Access permit for game lands usage under consideration

[BrentL]

Link to article in Tribune Review

There is a proposal for the Pennsylvania Game Commission to start charging non-hunters for using state game lands. The reasoning is that "unlike other state lands, they were purchased with revenues from hunting license sales, oil and gas leases and timber sales rather than tax dollars" so other users should have to pay their fair share as well. Apparently the annual fee would likely be greater than the cost of a hunting license, and despite having paid this fee, non-hunters would no say in the management of the lands and their access would also be restricted to certain times and areas, such as on trails and during non-hunting season.

Does this have a chance of actually happening? It is my understanding that many game lands in my area were donated by Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. I can't believe they would continue to work with PGC in the future if the public is not allowed onto these lands.

I get it that they want everyone to contribute, but what harm are other users who are hiking or fishing causing to hunters by using these lands? On the other hand, there are certain times of the year when I won't take my family to state parks and forests because of hunting season. Maybe hunting should not be allowed in these areas.

Are game wardens now going to have to patrol these lands year round to check people for access permits? Will backpackers on the Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail have to get a PGC access permit, and the trail will be shut down during hunting season? Why can't these public lands just simply be public.

This just seems really petty. I don't believe anything will come out of it, but it kind of annoys me nonetheless.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I'd pay for a user fee since I take advantage of the lands but don't buy hunting licenses.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

I would like them to remain free to all. This is a way us hunters can give something back. It might go a long way toward giving the hunter a better image in the publics eye.

 

[allan_s]

Has it given hunters a better image? NO. They don't care. Charge them. Everybody should contribute. No such thing as free lunch.

 

[pcray1231]

I support a users fee, but you touch on some good points.

1. It should not be more expensive than a hunting license. It should be equal to the portion of a hunting license that goes towards land procurement. Unless, of course, if the permit price you saw is intended as a lifetime permit, which would make sense. In that case, it's still far cheaper than a hunting license, which is yearly.

2. Yes, I understand the concern about the conservancy donated land, and whether conservancies would continue to work with the PGC. I would support an exception for those SGL's that were created with donated land.

The rest of your concerns are rather unfounded. It's your choice not to go in the woods in hunting season, but there is nothing at all dangerous about it. Yes, backpackers may have to get a permit before crossing PGC land, but why would they shut any trails down? Afraid you might see a hunter or something? SGL's are already among the most watched areas by wardens year round, and non-hunting season is when those officers are LEAST busy. I can't imagine them having to add any more enforcement.

 

[FarmerDave]

Brent, as far as WPC goes, I don't think that will be an issue. I could be wrong, but I don't think they donate much land. The sell it. Take the President Oil company land for example. PGC was going to BUY it from them, but because of issues with old existing 99 year leases and the threat of lawsuits, PGC backed out of it. WPC ended up selling some timber off of it to recoup some cost and then sold the land to a lumber company with restrictions on timbering practices. In addition, they kept the recreational rights so it would be open to the public in perpetuity. I think that was the word they used.

I could be wrong on the above, but either way, they could do that same thing with the recreational rights for any land.

I don't wish to comment much on the rest of the access fee idea because I am not sure how I feel about it. I don't know whether I would support it or not. Too many unanswered questions. Would non-res be same price as res, or higher like it is for hunting and fishing. I just have never spent much time on game lands. Never had to I guess.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I like it 'cause there are people who make a lot of demands who have no stock in the game. No hunting on Sundays and all that so that people can hike and bird watch and all that. You wanna have a voice in how the land is used? Pay up.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Nevermind, I missed the part about not giving non-hunters a voice in how the land is used and restricting them to certain areas. That, I'm not for. If they put up and pay up, they get just as much say....which I guess would be a risk for the hunting crowd 'cause non-hunters could then, if organized, effectively take away all hunting.

 

[Heberly]

Wouldn't it just be more wise from a financial standpoint, to simply buy a hunting license to fish?

Why pay for an access fee when all you need is a license.

If a hunter, during the off season is permitted to fish, just because he or she has a hunting license, it seems to me it wouldn't matter.

Someone tell me what I am missing.

 

[salmonoid]

pcray1231 wrote:
I support a users fee, but you touch on some good points.

1. It should not be more expensive than a hunting license. It should be equal to the portion of a hunting license that goes towards land procurement. Unless, of course, if the permit price you saw is intended as a lifetime permit, which would make sense. In that case, it's still far cheaper than a hunting license, which is yearly.

2. Yes, I understand the concern about the conservancy donated land, and whether conservancies would continue to work with the PGC. I would support an exception for those SGL's that were created with donated land.

The rest of your concerns are rather unfounded. It's your choice not to go in the woods in hunting season, but there is nothing at all dangerous about it. Yes, backpackers may have to get a permit before crossing PGC land, but why would they shut any trails down? Afraid you might see a hunter or something? SGL's are already among the most watched areas by wardens year round, and non-hunting season is when those officers are LEAST busy. I can't imagine them having to add any more enforcement.

