Sunday Hunting Impact Study

*Click here for the full report or click here for a summary

The House Game and Fisheries Committee met on June 16^th to hear a report from the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee on the results of the study conducted pursuant to House Resolution 927 of last session. HR 927 directed the Committee to conduct a study on the social, economic, philosophical and practical impact in providing expanded hunting opportunities, including hunting on Sunday, in Pennsylvania.

Members in attendance included Chairmen Bruce Smith (R-York) and Ed Staback (D-Lackawanna), and Representatives Dan Surra (D-Elk), Marc Gergely (D-Allegheny), Curt Sonney (R-Erie), Neal Goodman (D-Schuylkill), Mark Keller (R-Perry), Keith Gillespie (R-York), Mike McGeehan (D-Philadelphia), Sheila Miller (R-Berks), Mike Hanna (D-Clinton) and Gordon Denlinger (R-Lancaster).

Philip Durgin, Executive Director of the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC), said 38 states currently allow unrestricted Sunday hunting and nine states completely ban Sunday hunting for wild game. Maryland, South Carolina and West Virginia allow limited Sunday hunting. Durgin noted that because assessing economic impact is beyond the purview of the LBFC, no recommendations would be provided, just data. He then introduced Rob Southwick, head of Southwick Associates, which conducted the study on the economic impact.

Southwick explained a survey of hunters, landowners and stakeholders was conducted.

The following conclusions about hunters were reached:

• 53% of hunters support some form of expanded Sunday hunting; 43% indicated opposition
• Of those hunters who support expanded Sunday hunting, 85% chose deer as their top choice for the species that should be allowed to be hunted on Sunday, and 77% support Sunday hunting during all seasons.
• The typical hunter in favor of Sunday hunting would hunt an additional seven days per year if all seasons were open.
• Hunters in favor of expanding Sunday hunting tend to be younger.
• Hunters who oppose expanded Sunday hunting cited religion most as the reason for opposition. Other reasons cited by at least half include allowing wildlife a day free from hunting, allowing landowners a day free from hunters on their land, tradition shouldn't be changed, and landowners might post their land prohibiting all types of hunting.

The following conclusions about landowners were reached:

• 80% of farmers and landowners oppose expanded Sunday hunting; many indicated they would restrict hunting on their land.
• Major concerns cited include privacy, religions, human safety and trespassing.
• Although they expressed strong opposition to Sunday hunting, some survey respondents indicated the Legislature or the PA Game Commission (PGC) could take steps to alleviate their concerns, including increasing fines for trespassing, giving the PGC law enforcement personnel increased ability to enforce trespass laws, requiring written permission from landowners, and providing "No Sunday Hunting" signs.
• 30% of landowners indicated there is nothing that can be done to alleviate their concerns.
• 21% might post "No Sunday Hunting" signs, and 18% indicate that they would close their land to all public hunting if expanded Sunday hunting was implemented.

The following conclusions about stakeholders were reached:

• 75% of commercial regulated hunting grounds operators support some form of Sunday hunting, the vast majority of which believe it would help their business. Those operators who do not support expanded Sunday hunting cited the negative effect it may have on relations with neighbors and potential negative business impacts as reasons for their opposition.

Southwick Associates also asked who should have the authority to expand Sunday hunting. Resident hunters overwhelmingly believe the PGC should have control and landowners were essentially split on the question. Organizations and stakeholders favored the PGC by a slight margin.

Lastly, Southwick highlighted the potential economic impact of expanded Sunday hunting. He noted there are many possible scenarios for expanded Sunday hunting, but the impact study focused on the most popular-Sunday hunting during all seasons and Sunday hunting only during the regular deer season.

He stated:

• Hunters would hunt an average of 4.7 additional days a year if Sunday hunting was allowed during all seasons. This would result in an estimated impact of $629 million, 5,300 new jobs and $18 million in additional state sales and income taxes.
• If expanded Sunday hunting was only allowed during the two Sundays of the general deer season, the economic impact is estimated at $184 million, with 1,630 new jobs and $5.4 million in additional state taxes.

Chairman Smith commented that the study provides strong arguments for both sides of the issue. He then noted that landowners overwhelmingly oppose expanded Sunday hunting and asked what can be done to decrease their opposition. Southwick stated the survey asked what can be done to alleviate opposition, and respondents indicated that allowing the option to exclude Sunday hunting on property by providing "No Sunday Hunting" sings and efforts to prevent trespassing would reduce concerns. Southwick expressed his surprise that the PA Game Commission (PGC) currently cannot enforce trespassing laws. Chairman Smith remarked that increased penalties for trespassing were enacted in conjunction with Sunday hunting in Ohio and Maryland in order to appease the opposition.

