Hunting license increase or Land Usage permt?

[Dredly]

Every year around this time we start seeing the reports from the PGC and Fish and Game of their funding woes and how they don't have enough money to operate at full staff due to not enough money, how they can't maintain the roads and trails properly, how they are unable to focus on stopping the big issues like poaching and vandalism because they have way to few people...

Every year hundreds of thousands of people go to State parks and forests (MAKE THAT STATE GAME LANDS and PGC / Fish and boat paid for lands) for recreation, vacation, and to explore and they don't pay a dime for it, while the Hunters and fisherman pay for all of it. Add in the rifle ranges which are constantly in use and very often destroyed, lead clean up, maintenance to repair... etc.

Every year they are voted to not get an increase in funding so they attempt to get an increase to license costs passed, which never passes because we don't want to pay anymore either

So the question becomes where does the needed money come from? Well... why don't we start charging for usage to our hunter sponsored parks and state forests / game lands? Buying a hunting license will qualify as your "pass" however for non hunters a 20.00 / person yearly fee (or 50.00 family pass) would provide millions in added revenue.

So what do you guys think? Vote in the poll!

[LittleRedToyota]

i think saying that state forests and state parks are funded by hunters is not correct. do you have any citations to back up that claim?

i wouldn't have a problem with charging fees to use amenities in state parks, etc. though i think there already are such fees (not sure, i never use them)...but maybe they should be higher.

assuming state game lands really are primarily funded by hunters (which i think is true, but i'm not sure), i also wouldn't have any problem with charging a fee for non-hunting use of state game lands.

however, charging a fee just to go hiking/primitive camping in state forests would be BS, imho. i'm already paying for that land with tax dollars. and i don't need any of the services provided by the PGC to use it for non-hunting purposes.

plus, there wouldn't be any way to effectively do it...you'd have to put a fence around the state forests or something.

[LittleRedToyota]

BTW, just for the record, state forests and state parks are administered and maintained by DCNR, not PGC.

here is a document that outlines the DCNR budget:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/info/060...getsummary.pdf

[Feddog82]

Dredly is right. More of the money to purchase public land comes from hunters than you think. It isn't all ofrom just hunting license purchases though. There has been a 10% tax on all firearms (before the firearm is sold to you, it's part of the price tag) since 1937 that is strictly used for land aquisition. Now I understand that there are firearms that aren't used for hunting but that is just one of the other ways of funding. Just b/c the DCNR is in charge of maintaining state parks and state forest that doen't mean that your tax dollars were used to purchase them. Not too long ago the DCNR and PGC weren't at each others throats and worked together on many things, like land aquisition. The PGC would fund the land purchase and the DCNR would agree to take are of it due to the PGC being under-manned. That is why hunters are allowed to hunt in almost every piece of "state" property whether it be a park or state forest.

There wouldn't be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. In fact, these monies dwarf all other sources combined. That means outdoor sportsmen are overwhelmingly the largest source of conservation funding in the United States….

Right to Hunt vs. Animal Rights: "Hunter-Vationists" Are Paying for Everyone's Party

Here are the numbers, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and other public sources:

** $746 million -- Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen's licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies

** $300 million -- Additional monies contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

** $4.2 billion -- Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Feddog82

Dredly is right. More of the money to purchase public land comes from hunters than you think.

can anyone provide a clear breakdown of where the money that funds state parks and state forest ultimately comes from?

the document i posted covers it to some extent, but doesn't really clearly outline the ultimate sources.

It isn't all ofrom just hunting license purchases though. There has been a 10% tax on all firearms (before the firearm is sold to you, it's part of the price tag) since 1937 that is strictly used for land aquisition.

1. that means it is paid for by all firearms owners, not just hunters. frankly, i would argue that individual practical shooters tend to spend a lot more on firearms than individual hunters (of course, there is a lot of overlap in those two groups). there are prolly many more hunters, though. so the breakdown of who is really paying these taxes (hunters vs. non-hunting practical shooters) would be interesting (though difficult) to figure out.

and then there are those who buys a gun or two, but never hunt or even shoot the gun at all...those people might actually be the majority.

