March 17, 2026 · GAME AND FISHERIES · 8,254 words · 4 speakers · 65 segments
This public meeting of the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee will come to order. Today the committee will collect testimony on the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Pennsylvania Game Commission annual reports. I'd like now to turn to Chairman Malone for remarks. Thank you, Chairman. So I'm happy to be here. I've had a great chance of working closely with both agencies and getting clear understanding of their challenging yet gratifying work in managing wildlife, protecting our waterways, and supporting the outdoor traditions that matter deeply to the 36th District, to this committee, and to me. Both reports did a great job of highlighting last year's accomplishments, challenges ahead, and each agency's priority going forward. With that said, today we're going to look closely at the Commission's use of resources, their program efficiencies, and areas where improvements can be made. So I'd like to express appreciation to the leadership and staff of both commissions for their continued service and for the time that they've spent working with my office. you know, navigating this first year in the Senate, you guys were absolutely great. So really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Malone. Before turning to our first panelist, do any other members of the committee have any questions or comments before we start? I'd also like to remind our members and panelists that each commission will have up to five minutes of testimony, followed by a round of questions from the members. Also, this hearing is being recorded and live stream. Testimony and the hearings recordings will be available on our committee website. Our first testifiers are Steve Smith, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Kelly O'Donnell, Deputy Executive Director of the Commission, and Dave Gustafson, Deputy Executive Director of the Commission. Will you please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in? Please swear or affirm, do you swear to the testimony that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. You're welcome to proceed.
All right. Good afternoon, Chairman Rothman, Chairman Malone, members of the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Game Commission's 2024-2025 annual report. And I'll just touch briefly on some of the highlights from that report. before I do I wanted to recognize two of our board members that are with us here today in attendance we have Commissioner Alan DeMarco and Commissioner Haley Sankey and I know several of you have had the opportunity to meet with them again thank you for the opportunity to talk about this report as I think it's clear this report reflects the extraordinary efforts of our staff who work every day in service of wildlife and the hunters and trappers and citizens of this commonwealth and it is truly an honor to be here today and to represent them. Over the past year, we continued our focus on managing our state gamelands system to create habitat for wildlife. We impacted over 30,000 acres on gamelands through projects such as maintaining wetlands, planting herbaceous openings, and conducting timber harvest and prescribed fires. These efforts improve forest health, create early successional habitat, and support species such as deer bear turkey and grouse as well as countless non wildlife species In addition to the habitat work we made significant infrastructure improvements on game lands completing dozens of roads and bridge projects that improve our ability to manage these lands effectively and allow for greater public access. We also expanded opportunities for hunters and recreational shooters. We now offer 75 public shooting ranges across 42 game lands, including three new archery ranges that were completed last year. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for joining us out near Carlisle Springs on Game Lands 230 to see firsthand that archery range and what an incredible resource it is to the hunters and the shooters in that area. We also recognize the value of private ranges and sportsmen's clubs. and through our shooting range improvement grant program, we awarded more than $300,000 to local clubs all across the state for important upgrades like safety berms, backstops, and target systems. Given the success of that program this year, we will launch a similar grant program for deer processors, ensuring that they have the capacity that they need to meet the demand from hunters. Together, these grant programs reflect a very deliberate reinvestment back into local communities and into the future of hunting and trapping. Over the past year, we also continue to support critical research projects to guide science-based wildlife management. We are studying wild turkey habitat use and reproduction, the impact of chronic wasting disease on deer populations, continuing our extensive monitoring of our elk herd and as several of you had the chance to participate in last week we are conducting research on our bear population to learn more about its survival rates and movements the results from these projects will ensure that our management decisions are grounded in the best available data and the long-term sustainability of these and other species. On the law enforcement side, last fiscal year, we graduated the 36th class of the Ross Leffler School of Conservation, adding 18 new game wardens to the field. And just last month, we graduated another class of 24 officers. Thank you, Chairman Malone, for being there that day to help welcome those new officers. With that most recent class, we marked the sixth consecutive year of growth in our warden ranks, the longest continued expansion in agency history, reflecting our commitment to maintaining a strong and visible law enforcement presence. The last aspect of the report that I'll highlight is our finances. And to provide some context, approximately four years ago, natural gas revenues increased significantly over an 18-month period. while those revenues have since moderated that temporary growth significantly strengthened our game fund balance and it allowed us to scale operations to levels never previously achieved in areas like research habitat work infrastructure law enforcement and public access all without needing a license increase meaning that today pennsylvania is truly in a favorable position. We can offer the most affordable hunting license in the nation, while at the same time that the agency is making historic investments on behalf of wildlife, hunters and trappers Investments that will have a lasting impact for generations to come And with that Mr Chairman I be happy to answer any questions Thank you
I'll start with the members of our committee. Senator Hutchinson, Senator Dutch, Senator Malone, any questions?
