June 24, 2026 · GAME AND FISHERIES · 3,472 words · 15 speakers · 87 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Okay, folks. We'll gavel in. I'd like to call this meeting of the House Game and Fisheries Committee to order. Erin, please take the roll.
Chair Kulik. Here.
Rep. Davidson.
Designation here.
Rep. Doherty. Rep. Gunganauer.
Designation here.
Rep. Gents.
She is online. Designation here.
Rep Paddock. Designation here.
Rep Harris. Designation here.
Rep Holenstein. Designation here.
Rep Inglis. Designation here. Rep Kazim.
Designation here. Rep Mirsky.
Rep Resnick. Designation here.
Rep Steele.
Designation here.
And Rep Young.
Designation here.
Chair Maloney.
Here.
Rep Anderson.
Rep Banta.
Designation here.
Rep Cook.
Rep Devanzo.
Designation.
Rep Kerwin.
Rep Kuzma.
Rep Labs.
Designation.
Rep. Oldsummer.
Rep. Reichert.
Designation.
Rep. Smith.
Rep. Wintley. We have a quorum. Thank you. The chair calls up House Bill 2690, printer's number 3640. Paul, please read a summary of the bill.
Thank you, Chair. This legislation would authorize the Pennsylvania Game Commission to establish and maintain classifications of hunting and trapping licenses and the fees for each license classification.
The question is, will the committee report the bill on that? Representative Mahaffey, would you like to speak on your bill?
Sure. Thank you, Chair Kulik, Chair Maloney, members of the committee. House Bill 808 worked. House Bill 808 was extended by both of you. The Fish Commission and Fish and Boat Commission have done an absolutely great job using this and using this tool not only to help them and help our advocates in the fishing industries, not only for our anglers, but Lake Erie. That bill and the extension have done great things. now it's time we do it for the game commission i think this this piece of legislation worked on and done answers the questions that we need to do to move this forward for them to give our hunters our trappers and here's the significant part of this is that we we lowered the youth now you see what the what has been done because this is no different this is a you know this isn't a pilot program this is anything to happen with the fish and boat commission but under tim schaefer and his his group we've seen better fish we have seen better equipment now to transport them fish the loss of fish but i'm hearing it and not only for the trout but all kind of fish that are being stocked around the state and i'm hearing it from the anglers saying hey i'm seeing this is they're nicer fish they're everything that you can imagine and those are the things that we want to do and make sure we we continue to do now the game commission the same thing you know uh working with them as far as our pheasant hunting and working with steve and seeing what they need to do there's things they need to do the increases that happen in the fish and boat commission were very moderate they are there to to meet uh you know what cost factors are out there right now and i think they're going to do the exact same thing and i'm very confident that house bill 2690 will do that for them. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Any comments or debate on this bill?
Chair Maloney. Thank you, Madam Chair. Probably not going to come as a surprise that I don't support this bill. And quite frankly, to compare the Game Commission with the Fish Commission, I think is a stretch. The differences that they have are huge. The issues that the Game Commission has and created on themselves is theirs, not the sports site, but checks and balances. I've been in this a long time. I've actually been in this a long time with students and youth long before I was a legislator. I don't actually need to be lectured on that. So there is a lot of issues that have to do with checks and balances the amount of licenses that have been increased by creating new ones That not the same when it comes to the Fish Commission So, to me, if we don't have oversight in the legislature to be able to rein in or to keep certain costs down, then we lose a part of the voice of the people that elect us. So for me, it's misguided legislation. It's not what we need as folks that want to see accountability. So I'm not supporting it.
Thank you, Madam. Rep. Mahaffey, I do believe that there are, it has to go through, any increases would have to go through the legislature, right, in public comment?
Well, I mean, we have the same opportunity we have with the Fish Commission. So we have concurrent resolutions recommending and having the same oversight as far as we aren't losing oversight. We have just a different way to look at it and say, hold on, wait a minute. This is a little bit too much or whatever it is. But we haven't had any of that with the Fish Commission. That has not happened. so that tells me that they're doing their job as as far as what they needed to do the what they they're looking at they know and and this is the best thing you know working with tim and his group they know what is needed to run that place they know what amount of money they need to take care of the anglers. They know what they need to do to set the rates because they know if they overdo this and they put high fees in there or whatever you want to call it as far as extending these licenses and making it too high, they're going to lose people. And that's the last thing they want to do. This is how they make their money. This is how they fund the Fish and Boat Commission. And I don't think it's any different, honestly, than what we have done with them is what we're going to do here. So they do have and we do have that ability to, you know, do that resolution and have and question their motives and whatever they want to do. So I don't think that's a problem at all. I mean, I don't think we're giving anything away. We haven't said when's the last time and pardon me that I don't know this and maybe Steve. When's the last time the General Assembly has increased the hunting license?
Does anybody know?
1999.