Chairman Smith then questioned the estimated economic impact of expanded Sunday hunting. He opined that hunters will not likely increase their purchasing habits due to the extra day. Southwick replied the estimate is based on how people responded when asked if they would hunt more if Sunday hunting were expanded. He noted the extra time hunting would result in extra wear on equipment, plus hunters would incur additional lodging and restaurant costs if they stay an extra day. He also noted that people who don't hunt now may be able to hunt in the future if more opportunities were provided. He remarked that the economic impact will occur overtime, not the first year. Chairman Smith remained unconvinced.

Rep. Staback asked about the breakdown of landowner respondents, noting that he was trying to determine if the enrollees in PGC land programs are also members of the PA Farm Bureau, but Southwick did not have that data. Durgin remarked that presumably some enrollees are also members of the Farm Bureau. Rep. Staback then asked if support in certain regions is stronger/weaker than in others. Southwick did not have that data, but said he would get it at a later date.

Rep. Surra remarked that recently several states have implemented Sunday hunting despite opposition similar to what PA is facing. He asked how implementation "played out" in those states. Southwick replied he isn't aware of any major problems. Rep. Surra then commented that when he was a teacher in the 1970's, his classes were nearly empty during hunting season, but over time fewer and fewer youths are hunting. He asked if Sunday hunting would help keep young people involved in hunting. Southwick replied yes, noting that surveys consistently demonstrate that time is the number one limitation preventing young people from hunting.

Rep. Gergely remarked that it is difficult to draw conclusions from the landowner survey, as 40% indicated that they already post their land against hunting. He also noted that many of the respondents have small parcels of land that probably do not have large enough wooded tracts for hunting. Durgin replied there was no way to know the size of a farm when they received the mailing list. He noted that they could look at the data to see if farmers with larger tracts of land are more supportive of Sunday hunting. Chairman Smith interjected that he believes the survey is adequate, because half the landowners surveyed have land enrolled in the PGC public access programs. Durgin remarked that they could look at the responses from just those who do not post their land. Southwick added that the landowner survey is not necessarily representative of all landowners, as it was only sent to members of the Farm Bureau and participants in the PGC programs. Rep. Gergely agreed, noting that foresters were not included in the survey.

Rep. Gergely then asked about the estimated financial impact, commenting that small businesses stand to gain a lot from expanded hunting. Southwick said non-resident licensees were surveyed, but they did not consider surveyed non-licensed individuals from other states. He remarked that there is an unknown potential among that group.

Rep. Keller stated he is "amazed" by the potential economic impact. He then asked if the expense questions include expenses for fishing. Southwick replied they do not. He explained that respondents were asked how much time they spend on a particular activity. If a hunter says he spends 40% of his time hunting and 60% of his time fishing, only 40% of his expenses would be considered.

Rep. Goodman remarked that a survey of Farm Bureau members is pointless because the Farm Bureau already testified in vehement opposition to Sunday hunting. He stated this is like asking NRA (National Rifle Association) members their position on guns. He also wondered why landowners who already post their land against hunting were surveyed, as their opinion is quite clear. Rep. Goodman then asked if allowing landowners to post their land against Sunday hunting will satisfy their need for privacy. Durgin replied Sunday hunting did not turn out to be a problem in Ohio and Maryland. He remarked landowners need to get over a "perceptual hurdle". Rep. Goodman agreed "perceptual" is an apt term, noting that only Northeastern states seem to have a problem with Sunday hunting. He remarked PA is losing youth hunters because they cannot participate in school sports programs and hunt. Rep. Goodman then asked what the greatest benefit would be if Sunday hunting were expanded. Southwick opined that increasing hunting opportunities is good for wildlife conservation.

Rep. Miller expressed concern with how the economic benefits were extrapolated, remarking the estimates are too high. She then asked if the study considers the negative impact of Sunday hunting, such as a reduction in other outdoor activities. Southwick replied that was not part of the study, noting they were only directed to study the impact of expanded hunting. Rep. Miller then stated 85% of hunting occurs on private land and landowners' opposition needs to be taken seriously. She remarked asking farmers to post signs creates a burden on them; noting they already work seven days a week and should not have to post their land when they want a few hours to themselves. Rep. Miller also expressed concern with increasing penalties for trespassing, noting that it will merely create more strife in the hunter/farmer relationship. She indicated support for opening commercial land to Sunday hunting, but asked that the concerns of private landowners be honored.