Thank you. Before I get to what I'm sure you expect me to speak about, which is public ownership of land. I wanted to touch on another subject quickly, and that's the trail policies on Pennsylvania game lands. Based on contacts that we've had to my office about, specifically recently about snowmobile trails and connectors that may traverse a portion of a game commission trail. We were told, or we learned, I believe this is true, that for some reason there is a policy in place that says only one snowmobile trail per county. and and that seems pretty random to me um again if if connectors to to larger trail systems need to cross a a game commission land it seems funny to say uh we can only do that once in a county uh even though some of these counties have huge portions of pennsylvania game lands Further looking into the issue, understand that other kinds of trails, there is no arbitrary restriction like that. They evaluate each individual situation. and my understanding is Warren County itself has three or four biking, hiking, horse trails on game lands, but for some reason that same county is only allowed to have one snowmobile trail. Is there a really hard-set trail policy for all kinds of trails, and is there any thought about making it more uniform between the different kinds of trail use?
Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question. and we must have received the same letter because I got a letter similar to that not too long ago as well. So I asked our staff to look into it. I'm happy to report back that, to my knowledge and not that we've been able to locate, is there any policy that says one per county? In fact, as I went onto the website and looked for trails, Potter, for instance. Potter County has multiple through it. So, yeah, so that policy, I've not been able to trace back where that rumor would have came from, that that policy is in place because there is none again to my knowledge i looked at also uh the signatures on that letter into again to my knowledge that group has has not been requested nor have they been denied the opportunity to work with us on a trail so it kind of came out of left field but nonetheless it provided an opportunity for us to to have this conversation and to formalize a policy and we are in the final stages of doing that right now and and we will make it available to clubs like this one and hopefully be able to combat that rumor whatever it may be out there regarding how we approach trails That being said, what I can speak to is we look at any requests that will come down the road through the lens of what is the primary purpose of game lands. And of course it is for protecting wildlife, creating wildlife habitat, and creating recreational opportunities for hunters and trappers. so that's the primary objective for game lands any kind of secondary use and certainly snowmobile trails would be a secondary use has to be viewed through that prism of there potentially could be areas where their use could be permitted as long as it doesn't conflict with our primary mission so again we are in the final stages of putting together a formal policy this this correspondence that that probably we both received was a good catalyst for that um and look forward to continuing
that discussion. Thank you for that. I understand and agree with your primary objective and realize that individual trails, you've got to look at, you know, does it work, does it not work, how, But to have an arbitrary thing is very problematic to me. But I worked on this issue many years ago pertaining to horse trails and how difficult that was. And again, most of these, it's about connecting. it's about maybe a short area through there through a game land and I think for the greater for the greater enhancement of the economics and quality of life kinds of things it makes sense to help make those kind of projects happen if at all possible but again I totally agree with you These are hunting grounds. That's their primary purpose. If there's disruptions, you may want to do different kinds of restrictions. I get that, and I agree with that, but I just think it should be a well-thought-out policy. And, again, if you have counties that have tons of game lands, the chances are you're going to have more than one, in this case, Snowmobile, you know, asks. And I don't think they should just be arbitrarily ruled out of order. So thank you for that and look forward to continued work with you on this trail policy as we go forward. That's all I have right now. I can go to other things later if you want to let some of the other members.
Senator Dush.
Thank you, Chairman. Steve, your report shows that about 42% of the revenue that you've acquired is through natural gas.
Is that correct? That sounds about right. It's certainly a significant portion of our revenue. without question it's been kind of a uh well it has been a significant portion and it's a significant amount of money uh it's page 36 but uh that revenue would you be getting that if the uh that revenue if there was a ban on right-of-way access or uh get the drilling underneath your resources where you have the mineral rights? No, I can't imagine that we would be, Senator. We've worked with those entities when they've approached us on ways to minimize the impact to our game lands. We wouldn't be cognizant of that, but we've been able to develop good relationships, and that's what shows in that revenue.
I'm glad you said a great relationship. So it's been a good partnership with you as well as conservation, as well as a revenue source. Is that correct?
I feel safe categorizing it as that, yes.
The reason I'm asking is Governor Shapiro is currently considering whether to advance regulations sought by a bunch of anti-energy activists who would effectively ban future natural gas on natural gas development. Now, you, the Game Commission itself owns more land than the entire state of Delaware. and between the state parks and state forests, there's a tremendous amount of resources there that I think would be beneficial to the Commonwealth. And as far as the Environmental Quality Board, are you guys currently members or are we still working?
We are.
