I recently enjoyed watching a taping of Pa. Game Commission testimony to the Pa. House of Representatives Fish and Game Committee chaired by our local Rep. Martin Causer on the local cable channel. As a retired PGC employee, I thought that it was a very interesting, fair, and well conducted hearing. However, there is one issue brought up by Rep. Causer with which I have considerable disagreement.
The PGC is currently benefiting financially from royalties derived from Marcellus shale drilling on State Game Lands. Thankfully, in my opinion, the PGC has earmarked some of these funds for escrow accounts to assist with purchase of additional State Game Lands. Not only will these purchases be available to their owners, the Pennsylvania hunters, but they will be available to future generations of resident and non-resident hunters and outdoor enthusiasts as well. And as they say, “you better get it now cause they ain’t makin‘ any more of it.”
Rep. Causer feels that the PGC should be conducting a less-aggressive approach to land purchase, at least in the less-populated areas of the state and particularly in this legislative district. Because there is already so much existing federal (Allegheny National Forest), and state (State Game Lands, Bureau of Forestry and state parks) and since the PGC pays very little local taxes ($1.20/acre payments in lieu of local tax payments) relative to private forested property owners, he believes that this unduly shifts additional tax burden onto local citizens. Hopefully, I have stated his case reasonably fairly.
In the past, I’ve heard the argument that since the managing agencies of these public properties provide most of the needed maintenance efforts on their lands, limited local tax expenditures are required, justifying lower taxes. Although there is some truth in this, to me, there are more compelling reasons to support public land purchases.
Hunters are facing declining available places to hunt due to increasing trends in posted land throughout the state. It’s hard to say how much land in Pa. or northcentral Pa. or McKean County should be open to hunters. Hunters only represent less than 10 percent of Pa.’s population. I would guess that better than a third of the male voters in Rep. Causer’s district hunt. It seems to me that at least these taxpayers would like to see the PGC’s land acquisition program statewide stay up with the rate of hunting land lost to posting.
It also seems reasonable to me that, although the PGC prefers to purchase properties in more-populated parts of the Commonwealth (and closer to where most of their customers — hunters — reside), the reality is that land values tend to be lower in less-populated areas. This often dictates that the PGC concentrate its efforts in areas with lower tax bases in order to try to stay up with overall losses of hunting land due to posting.
Another factor which Rep. Causer must be aware of is the increase in forest consortium land purchases requiring annual fees for hunting rights. I assume these consortiums will pay higher taxes than on public property but are figuring on timber sales, oil and gas income and lease hunting income to pay for these higher taxes. These are all legitimate business endeavors and there are evidently hunters financially willing to pay these hunting fees but I suspect that most of Rep. Causer’s hunting constituents would prefer, like me, to pay higher local taxes than to decide between high hunting right fees or reduced hunting opportunities.
Another factor to consider is the affect of additional public land purchases vs. tourism. Tourism (PA Wilds Program) is an important source of income to the local economies in our area. I don’t know how much additional public land purchases would contribute to additional tourist dollars in Northcentral Pa., but past acquisitions have been helpful and future ones certainly couldn’t hurt.
Finally, I’d make the argument that a lot of the people in Northcentral Pa. enjoy our “big woods” and elbow room. If we wanted to live in housing developments next to shopping malls we would probably try to locate nearer to Pittsburgh or Philadelphia where I suspect their property taxes are a lot higher than ours.
It should also make Rep. Causer’s constituents feel a little better knowing that the managers of all this public land are pretty good stewards. Not only will they make the natural resources (oil, gas and timber) on these properties available to all those that need them but they will probably do a better job of improving habitat for wildlife and protecting the natural resources (clean water and fishing) for future generations than might be the case with other individuals and business concerns with which they are competing for the finite and limited land available.
Bill Drake lives in Wetmore Township, McKean County. He describes himself as a voter, fly fisherman, hunter, and retired Pennsylvania Game Commission wildlife biologist.
