A Hunting License Increase Proposal

By Ted Onufrak, PFSC President

The House Game & Fisheries Committee holds an annual meeting with both the PA Fish & Boat Commission and the PA Game Commission. At these meetings, each agency has the opportunity to present their goals and objectives for not only the coming year, but also present any long-term initiatives that may extend beyond that particular calendar year. In 2003, the PA Game Commission indicated its need for a hunting license increase in order to maintain programs and staffing levels that its constituency has become accustomed to, as well as embark upon new programs such as Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Agency staff, as well as some Commissioners, were indicating that the agency would begin to experience financial shortfalls in 2005. Neither agency can borrow money, nor does it receive general fund revenues from taxes. By law, they must have a balanced budget.

The last license increase took effect in the 1999 hunting license year, and the previous increase took effect in the 1984 license year. The proposed legislation for the 1999 increase was actually proposed in 1996, but took nearly four years until it received sufficient support from legislators as well as sportsmen to ultimately pass both the House and the Senate and receive the Governor’s signature. After years of debate, House Game & Fisheries Committee Majority Chairman Bruce Smith arranged a meeting among major statewide sportsmen’s organizations. He and Minority Chairman Ed Staback met with representatives of those groups and hammered out a compromise that eventually became law. It was noted that the 1999 increase would provide adequate funding for about a maximum of six years.

We’ve all heard that we should learn from history. That being said, once the PGC indicated its need for another license increase, the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs requested that Committee Majority Chairman Smith again consider meeting with representatives of statewide organizations to gather input prior to introducing license increase legislation, rather than wait until after legislation had been introduced. Both Chairmen Smith and Staback agreed to such a meeting. Prior to that meeting, a number of statewide organizations agreed to participate in formulating a license increase proposal. Those organizations that agreed and participated were the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Trappers Association, the Pennsylvania Deer Association, the Quality Deer Management Association, the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Wild Turkey Federation, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Pheasants Forever and the Susquehanna River Waterfowlers Association. Ducks Unlimited and Safari Clubs International agreed to participate but failed to send participants to the two meetings that were held; the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation declined to participate.

Two meetings were held, one in April and the other in May of 2005. At the April meeting, representatives of the PA Game Commission were asked to explain their current financial status and to estimate what additional finances were necessary on an annual basis. After their presentation, they were asked to leave, and representatives of the organizations developed the following proposal. The PGC was not invited to the second meeting, which was conducted with representatives of the majority and minority parties of both the House Game & Fisheries Committee and the Senate Game & Fisheries Committee. At the first meeting, minus representatives of the General Assembly, the representatives of the statewide organizations discussed what each would like to see, including various fees and additional stamps. The PGC had informed us that should we be successful in securing license increase legislation in 2005, which would take effect July 1, 2006, approximately $16 million would be necessary to reestablish programs that had been cut and to sustain the agency for about five years. Should the agency have to wait until the Sine/Die session of the legislature, in November of 2006, which means any license increase would not take effect until July 1, 2007, then the agency would need approximately $20 million. Historically, license increases have resulted in a 10% decline in license sales, which also must be taken into account. Chairman Smith had also indicated he would be receptive to an annual cost of living increase, which would keep future increases at a smaller level; however, Minority Chairman Staback indicated such a cost of living would be unacceptable to him. With this background information in mind, the attending organizations came up with the proposal in Table 1. Please keep in mind that this proposal was developed as a starting point – those in attendance agreed to include many of the recommendations, however, none of the groups has formally endorsed all the recommendations of this proposal. The following are highlights of the proposal, as well as a short explanation of how/why that proposal was arrived at.

