. Rep.
Daley asked if there is immunization available for Lyme disease. The staffer
from the Department of Health said that there is no longer an immunization
available because the manufacturer pulled the product because they did not
feel they were making enough money from its sale. James Grace, Director of the Bureau of
Forestry for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, next
testified that the single most limiting factor in maintaining and
regenerating a healthy forest is the size of the deer heard. He stated that a
recent assessment found that regeneration is inadequate on more than 50% of
sample plots statewide. He stressed that this is a problem not only for the
forest but for the health of the deer herd as well. Grace lamented that in
order to curb this problem; the Department has had to spend $2.5 million a
year on deer fencing. According to Grace, on state forests alone, there is
1,000 miles of deer fence which is equivalent to having an eight-foot fence
around the entire perimeter of the state. Without
having to address the impact of deer overbrowsing,
Grace argued the state would increase its annual timber harvest by 15% to 20%
and generate an additional $6 to $8 million in yearly revenue. Grace
said the most appropriate way to keep the deer population in balance with the
habitat is to provide more hunting opportunities. He said he is supportive of
the Commission's action over the last 4 or 5 years to cull the deer herd.
"We are beginning to see some positive responses in habitat," said
Grace, but "we won't consider it solved until we see the forest
regenerating without the need for extensive fencing." He
called for an increased timeframe for hunting season, better data on habitat
health, maintaining current levels of hunting licenses and allowing all
stakeholders to be involved in the planning process. Rep.
Causer asked what other factors besides deer could negatively impact forest
regeneration. Grace said various factors impact this including soil moisture
and acid rain but right now deer browsing is the major impact. He added that without
erecting deer fences, the forest cannot grow back because the deer come in
and eat the new growth. Paul Lyskava, Executive Director for the
Pennsylvania Forest Products Association, testified that 70% of forested
acres in the state are privately owned and this serves as the main source of
material needed to support the forest products manufacturing base. For this
reason, he said the Association is concerned with the impact of deer on the
sustainability of the forests. Lyskava lamented that efforts to alleviate the impact of deer
browsing, such as fences and herbicide treatments, are expensive ranging from
$300 to $500 per acre. He estimated the impact of deer of the Lyskava said the Association is encouraged by the Deer Management
Strategy of the Commission which is based in verifiable science. He recommended
the Commission to maintain the DMAP program, concurrent hunting seasons, and antlerless hunting opportunities. James Chapman, Operations Manager/Forester for Hyma Devore Lumber Mill, testified about how they have
utilized the DMAP program and their own assessment studies to reduce the size
of their deer population in such a way as to continue to attract hunters
while allowing the forest to regenerate. He stressed this recovery does take time and they have taken steps to educate
hunters and others about the need to cull the deer herd. Rep.
Miller asked why charts distributed as part of the presentation suggest that
there was a backslide in forest regeneration in
2006. Chapman commented that several other factors come into play including
the fact that they have harvested in some areas. He added he is not concerned
about the backslide because this is a long-term
process. Dr. Christopher Rosenberry, Deer Management Section
Supervisor for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, testified last stating the
three management goals guiding deer management are
to manage deer for healthy deer populations, health forest habitat, and
reduced deer-human conflicts. Dr. Rosenberry then
outlined the various components of the deer management plan the Commission
employs including: · DMAP Program · Red Tag Program · Urban Deer Management Strategy
· Citizen Advisory Committee and
· Healthy Deer, Healthy Habitat Dr.
Rosenberry closed by stressing the Commission is
committed to responsible management of all species in its charge and will
continue to grow and modify programs as necessary to meet landowners' deer
management challenges. Rep.
Hershey asked Dr. Rosenberry what he meant when he
said that female deer will stop breeding when their population is too high.
Dr. Rosenberry explained that female deer have to
reach a certain weight in order to be sexually mature and if populations are
too high, there is not enough food for this to occur. Asked
how the state counts the herd, Dr. Rosenberry said
they rely heavily on harvest data from hunters. When further questioned about
using a helicopter for counting purposes, Dr. Rosenberry
said that this has been done with elk and was only 60% successful. He
lamented that with deer it would be worse because they are smaller and are
harder to view from the air. Questioned
by Committee staff about whether deer could be inoculated against deer ticks,
the doctor said he did not know. He also stated he was not sure if deer that
carry ticks can be infected with Lyme disease or if there is a danger for
humans to eat a deer that has been bitten by a tick carrying the disease. Rep.