I think everything's gone up since 1999. Now, they had to do it in other ways, and they had to implement new permits and whatever you want to, you know, as far as the tags for different things. But I think working with them and listening to what they want to do and revamping things, I think it's going to be better for the hunters at the end of the day. And I would note that when we did it for Fish and Boat, it was the understanding that it's not going to be something that has to be done or is going to be done. It was just giving them the ability to do it in an easier manner. And that's what we're looking for with the Game Commission. I don't think right now that there is any appetite for increasing anything at the moment. but it's a matter of just giving the commission the ease to do it. We still have the ability as the legislature under the language to question any increases and to disapprove of any increases. That language is clearly in the bill, and I appreciate that the legislature is still going to have that ability to do that. And again, it's just putting the game commission on the same level with the fish and boat commission that, you know, if they've got to bring it to our attention, hey, we need to do this down the road. I don't see it happening in the near future at all. But again, it's something that could happen, maybe needed to happen. And we'll just give them that ease that we're giving the fish and boat. But again, it has to, we have the ability, the legislature still has the ability, the House and the Senate committees still have the ability to say no.
Yes, correct. Adam, Chair. So all I heard was Fish Commission. And I would agree that they've done a great job. But let me give you the history of that in case you don't know. When they were strapped for cash, which the Game Commission is not. Not only did we put the Fish Commission in Act 89 for fuels that was spent on motorboats and what have you. There was a conversation that I will bring up, quite frankly, that I had with the executive director when this problem that they had with funds came up. And I'll tell you what I told him, and I know he's sitting in this room. I said, I would appreciate, I think the sportsmen would appreciate that you show us your work. And that's what they did. And what they showed us was where the license fees were, where they would like to go, and why. They even made sort of a misstep and said, yeah, that's too much. And we had them go back. so there's a whole lot more to the history of what the fish commission went through compared to the game commission and let me give you another piece of fact we had an executive director that sat in front of us and said if we don't have the ability to raise our license fees we're going to have to shut down the pheasant farms which those of us who knew the cash in on hand or coming, we knew that was a stretch. Not only did the money come in in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but then they still followed through and shut down the pheasant farms. So this idea that we can trust this commission with what they do is bad history. I have the issues, my friend, that I can share with you. And I don't need to be lectured on what they do or haven't done. I've lived this for a long time.
Yeah, well, Chairman, I'm not lecturing. This is proven fact that it works. We did it with the boat commission. It doesn't matter. It works. They've proven it works, and I have all the faith in the world with the game commission that they'll do the exact same thing and provide the product that is needed for our youth hunters, our youth trappers, our out-of-state hunters, and our in-state hunters. I think they'll do a great job. As far as the pheasant forms shutting them down, yes, they shut a portion of it down, but they changed their whole dynamic about how they did that to save money and actually put more pheasants out than what they have in the past. And what they did was they teamed with Macintongo Game Form. They actually had them raise and do the breeding side, and then they get the one- to two-day-old chicks, and then they're able to bring them back to the pheasant forums here in Pennsylvania and then raise them to adult and then put them out. But they're stocking over almost 220,000 to 250,000 pheasants a year. If you go back to the, I think it's the 90s, I think we were around the 80,000 mark. So to me, they're meeting what they want to do, and that's meet the hunter's needs and the small game needs for those who want to hunt pheasants. We had pheasant biologists that worked for 40 years or more on the specific resistant pheasant of Pennsylvania And when they opened up those pheasant farms and let all those pheasants out all of that history all that biology flew to the sky So we're getting them from subcontractors who I know very well. I get that.
But you actually took away from the historical foundation of the Game Commission's biologists and what they did for our pheasants. So I think it's a lame example of what they can and should do, resulting in what was not what the sportsmen liked. So I think there's a whole lot of details in the weeds, and I would just caution you on that, and I don't believe for a minute that the sportsmen of Pennsylvania will support this bill. Representative Haddock. I think this bill puts both agencies on a level playing field. And Chair Maloney is right. There's a little different financial situation between both agencies. But let's be honest here. The money in the game commission's balances is a problem. that hasn't been addressed by the Game Commission, and I'll freely say that. But if anybody here would think that while they're sitting on money and our friends in the Senate keep trying to take it, and they're going to turn around then and raise fees on the sportsmen while they're sitting on such a balance, I think is preposterous, and I would be insulted. that there is a backdrop for us to act as a legislature member to weigh in and tell them you can't be raising fees when you're sitting on such money. As we all know, we're in an affordable crisis in Pennsylvania, and sportsmen are even feeling it. And, look, I had as much problem as anybody in this room with a former executive director, and I will say that that's in the past. He's gone. Thank God. I think the new executive director is doing a much better job and when I have a problem with him, I call him and he calls me back and he hears me out. He doesn't always maybe act, but at least he hears what I'm saying and I think he takes it to heart. So I will give Director Smith kudos that I think he's going to use this cautiously and not just shove it down the backs of a sportsman. And we still have a chance to weigh in and say, no, we don't agree with it. And there's a process then. So I don't think this takes any power directly away from us as a governing body. I think it's the right move. I was uncomfortable. One of my first votes as a legislature member was to grant, and it was my first meeting, and it was probably the first or second bill that I voted on, and I was a little cautious. I did vote for it because I talked to both chairmen at the time, and they both supported it. So I voted to give the Fish Commission this almost the same powers. I will gladly support this going forward because I know the Game Commission knows we are going to be watching and we can always repeal this if need be. Thank you.