Given that many SGL are patchwork quilts of lands that are or have been added to over the years, I don't see how you could make an exception for donated lands. One numbered game land may contain donated land, land that has been acquired through land swaps with other entities, land that has been purchased outright, etc. Do you just excempt the five acres that was donated? How do you delineate sub-boundaries within an entire land complex?

Many on the board rail against pay-to-play fishing clubs, who lock access up on streams, presumably by using their own exclusive club members' fees to do so (seems very similar to using hunting license fees to purchase SGL). How would you view this proposition? How is it any different than being a member of the SRC, other than a difference in dollar amounts to join (and one involving a private, for-profit business, the other a state agency without General Funds appropriations)?

What about ATW that are on SGL? Would they cease to be stocked if a fee was required for anglers to access SGL?

Should hunters be charged to access PFBC easements on the Erie tribs land, which were secured using Erie stamp license sales? Waterfowl hunters banned from using areas with PFBC impoundments, unless they buy an access pass?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I purchased a hunting lic., extra tags and blahblahblah for 10 years. I don't know so am I equal to the no paying users? Do I get to use them for 10 years for free?

No taxes run the pa game commission?

I'm not against this but I see all kinds of issues with it

 

[BrentL]

As far as I'm concerned, when PGC started accepting donated lands from nonprofits, they lost the right to charge access fees to non-hunters in good faith. I don't think we need to start splitting out exactly which properties were paid for by who on a case by case basis.

Just curious, do you also support a user fee for PA state parks and forests for out of state people? Maybe you do, but I don't. To me this is similar. The out of state people are also freeloaders.

I mentioned shutting down the trail specifically because the article I referenced suggested that SGLs would be closed during hunting season. I don't see any reason why this would be necessary either, but then again I also don't think it is necessary to charge access fees. I'm just trying to think through what this proposal would actually mean if it was enacted.

Perhaps I exaggerated a little bit about going in the woods during hunting season, but then again why is it so important that we all wear bright orange hats and vests if there is nothing at all dangerous (just ask Dick Cheney's friend). I've also heard some hunters suggest that hunting season is only a short time and other people should just stay out of the woods during that time. I only bring this up to make the point that we all need to be willing to compromise a little when it comes to other types of outdoor activities.

I don't know much about what game wardens do at various times of year and at which locations. I do at least know that enforcement and administration of any additional regulation will have some kind of a cost.

I am not against hunting, I simply don't like this proposal. And I question whether it would bring any significant revenue into the PGC anyway.

 

[pcray1231]

I mentioned shutting down the trail specifically because the article I referenced suggested that SGLs would be closed during hunting season. I don't see any reason why this would be necessary either.

I agree with you there. And ESPECIALLY if others are paying a fee, then I don't think you can even rightfully exclude them. I don't really think they should ever be excluded, fee or no fee. If you institute a fee, then everyone, including hunters, should pay it. You could even separate it from the hunting license. Reduce the cost of a license a few bucks, but if you want to hunt on an SGL, you have to buy the "SGL stamp" along with the license. Other users could thus buy only the SGL stamp, sans the hunting license.

Hunting season is, technically, 365 days per year. I recognize that some seasons are more popular then others, but you can hunt something 365 days per year.

Just curious, do you also support a user fee for PA state parks and forests for out of state people? Maybe you do, but I don't.

Torn. Not opposed. And indeed many places do this, for instance, beach fees. Even in PA we charge more for out of state hunting and fishing licenses, which could be seen as a fee like this. The argument against it is that tourism is overall beneficial, hence you WANT to attract out of staters, not drive them away. Even if it costs you more to keep the attractions up, you make that back with the out of state money they bring to your economy.

Salmonoid,

The key word is "exclusivity". I have little problem with clubs so long as the fee is to cover costs only, and that an unlimited number of people can sign up if they wish, no questions asked. I don't even have a problem with for-profit clubs, provided they do it legally. Regarding SRC, the main problem was the privatizing PUBLIC water in the LJR, and hassling fishermen who were fishing on public property.

Yes, the Erie stamp is a good example. If non-fishermen were a significant portion of the use on that land, absolutely, I'd support other types of users having to buy the Erie stamp. If they don't fish, they shouldn't have to buy a fishing license along with it.

I wouldn't have a problem with the PFBC demanding that hunters pay a fee to hunt on PFBC land.

And yeah, you still stock it. Erie tribs are still stocked. Despite having to pay a special fee to the PFBC to fish there.

 

[Bonzoso]

As a hunter I would prefer to leave it as is. If they start charging a fee it will give non hunters more leverage in how these lands are used. I don't mind sharing the land but I don't want non hunters trying to dictate its usage. These lands were established for hunting.

 

[RLeeP]

I think the non-hunter user fee idea is generally a good one.