• Either a $29 or $34 adult resident hunting license (backtag). In combination with other increases, a $29 backtag would raise sufficient money for the agency, if implemented July 1, 2006. If license increase legislation could not be passed until fall of 2006, with the increase taking effect July 2007, then a $34 backtag would be necessary. Table 2 shows that such fees are reasonable when compared with many other states, including neighboring states.
• An annual cost of living increase would be added to all license and tags, but rather than each fee increase every year, fees would only be increased every two years, but would be equivalent to the cost of living increases for those two years. Also, it would be rounded to the nearest twenty-five cents. It was the groups’ intention that the index used to determine the annual cost of living would be the same one the legislators have passed into law to provide for their salary increases. (Members of the General Assembly salaries were increased 5.4% for 2004, based on the highest month of the Philadelphia Consumer Price Index.) Table 3 shows that even the 1999 license increase was less than the cost of inflation, and gas wasn’t $3 per gallon then!
• Lifetime licenses were increased substantially. Many of the groups felt there shouldn’t be a lifetime license, as this results in less federal matching funds. Furthermore, considering the increased lifespan of individuals, this has become a losing proposition for the agency.
• Junior licenses were not increased at all, and juniors were also exempt from any new proposed stamps.
• It was recommended the bear license be increased due to the increased ability of harvesting a trophy in the Commonwealth, along with the increased season in the eastern portion of the state.
• Due to the continuing perception that the agency issues anterless licenses as a means of revenue generation, it was recommended that anterless licenses remain at $5. However, to quell the agency’s dependence on that revenue, it was suggested that the fee for initial applications ($5) be non-refundable. This would stabilize this revenue source. Application fees for “extra” tags and DMAP would still be returned to unsuccessful applicants.
• Since archery stamps were raised 50% more than muzzleloader stamps during the last increase, it was recommended that archery stamps be increased by only $2. Also, it was mentioned that archers feel they’ve lost one week of their season, due to the implementation of the October muzzleloader season.
• Similarly, since muzzleloaders “gained” a week in October, and were also permitted to utilize inlines, it was recommended that the muzzleloader stamp be increased to equal the archery stamp.
• Due to the low number of furtaking licenses purchased, and hence the difficulty in raising revenue from such few license buyers and the importance of trapping as a management tool, it was agreed to raise the furtaking license minimally. Some even recommended eliminating the furtaking license and making it part of the hunting license, however, the PA Trappers Association had fought hard to implement a furtaking license and it was agreed it would be inappropriate to eliminate this license.
• For many years, the amount of money expended on pheasant propagation has been at issue. It was agreed to implement a $10 pheasant stamp to fund this existing program. Juniors would be exempt from this stamp.
• A $5 turkey license was also recommended (for both spring and fall), but again, junior hunters would be exempt.
• There was also support for implementing a “state” duck stamp. Over 30 other states have a required duck stamp, but Pennsylvania does not. It was suggested that the current $3 resident migratory game bird stamp be increased to $10 and be required for all waterfowl hunting in the Commonwealth.
• There was discussion again about a conservation stamp, as proposed in the 1999 increase, but there was little support for such a stamp so it was not included in the proposal.
• It was agreed, due to the numerous stamps and licenses that currently exist, that there should be some type of “sportsmen’s package” license, which would include all licenses, stamps and applications (bobcat, elk, etc.) along with a subscription to the Game News. Such a package license should be about $20 less than what the total would be if purchased individually. This type license would generate additional revenue, and would eliminate the numerous $1 issuing agent fees now assessed to each license/tag. Such a license may be around $125 to $135.
• At one point it was suggested that perhaps we should have a $40 backtag, and leave the other tag/license fees as is, however, that did not get much support and even the legislators felt that would be a difficult sell for them.

Keep in mind, the above proposal is simply an initial starting point. It remains to be seen what, if anything, our legislators will put forth in an actual bill. We have been told that introduction of any increase legislation is dependent upon how the PGC “acts” at its April 2006 meeting when they set the antlerless allocations. It is also our understanding that although Chairman Smith was willing to introduce legislation, he could not find a Democratic cosponsor. Introducing a bill without bipartisan support is rare. Chairman Smith has also commented that retiring Executive Director Vern Ross once indicated the agency could survive until 2007 without an increase, however, at the most recent PGC meeting, Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution urging swift passage of license increase legislation.

The financial need for the agency is real. That need should not be tied to antlerless allocations, or any special interest group’s desire for species-specific regulations. Without financial stability, the agency may very well be merged into another state agency, which could be the very downfall to some of the good management we’ve been accustomed to. Some have said that due to the lack of deer, we shouldn’t have to pay more. Those same people have said that we shouldn’t pay more for turkeys or bear, since they’re so plentiful. Well, either you pay more for more, or less for less, but you can’t have it both ways – to argue in that manner is illogical.

The organizations that participated in putting this proposal together understand and support the need for some type of license increase to insure the future of the PGC. We hope that many of you will join with us in that support. We understand there’s plenty to dislike, but hope that you’ll find some things you can support and we certainly would appreciate your comments. If you oppose certain stamps or fee increases, keep in mind that additional revenue must then be generated somewhere else. For instance, if you oppose a turkey license, then the $2.5 million it would have generated must be recaptured through another license/tag increase, such as an additional $3 per backtag. Table 1 is a spreadsheet that you can also access at PFSC’s website at pfsc.org. The future of the PGC and our wildlife resources depend on our support.