Any other members? Okay, quickly, please. I just want to say, Representative, I listened to what you had to say. And I think some of that has already been mentioned, but it would seem to me that the argument that you made was really clear as to why there's no rush and no need to do this. So thank you. Okay, thank you. The question is, will the committee report the bill? Those in favor reporting the bill as committed will vote aye. Those opposed, no. Erin, please take a roll call.
Chair Kulit.
Yes.
Rep. Davidson.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Doherty.
Yes.
Rep. Gungenauer.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Gents.
Yes.
Designation, yes. Rep. Jim, Rep. Paddock. Yes. Rep. Harris.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Holenstein. Designation, yes. Rep. Inglis.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Kazim. Designation, yes. Rep. Mirsky. Yes. Rep. Resnick.
Designation, yes.
Rep. Steele.
Designation, yes.
And Rep Young.
Designation, yes.
Chair Maloney. Rep Anderson.
Rep Banta.
Rep Cook.
Rep Devanza.
Rep Kerwin.
Rep Kuzma.
Rep Labs. Rep Old Summer. Rep Reichert, Rep Smith, and Rep Wendling.
The bill passes. Thank you. The chair calls up Senate Bill 1313.
Printers. Thank you, Rep Mahaffey. Printers number 1795 from Senator Rothman.
Paul, please read a summary of the bill.
Thank you, Chair. This legislation would establish a native Pennsylvania annual license for non-resident sportsmen and women who are originally from Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Representative Maloney is offering amendment A0329. So the chair is offering amendment A03906. Will the committee agree to the amendment on that question?
Paul, please read a summary of amendment A03906. Thank you, chair. This amendment would amend the underlying bill to provide that a native Pennsylvania annual license would be available to an applicant born in Pennsylvania or formerly residing in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, to qualify, an applicant must provide a current photo identification card and documentation proving their birth in the Commonwealth or proof of their former residency. A $30 fee would be assessed for a native Pennsylvania license, and the license would be valid for a period of five days during the deer regular firearm season. Lastly, while the bill would be effective in 60 days, the provisions providing for a native Pennsylvania license would become applicable beginning for the 2027-2028 deer regular firearm season and each deer regular firearm season thereafter. And thank you for the information of the members.
We worked with Senator Rothman on this amendment. He is in favor of the amendment. We wanted to get the bill to a good place. it came over to us from the Senate. We want to get it to a good place. And this kind of cleared up some of the questions on who was going to get a bill, what they would need to present, etc., or license, and what they would need to present for that. So this was worked out with Senator Rothman, and we're happy that we were able to do that. He could not be with us today. But again he has approved of the language and I will take any other questions or comments on this amendment Thank you Madam Chair A couple of things that I
think is important to note here and I thank the Chairwoman for changing the order of the amendments and yes I had two amendments on this bill and I want to go back to sort of several years ago where this took place and I really felt that this was a provision that we could do mostly related to property taxes and those that pay taxes in Pennsylvania and should have a consideration. I actually talked to the Commission at one time about this. I talked to the chair about this and I'm really glad that the House can help the Senate along. They seem to need some help a lot of times. So here we are helping the House, the Senate along. I'm going to support this. I think this is very much a step, if you will. And as a result of that, I'm going to pull my two amendments and allow us to go forward. So thank you, Madam Chair. Anyone else?
And I will thank the chair for that. I am not 100% in disagreement with the chair's amendments. I would like that. I don't know that they're really something to be part of this bill, but they may be standalone bills down the road. I think it's an interesting concept, and I think that might be discussion down the road to work out with the game commission. Possibly even fish and boat. I don't know how they would be on any of these types of things either, but I appreciate the comments from Chair Maloney. Those in favor of the amendment will vote aye. Those opposed no. Are there any negative votes on the amendment? Seeing none, the amendment is agreed to. Is there any debate on the bill itself?
No, I think what was said was necessary, and possibly moving forward, we can refine this, but appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any negative votes on the bill? Seeing none, the bill will be reported as amended. Ladies and gentlemen, this is more than likely our last meeting before the break, before fall. We're all hoping we can get a budget through in the next week and a half. Fingers crossed. But I don't know that we will be having another meeting. If we do go back into session, we may pull up some bills for that. But in the meantime, I'll more than likely see everybody in the fall. Thank you. It's been wonderful this month having these meetings and getting some bills put out. There is no further business before the committee. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.