2. exactly what land is aquired with that money? state forest land, state park land, state game land, or some of each?

Just b/c the DCNR is in charge of maintaining state parks and state forest that doen't mean that your tax dollars were used to purchase them. Not too long ago the DCNR and PGC weren't at each others throats and worked together on many things, like land aquisition. The PGC would fund the land purchase and the DCNR would agree to take are of it due to the PGC being under-manned. That is why hunters are allowed to hunt in almost every piece of "state" property whether it be a park or state forest.

so the PGC buys land that gets designated as state forest and state park land? do you happen to know how much?

i'd love to see a breakdown of where the funding to purchase, maintain, and administer state forests and state parks actually comes from.

ETA: do you have a link for the information you quoted above? (those sound like federal programs...i'm curious how much of the land acquired through it is federal land vs. state land purchased with the aid of federal grants. and you also need to know the overall budget to really know what those figures mean.)

[Dredly]

If I remember correctly the DCNR is basically the equivalent of a property manager for a huge number of PGC tasks and items. A lot of the cooperative agreements between the two result in the DCNR managing it while the PGC pays for it.

at least I'm pretty sure thats how it works for a lot of the shared properties but I could be wrong.

I believe the DCNR is funded mostly through our taxes as well aren't they?

[Feddog82]

You can read this little article and this will give you a great example of the PGC stating that license fees are paying for STATE GAME LANDS. Yes thsi is just one land purchase but there are a ton more, you just have to look. It's right in the 1st paragraph.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...?A=11&Q=152470


Give me a minute on the STATE PARKS and STATE FORESTS, I'll find something

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Dredly

I believe the DCNR is funded mostly through our taxes as well aren't they?

that's what i thought, too.

and i also understood your original post to say that it is PGC, and not DCNR, that is having funding issues.

as i see it, the PGC provides services basically only to hunters (except that they do allow other people onto state game lands)...while the DCNR provides services to the public in general.

thus, it seems fair to institute a general usage permit on state forests/state parks...to fund a shortfall in the DCNR budget. in that case, those who benefit from the DCNR (namely everyone...or at least everyone who uses a state forest or state park for any reason) would be paying for it.

however, it does not seem fair to do that to fund a shortfall in the PGC. that would be asking everyone who uses a state forest or state park for any reason to fund a shortfall in services (the PGC) that benefit only hunters.

however, without a clear breakdown of where the money to fund and maintain state forests and state parks come from, i could be wrong.

if hunting licenses (or some other revenue that comes only or primarily from hunters) really are paying for the purchase, administration, and maintenance of state forests and state parks, then i think it might be fair to charge a general usage fee to fund the budget shortfall of the PGC as that would mean, imho, that hunters are already paying too much for services they don't use--so a little tit-for-tat would be OK.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Feddog82

You can read this little article and this will give you a great example of the PGC stating that license fees are paying for STATE GAME LANDS. Yes thsi is just one land purchase but there are a ton more, you just have to look. It's right in the 1st paragraph.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...?A=11&Q=152470


Give me a minute on the STATE PARKS and STATE FORESTS, I'll find something

that doesn't surprise me, and, as i mentioned above, i would have no problem with a general usage fee for state game lands...as those are paid for by hunters, so anyone else who wants to use them should also have to pony up to help fund the PGC budget shortfall.

but, unless state forests and state parks are paid for in large part by hunters (which they might be...i could be wrong), then i don't see how it is fair to charge a general usage fee to fund a shortfall in the PGC budget (as the PGC services only hunters).

[Feddog82]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

that doesn't surprise me, and, as i mentioned above, i would have no problem with a general usage fee for state game lands...as those are paid for by hunters, so anyone else who wants to use them should also have to pony up to help fund the PGC budget shortfall.

but, unless state forests and state parks are paid for in large part by hunters (which they might be...i could be wrong), then i don't see how it is fair to charge a general usage fee to fund a shortfall in the PGC budget (as the PGC services only hunters).

OK here it is, from what I found LittleRedToyota's assumption in the above quote is how it should be b/c at this time, 2008, the funding for state parks is from the DCNR and State Game Lands funding from the PGC.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wlhabita...appendix_k.htm