Causer asked if coyote or bear kills are factored into the deer count. Dr. Rosenberry said coyotes and bears are equally effective
at killing fawns but that the Commission considers these kills under their
non-hunting survival category. HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Public hearing re deer damage By Peter G. Trufahnestock, PLS
4-4-06 The House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee held a public hearing on deer damage. Click on the highlighted links to read the testimony and reports. Members in attendance included Chairman Art Hershey, Minority
Chairman Pete Daley and Representatives Martin Causer (R-McKean), Tom
Creighton (R-Lancaster), Richard Grucela
(D-Northampton), Dave Hickernell (R-Lancaster), Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia), Rob Kauffman
(R-Cumberland), Mark Keller (R-Perry), David Millard (R-Columbia), Sheila
Miller (R-Berks), Tim Solobay (D-Washington), and
Jerry Stern (R-Blair). Chairman Hershey began by explaining that due to the early
call for House Session, the hearing would end at 10 a.m. and all testifiers
not heard would be rescheduled at another time. He apologized for the
inconvenience and noted that the situation was beyond his control and should
not be seen as a sign that the Committee does not take the issue of deer
damage seriously. Gregg
Robertson, President of the Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery
Association (PLNA), testified that his industry is
being devastated by deer overpopulation. A 2004 survey showed that PLNA members
were spending an average $20,000 annually in deer control measures and deer
damage, he said, estimating that the industry overall sustains losses and
costs in the range of $5 million to $8 million per year. He noted that the
survey did not include damage to installed landscapes at homes and
businesses, as most species of landscape plants were once thought to be deer
resistant. PLNA members now report, however, that professionally landscaped
properties are now being completely consumed, he said. Robertson stated that PA now leads the country in reported
incidents of Lyme disease, for which deer are vectors, and in deer/automobile
collisions. He said the current deer management programs used by the PA Game
Commission (PGC), such as DMAP and Red-Tag, are ineffective and cannot
achieve deer population control sufficient to reduce agricultural crop
damage. He said that in November of 2005, PLNA presented a set of
recommendations to the PGC, which came out of a series of seven public
seminars held across Robertson was very critical of the fact that the PGC has
not revealed the scientific basis for its policy decisions. He said "the
fact that the agency has abandoned its population model and has provided no
factual or analytical basis for its antlerless
license reductions for the 2005-06 season strains the credibility of the
agency with stakeholders and the public. As the agency that has prime
responsibility for deer management in the state, the PGC cannot credibly
claim that it does not know how many deer exist in Robertson also distributed the following document for
further review: DEstroyERs. Dan Fest, who farms 500 acres and owns
Cole's Nurseries in Bryon Shissler Director of the Ecosystem
Management Project testified that there is broad agreement within the
scientific community that much of the state's forests are in a seriously
degraded ecological condition as a result of high deer densities and impacts.
The problem is not new, he noted, as he gave a full history dating back to
1917 when Joseph Kalbfus, the PGC's
first Executive Director, said that the biologist who tries to manage Shissler, like Robertson, said one of the
biggest needed reforms is for the deer management programs to be more
transparent to the public. He said he doubted anyone in the room, including
those that represent the Game Commission, could explain using real numbers,
how the current deer program works or the science upon which it is based. He
concluded with the following four recommendations: · We need an urban deer management program
that includes progressive tools such as those generated from the public
comments at the eight seminars sponsored by over 65 · We need to improve wildlife
conservation funding. If we are to have a wildlife conservation agency that
manages all the wildlife for all the people then all the people need to
contribute rather than just hunters. · We need a wildlife agency that
represents all the people not just deer hunters. One option to achieve this
goal would be to broaden the current PGC Board of Directors from being
exclusively hunters to include a representative selected by residential
communities, forest landowners, agriculture, environment conservation NGO's,
etc. · We need a publicly transparent
deer management program that tells the public what it is trying to achieve,
how and what is being measured, and how we know when the program is
successful. We need a program that is open to scientific peer review and
which makes the data upon which decisions are made public. Shissler also distributed the following documents for further
review: Dennis Wolff, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, began by commending the PGC for its efforts
in recent years to take deer management to a new plateau. That being said, he
acknowledged that the damage done by deer remains a large problem to all kinds
of farmers, from those who raise grain to those who raise Christmas trees. He
said the PA forestry industry has also been damaged over the last several
years due to intense deer populations in wooded areas to the tune of $73
million annually. He referenced a January 2005 report
by the Deer Management Forum, which states that "over-browsing by deer
has eliminated the tree seedling, sapling and shrub layer in large areas of
forest in Pennsylvania," threatening regeneration and species diversity.
