Hunting Report Archery Duck Deer

Pennsylvania hunting license fee increase justified – could be talking about any part of our society at large, but in this case I’m talking about hunting and hunters in Pennsylvania.

For years we have been fighting “Deer Wars.” Do we want the deer population to fit the habitat or do we want more deer to hunt? Each side has its arguments, but that’s not what I want to talk about.

Today all attention is on a possible hunting license increase.

Rep. Bruce Smith, chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, introduced recent legislation to increase revenues to the Pennsylvania Game Commission through an increase in hunting license fees.

Smith introduced three pieces of legislation, each raising fees in different ways. Two bills, HB 2600 and HB 2601 offer different packages that would result in just about all aspects of hunting costing more, starting with the basic adult resident hunting license.

That license fee is slated to be raised from $19 to either $29 or $34. Junior, senior, bear and waterfowl licenses would also increase. Also, a $10 pheasant stamp and $5 turkey stamp are proposed with proceeds to be used for the maintenance and operating of programs for preserving and encouraging the hunting of these species in the state.

The third bill, HB 2602, would create a $20 conservation stamp for people who use state game lands for any purpose. Proceeds from the stamp would be deposited into the state Game Fund. Hunters would be required to purchase the stamp, along with all other users of the Game Lands.

The last time hunting license fees were increased was in 1999. Since then, the Commission has experienced increased operating costs in the face of declining license sales.

The Commission has had to reduce services, including cutting the number of pheasants produced from 200,000 to 100,000 a year, discontinuing toll-free regional office numbers, reducing funding for a deer fencing program and bear damage complaints, reducing overtime, discontinuing publication of educational materials and delaying the start of a Wildlife Conservation Officer training class. The last class graduated in 2002. There are 15 Conservation Officer vacancies.

The situation will only get worse as personnel and fuel costs continue to increase. The Commission, which has operated in a deficit for 13 of the past 20 years, can only reduce staff, use reserves and cut services for so long.

What stuns me are the hunters who are against any license increase. How they cannot see the need for the increase and refuse to support the Commission and hunting in this state is beyond me.

I have talked with numerous hunters over the last few days and one argument I hear repeated against the increase is that the Commission doesn’t need any more money because it doesn’t do anything, anyway. It seems amazing this argument can be made, until you realize it is based on the selfish premise that “the Commission is not doing anything for me or what I want it to do.”

The majority of hunters who are making this argument against the license increase are, for the most part, strictly deer hunters who do not accept the need for the current deer management plan. Many seem to want to hold the Commission hostage until it changes the management plan and brings back the high deer herd numbers of yesteryear.

If you look beyond the deer issue, there is a different picture. Multi-species hunters and fur trappers are by and large in favor of the increase. This is probably because, as a group, they base their season’s success on more than how many deer they see.

So what would an average hunter pay if the proposed increases go through?

Let’s look.

Adult general hunting license, $29; either an archery or muzzleloader stamp, $15; an antlerless license, $5; a pheasant or waterfowl stamp, $10; turkey stamp, $5; and a Game Lands stamp, $20. That’s $84. If an average hunter spends two days hunting for each species he is licensed for (including three common small-game species), the cost is $7 a day to hunt. A real bargain, if you ask me.

Hunting is an important issue for many Pennsylvanians. It has been described as a way of life. But too often, when hunters are called upon to support hunting, many fail to live up to their responsibilities.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m willing to pay more to hunt and trap. It’s that important to me.

Mike Barcaskey is The Times Outdoors Coordinator.