Dear Sirs,
According to an article appearing in the Erie Times-News, the Pennsylvania Game Commission is researching the idea of a user fee for non-hunters and non-trappers who wish to use Pennsylvania’s 1.5 million acres of State Game Lands. I believe this is a mistake for several reasons, which I will outline below.
- Enforcing the proposed user fee will stretch Game Commission resources. Currently the Game Commission is struggling to keep up with its core activities. When a black bear went wild in downtown Easton two years ago, there was only one Game Commission officer in all of Northhampton County to answer the Easton Police Department’s call for help, and “he’s not available” was the answer the police received. This same staff now has to stop and question hikers on state game lands and cyclists on state game roads instead of investigating poaching or managing wildlife.
- Enforcing the user fee will generate bad press for the Game Commission and Pennsylvania when the inevitable citation and subsequent challenge comes up. Tourism is a major source of income for the Commonwealth and its citizens. It will look poorly to both citizens and tourists when the first prosecution of a hiker for walking in the woods takes place.
- And to be effective any user fee WILL have to be enforced, meaning the Game Commission will have to, for the first time, specifically hire officers to keep people out of the woods. We’ve come a long way from William Penn, who when laying out his “green country town” Philadelphia planned open space and public lands for citizens to enjoy, and insisted one in five acres of the colony be kept undeveloped.
- Applying a user fee helps blur, instead of making distinct, the difference between the state parks and forests and the state game lands by introducing confusion. And the situation becomes even more confused when the National Scenic Trails that pass through game lands are included. The Appalachian Trail is considered a distinct corridor from the game lands it passes through. Does a through hiker going off trail in state game lands constitute a permit violation?
- For a century the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the hunting and non hunting users is that the the game lands when not being used for hunting and trapping are open to everyone. While it is true hunting and trapping fees are a source of income for the Game Commission, they aren’t the only income stream. And while the Game Commission does spend money to acquire land, often land is either donated to the Commission, as with the 41,000 acres the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy gave up title to over the years, or sold at below market value. This land was given or sold to the Commission under the assumption that the gentleman’s agreement mentioned above would be in place. To charge a fee to see the snow geese at Middle Creek or the elk at Winslow Hill is a violation of trust. Ditto for groups the Game Commission worked with on special projects such as the Tiadaghton Audubon Society, who built the blind and trail in “The Muck” in SGL 313.
- Part of the gentleman’s agreement mentioned above is that the game lands are game lands, not parks, and that while we who are not hunters may use them, we are not primary users, and when the hunter needs them, we stay out. Charging a user fee means the hiker and the cyclist and equestrian literally now have a financial investment in the game lands, and are likely to petition for changes to suit their use. After all, they are paying a fee to hike there, shouldn’t the Game Commission spend money on trail improvements? Shouldn’t non-hunters have representation on the Commission? I can even see at some point someone saying, “Fall is a wonderful season to hike and ride – do the hunters need EVERY Saturday for deer?” This proposal promises to be a disaster to the hunter and trapper; for the occasional problems non-hunters cause them, they’ve not had to compete with them for Game Commission resources or had a voice in managing the game lands.
- Speaking of resources, much of the Game Commission budget goes for wildlife studies, hunter education, managing the elk and deer populations, and other items that don’t benefit the non-hunter. Its not proper that someone who simply wants to walk the land should pay for these programs.
For these and other reasons I urge you at your next meeting on August 11 to vote against any proposal to enact a user fee for the State Game Lands.
Cordially,
Neil Brennen
www.atasteforthewoods.com
August 8, 2014 @ 12:24 pm
Very well said, Neil. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
August 8, 2014 @ 12:55 pm
Agreed. The Commonwealth is intended to be just that — wealth (resources) shared by the Common (all citizens) and paid for by all with the understanding that we all pay for the things that do the most good to the most people. No, maybe no citizen uses the roads as much as the companies that ship product on them, but we all pay money toward them for the greater good. No, not everybody camps and hikes, but we all benefit from the trees, we all benefit from the wildlife, we all benefit from the educational opportunities afforded our youth and we all benefit from the tourist draw provided by untainted spaces. The idea that any taxpayer might be hindered in any way from simply going and taking advantage of the Common Wealth they already support every April 15th turns the stomach.