Rep. Gillespie asked for more detail about the age disparity, but Southwick could only reply the average supporter is 46 and average opponent is 51. It was also noted that the vast majority of respondents were men, in reflection of the hunting population.

Chairman Smith opined that a shortcoming of the study is that it did not require the general population to be surveyed. He remarked that he surveyed his constituents, and 70% of them oppose expanded Sunday hunting. He then noted that HB 904 would shift authority to the PGC to authorize Sunday hunting, and indicated that he may not support the legislation because the PGC is more beholden to hunters than the general population. Durgin agreed the general population is not really represented in the survey, remarking that 43% of hunters do no support Sunday hunting and an ever higher percentage of the population probably does not.

Chairman Smith then cited responses indicating that landowners do not feel that hunters respect their land. He asked for thoughts on increasing trespassing penalties. Southwick remarked that statistically, the higher the risk, the less likely an offense will occur. He noted that the public would have to be educated about the new penalties if they are implemented.

Rep. Staback asked for clarification, noting that in one question 53% of hunters support Sunday hunting but in another 57% support it. Southwick explained in the first question respondents were given a "don't know" option, but in the second question they were forced to have a for/against opinion.

Rep. Staback then commented on the responses to who should authorize Sunday hunting. He noted that hunters overwhelmingly believe the PGC should and landowners are evenly split on the question. He asked if it is safe to say there is no mandate that the legislature should make the decision. Southwick replied "statistically, most likely yes." Rep. Staback noted that the Farm Bureau had testified that farmers vehemently oppose HB 904, yet the survey of landowners has revealed that they are split on the issue.

Lastly, Rep. Staback asked if it could be assumed that if 70% of opponents suggested ideas to alleviate their concerns, does that mean 70% of opponents could change their mind. Southwick replied steps could be taken to diminish concerns, but could not speak to the degree to which they would be diminished. Durgin agreed, stating "it's a stretch" to think that 70% could be swayed, but noted that it is worth pursuing as other states haven't had problems. Chairman Smith interjected that the Farm Bureau stated last week "what part of no don't you understand" when asked if they could be swayed.

Rep. Surra opined that the economic impact would be more than estimated, noting that many hunters leave PA in search of more opportunities. Southwick agreed, but noted that would be expensive to study. Rep. Surra then asked if any follow up was conducted to see what opponents do on Sundays, but he was told that was not asked.

Rep. Keller asked if the extra costs that would be incurred by the PGC were considered in the study. Durgin replied they were not. Southwick added it becomes a "budget issue versus economic issue".

Rep. Gergely questioned respondents citing religion as a reason for opposition, noting that he has seen Amish and Mennonites fishing on Sundays. Rep. Denlinger responded to this, commenting that many church leaders would probably like to have the names of those individuals. He remarked that religious groups understand that their theology doesn't rule, but they deserve to be able to control their land.

Rep. Goodman remarked that the economic impact of expanded Sunday hunting would be huge, noting that seven more days of hunting per hunter could make a large impact. He also commented that the report validates HB 904. Rep. Goodman then asked if opponents would support a pilot program on state game lands. Southwick replied the issue is very emotional and polarized. He speculated that a pilot program could lead to a lot of confusion, as hunters may not be aware where they could or couldn't hunt.

Rep. Miller commented that allowing PGC officers to enforce trespassing laws is a good idea, but not practical. She noted that 120 officers cover the entire state and they already have their hands full with their duties.

Rep. Sonney asked if other states supply "No Sunday Hunting" signs, but no one knew. He then asked if there would be a proliferation of signs if there were supplied. Southwick remarked that certainly some would be posted, but couldn't guess how many.

Rep. Gillespie asked about responses that Sunday hunting would affect landowners' privacy. Southwick replied "privacy" refers to hunters on private land without permission. Durgin added that "privacy" was simply a check-off option on the survey.

Chairman Smith concluded the meeting by noting that most members have not had time to thoroughly study the report, which was released yesterday. He also noted that the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee recently reported out SB 539, which increases penalties for trespassing. The Chairman remarked that the Committee will also be considering the effect of Sunday hunting on the PGC, which is in "dire financial straits."

The full report can be viewed at:  http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/factsheets/2005/372%20Sunday%20Hunting.pdf

Reports provided by PA Legislative Services