Here's a couple real quick reasons I see it this way:

1) The PGC oversees somewhere in the general neighborhood of 1.5 million acres in the SGL system. The system is expensive to administrate and will only become more so. Yet, hunting in general in PA (like most places) is in a slow but steady decline. Overall PA hunting license sales have declined roughly 10% over the past decade or so. This decline is likely to continue at the same or perhaps an even more rapid pace. At the same time, the popularity of other non-consumptive (for lack of a better descriptor) outdoor pastimes from bird watching to hiking to wildflower photography and on and on continues to rise. Eventually, there may come a tipping point where a shrinking hunter stakeholder base is insufficient to fund everything that the Commission does, gas revenues notwithstanding. It not only makes sense to tap into these non-hunting revenues, it may be if the decline in hunters continues, the best deal hunters may get and perhaps the only way to hang onto the system and the lands as a place for the public to hunt. The emerging demographics are not in hunting's favor.

2) PA is now (I believe, now that Utah has gone to a general fund-based fish & game management system) the last state where game and fisheries are managed by semi-autonomous agencies. If we value this arrangement (and I think we should..) and the modest independence it allows our game and fisheries managers in making (mostly) resource-based management choices, we should not deny them access to any reasonable new revenue stream that will help them maintain their current level of independence. This user fee proposal is reasonable. The timber wolf may have been extirpated from the woods of the Commonwealth, but there are still a pile of them in Harrisburg serving in the state legislature. And they would love to get their hairy little paws on the levers that dole out fish and game goodies to PA's hunters and anglers. They can smell the votes.. Some of you may not like all the decisions that the PFBC makes regarding wild trout management, but my guess is that you'll remember them fondly if the General Assembly ends up in charge of wild trout management.

Well, that doesn't really qualify as "real quick" does it? Oh well, that's what i think. I'd be for the user fee.

 

[ColdBore]

BrentL wrote:
Perhaps I exaggerated a little bit about going in the woods during hunting season, but then again why is it so important that we all wear bright orange hats and vests if there is nothing at all dangerous

I notice an anti-hunting bias, but want to address this point.

Hunting is safer *because* of fluorescent orange, just as boating is safer because of PFDs, wading is safer because of wading staffs, driving is safer because of seatbelts and airbags, skiing is safer because of helmets, running at night is safer because of reflective trim on clothing, biking at night is safer because of flashing red lights on the bike, football is safer because of pads, crossing the road is safer because of crosswalks and lights, the list goes on and on.

None are really "dangerous", but most of us use the things listed. Why is that, if they are "not at all dangerous"?

Chances are that we could do all of the above without the safety equipment listed, and never get hurt, but we don't.

Why is that?

 

[BrentL]

ColdBore wrote:

BrentL wrote:
Perhaps I exaggerated a little bit about going in the woods during hunting season, but then again why is it so important that we all wear bright orange hats and vests if there is nothing at all dangerous

I notice an anti-hunting bias, but want to address this point.

Hunting is safer *because* of fluorescent orange, just as boating is safer because of PFDs, wading is safer because of wading staffs, driving is safer because of seatbelts and airbags, skiing is safer because of helmets, running at night is safer because of reflective trim on clothing, biking at night is safer because of flashing red lights on the bike, football is safer because of pads, crossing the road is safer because of crosswalks and lights, the list goes on and on.

None are really "dangerous", but most of us use the things listed. Why is that, if they are "not at all dangerous"?

Chances are that we could do all of the above without the safety equipment listed, and never get hurt, but we don't.

Why is that?

The things listed above ARE dangerous to some extent but we tolerate the risk because they are things we love to or need to do. I ride my bike on the street frequently during both day and night, if there was a way I could do so without the constant risk of getting hit by a car I would much prefer that.

In the same respect, I would rather go for a walk in the park when it is not hunting season. I will still walk in the woods and I am ok with the presence of hunters, but my wife is a bit less so, that's why I mentioned going with my family. I acknowledge the risk of something happening is tiny but I don't think she's totally crazy for worrying about it. She should probably worry more about me riding my bicycle out on the street instead.

My point was simply that there is give and take for everyone all around.

The thing that annoyed me most was the fact that I contribute to WPC and for the game commission to charge me to use lands preserved by them really bothered me. I'm not anti-hunter and I may have overreacted on the other points. If what Farmer Dave says about WPC selling the lands to PGC (not donating) is true, then perhaps I would reconsider.

 

[Number6]

I don't hunt, and I agree the the primary purpose of the SGLs is for hunting. But pay a fee to use those lands and then have no say in their disposition? To become some agencies cash cow. That's a bit of a tough sell. Those lands are there whether I walk on a trail or not, but once I pay, I become a stakeholder.

I'm not sure this is an argument the game commission wants to start, particularly with hearings this past week regarding (again) the merging of the PGC and the PFBC.

It will be interesting to watch this play out in its entirety.

 

[barrybarry]

Smells like a carefully planned court case. I'm good with that. Let's keep Corbett out of what we paid for.

 

[cvlimestoner]

Sounds like another tax to pay for the bureaucracy it creates. We should not need a permit to walk in the woods.