Secretary Wolff said that while PA is a leader in farmland
preservation, every day the state continues to lose agricultural land to
development, which puts even more pressure on the deer herd while simultaneously
making those areas less conducive to hunting as a means of control. He added
that in recent weeks he has spoken to many farmers from southeastern PA who are working with the Game Commission to consider and
develop new alternatives for deer management in PA's more suburbanized areas
of the state. Betsy Huber, President of the Pennsylvania
State Grange, testified that the Grange has been concerned about crop damage
from deer and elk for many years. Compensation for deer damage is often hard
to obtain because of the difficulty involved in accounting for crop damage,
she said, noting that payments are usually insignificant and do not cover the
actual financial loss of the crop. She recommended that the compensation
program be reviewed by the PGC and adjusted to cover and reflect the true
financial loss incurred by this damage. She also stated that her members are
becoming increasingly concerned with the threat of Lyme disease spread by the
deer tick, adding that many of Grange members have been disastrously affected
by this disease. Huber concluded by laying out the following
recommendations: · Landowners, community associations, and
conservancies should be allowed to apply directly to the PGC for deer control
permits instead of applying through their individual municipalities. · Communities should be allowed to decide what
deer management tools are most suitable to their needs based on their
property goals, land use and values. · The process of deer removal under
deer control permits should be allowed to commence on November 1st and should
not be restricted by recreational hunting seasons. · Deer control permits should allow for
trapping and euthanizing as methods of deer removal. · In order to effectively engage
hunters in this effort, arbitrary restrictions that inhibit their
effectiveness, such as the requirement of tagging a harvested deer before
taking additional deer, should discarded. · A regulated baiting process should
be allowed for hunters to safely lure deer into areas where they can safely
be removed. · Allowances should be made for the harvesting
of deer outside of normal seasons on property enrolled in the Deer Management
Assistant Program (DMAP). · The DMAP permits should be provided
directly to the landowner and communities at no cost so that they can
distribute them to the hunters, avoiding the time consuming and burdensome
process of acquiring coupons and applying for permits. · The Game Commission should conduct
programs around the state to educate the public-at-large on the health
problems attenuated to Lyme disease, explaining the key role deer play in
this disease and the need for deer population management in an effort to help
manage the dispersal of ticks and the spread of Lyme Disease. · Municipalities should be allowed to sell venison
harvested under a deer control permit to help defray the cost of the
community's deer control program. Though she did not say the following out loud, the
following short paragraph appeared at the end of Huber's written remarks: And
while this hearing is on deer damage and management problems, I'd just like
to call to your attention that many of our livestock farmers who pasture
either cattle or sheep are experiencing more and more losses from coyotes.
One farmer lost 125 lambs last year and has now engaged his own coyote
protection by buying two Great Pyrenees dogs who
live and sleep with the sheep and protect them from the coyotes. However,
coyotes are getting to be more and more a generator of economic loss and are
creating another control issue that this Committee might want to address in
the future. Rep. Josephs, picking up on the unsaid remark, asked if
the coyote population is in any way related to the size of the deer heard.
Huber said she does not know. Rep. Grucela said it seems to
him that recommendations #1 and #2 are in conflict. Huber said they are not,
explaining that the communities could choose different control devices if they
wanted to, but if not, then people should be able to apply directly to the
PGC. Craig Sweager, a farmer from Sweager asked that the Committee support
a full scientific study on the deer damage issue, similar to one conducted by
Penn State University from 1994 through 1997, which led to many of the new
successful landowner programs. He said the Farm Bureau has spoken to
researchers at Minority Chairman Daley asked what the cost of the
recommended research would be. Sweager said he does
not know, but will find out and report back. Dr. Timothy Schaeffer, Executive Director of Audubon Like most of the testifiers before him, Schaeffer called
for the PGC to be more transparent, noting that "the longer the Game Commission
goes without revealing the science behind its deer management decisions, the
longer we must question whether the agency is responding to its perception of
what licenseholders want rather than managing in
the best interest of our wildlife resources." He encouraged members of
the Committee to ask the State Senate to ask Game Commissioner candidates who
come before them for confirmation to commit to using transparent science to
make their decisions. He also encouraged the Committee to work with the rest
of the General Assembly, the Governor's Office, and the PGC to "identify
a funding base that is more stable and equitable than funding derived almost
exclusively from sources such as license dollars and timber sales on game
lands, in order to facilitate the shift from single-species management to
ecosystem management." At this point, Chairman Hershey recessed the meeting, but
again stated that it would be reconvened as soon as possible. The following individuals were scheduled to testify had
the meeting not been interrupted: · Debbie Plotnick,
Homeowner, Bryn Gweled Homesteads |