There are so many ways one might raise funds for such a project without stooping to the level of making people pay simply to enter. Let’s use a bit of creativity and think about how we might make that happen…
Range Resources doesn’t pay taxes, yet they cause one of the biggest drains on Commonwealth resources. They had revenues of $900 MIL in 2009. Maybe there’s an opportunity there.
People use cars to get to our parks, yet an individual’s privilege to drive is not essential to the Commonwealth. Maybe you could add a fee to the licensing process.
Maybe you could place “convenience sheds” at regular intervals on the stat trails that offer a bathroom on one side and a vending machine or two on the other with water and snacks for hikers all in an innocuous 4’x12′ shed powered by solar batteries and requiring very little if any extra staffing to support.
Maybe those ideas are silly. Maybe you can come up with better. You’re smart people. I bet it wouldn’t take you 10 minutes of consideration to come up with 10 ideas for supporting the system other than taxing the people that already paid for it and deserve unlimited access to it by their birthright as citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
August 8, 2014 @ 3:26 pm
Outstanding letter Neil – I agree 100%. There seems to be an insidious creep in the desire of the state to keep people out of the woods, be in Game Lands or State Forests. What is it that they don’t want people to see – the extent to which the natural gas companies are running roughshod over nature chasing a quick buck?
August 8, 2014 @ 3:59 pm
There is another issue, hikers do not need to carry identification, okay, so you can imagine the officer running into this:
Officer: ID please,
Hiker: It’s at my campsite/hotel
O: what is your name
H: Bill Penn
O: Your address
H: (gives out of state address that does not exist)
O: Here is your ticket.
H: Gee, thanks.
August 8, 2014 @ 4:50 pm
Well said Neil Im sure there are a lot of ways to make money if they really need to….
August 8, 2014 @ 5:06 pm
I agree.
I shared this with my State Rep, Marty Causer – who chairs the Fish and Game Committee. He’s an old friend… we went to school together.
August 8, 2014 @ 11:53 pm
Please stop this movement at your earliest convenience. It seems the people whom we pay to do their job, find that doing their job is a burden and that the only remedy is further taxation and fees. I now live in MD (born and raised in the PA woods), and now in Maryland they charge local people a fee to have access to the local county parks. Yes, the parks that we are entitled to, because we pay state and local taxes for maintenance and upkeep, have become burdensome to maintain to our local officials, so much so that they have enacted an access fee. On that same note, can we please reconsider having our states and local governments ADVERTISE tourism and using our TAX DOLLARS to invite people from other planets to ‘discover’ our planet. If a person wants to open a restaurant or hotel in a wonderful and beautiful location in our beautiful state, why does it become the obligation of the state and county government to promote other people to come and fraternize their business. Yes, I understand that “Tourism creates jobs”, which generates tax revenue, but if we didn’t have all those extra people coming here, we wouldn’t need all that extra burden on local facilities and the additional need for tax revenue. If “Joe’s Motel” wants more people to come and enjoy the beauty of the area he has chosen to locate to, can we let it be his responsibility to promote his hotel on his own dime? Why do I have to pay to promote people to come to Potato City? Let the Motel do that if they want more business. I’m not intending to be a curmudgeon, but when the state and local authorities complain that they don’t have enough manpower, resources and tax revenue to do their job without staff having to log excessive OVERTIME, …why do we punish the local residents with the undue burden of taxation and excessive fees?? Oh, and remember, next time you want to visit Ocean City, bring extra money for the Beach access fees. Which the city requires you to pay, because the state is advertising for more people to come here, so they also can collect your $8 toll for crossing the Bay Bridge.
August 11, 2014 @ 3:53 pm
As a hunter, I’m in agreement with your letter Neil. There should be no access fees. However, during open deer hunting seasons, yes every Saturday is reserved for deer hunting. The majority of hunters work 5 days a week and only have Saturdays to hunt. Since there is no Sunday hunting in Pennsylvania, non-hunters should have no qualms with having unrestricted access on Sunday without having to worry about interfering with hunters and vice versa. It’s about the best you can hope for that’s fair an equitable for everyone. Of course, there’s nothing stopping non-hunters from taking hikes on state gamelands during open hunting seasons either. Just be smart and make yourself very visible by wearing fluorescent orange hats and vests.
August 11, 2014 @ 4:07 pm
Hi Mark, thank you for your comments. I don’t think I was clear that the “no hunting on Saturday” comment wasn’t my view but that of a hypothetical non-hunter. I’ve changed the post slightly to make that clearer.