Okay. So when it comes to the Environmental Quality Board, These types of bans, do you consider those ill-advised to have a ban like that on your experience? And again, you're very much responsible for maintaining the natural resources within your sphere and your properties. do you think it's ill-advised to just ban that kind of especially when the state owns the mineral resources plus you've also got access from rights of way too that benefit do you think it'd be ill-advised to go down that road are you referring to you mentioned EQB the proposal that was voted on by that board a couple months ago Because as I understand it, it was studying this issue and making sure the decisions were based upon the best available data.
And that is something that we would support. As far as what the final regulations would potentially look like, I don't know if I could comment on them yet if they haven't been drafted.
Okay. I just want to clear that this has been a great partnership for you as a great revenue source. and having that direct access to revenue for the Commonwealth, especially when we're underfunded, for me, this just seems very ill-advised when we've shown that we can protect our natural resources at the same time we're extracting natural resources. You noted in your report that Pennsylvania ranked first in the deer harvest density in 2024, yet you still see deer eating our crops, being routinely struck by vehicles and causing other issues. How do we build on last year's success to further address the problem, specifically with crop damage? We've got a lot of farmers who want to know that.
That's a great question, and thank you for it, Senator, because that's an issue that we've made a priority over the past year. We just got the numbers today. We were looking at what we call our Ag Tag Program, and it's a program we have set up for landowners where they receive additional coupons for this issue, directly for this issue, or coupons that they can give to hunters to come onto their property. We saw a 166 increase from this year to last year Last year we were at 6 tags this year we were at 17 tags And we attribute that largely to the work that we've done to promote that program. We've developed a great partnership with the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, and to see those kind of numbers demonstrates the success that we're having of getting the word out to our hunters and to the members of the agricultural community that we want to see a partnership between hunters and landowners. So AGTAG is certainly a huge part of it, but we also developed a program specifically to even enhance our abilities there, and it's called the Certified Hunter Program. And, again, it's in direct relation to the concerns that you've heard, that we've heard from landowners. So it's a way for the Game Commission to essentially vet hunters prior to them going to properties. and we've heard from landowners time and time again that they just have concerns about letting anybody who knocks on their door onto their property but this is a way a pre-screening essentially way where we can make sure these individuals have passed a background test have demonstrated a proficiency test with a firearm with a bow and we've heard from landowners that that gives them the extra comfort level they need to allow hunters on their property so we are we're looking at every way possible that we can address this issue, how we can get more hunters to deal with the deer population, especially in agricultural areas, and through AgTag and Certified Hunter, we're optimistic that we're seeing good results so far. And just one circling back to the natural
gas issue, it's been, as we've indicated and you've indicated, a tremendous boon to the commission what are some of the things that you've done so far uh i know you and i have discussed some significant uh improvements out there and then do you have what what kind of things do you have planned for the future we've we use that that revenue when it came in essentially to get caught
up and we needed to get caught up on a lot of areas capital improvements um vehicles equipment for our staff, for our officers. So that was essentially our first priority, is getting caught up on things that need to be done. Since then, it's been scaling out our operations. We've been able to take our operations up to an additional level that we never would have been able to do previously, having six consecutive class of game wardens. That's only a result of that increase of revenues that we've been able to experience. The research projects that we have going on with a variety of species, The habitat work, 30,000 acres. We've never been able to impact that much acreage in one year, and it's only because of that increased revenues that we've been able to scale our operations to that level. We also, though, and appreciated the discussion with you recently about being cognizant of making sure we don't overextend, and that is something that we are keeping an eye on and concerned about as well because that revenue is not going to last forever. So we want to manage it wisely, make the investments that we needed to make, scale up our operations, but keep that revenue at a consistent amount so that we can continue doing so for years to come.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you. Chairman Long.
Thank you. So thanks to Act 36 of 2025, Pennsylvania now has Sunday hunting, and currently this committee is considering my legislation, SB 1142, which would make first-time hunters eligible for a free antlerless deer tag, valid for one year after completing the Pennsylvania Game Commission Hunter Trapper education course These measures are intended to revive interest in hunting which we all know has been lagging for in recent decades So how does this trend impact the Commission's wildlife management efforts, and what are the Commission's strategies for ensuring the stability of the various game species in the Commonwealth?
Senator, that's a loaded question.
I am aware. Apologies.
Thank you, Ford, and thank you for mentioning Act 36. And so thankful for what we were able to do there, creating those opportunities for Sunday hunting. I have to mention that as I went across the state last fall, so many hunters thanked me and members for giving them that opportunity. And it was very encouraging to have those conversations, particularly when it was a parent with a child talking about, if not for Sunday hunting, we wouldn't be out here. We recognize that, and that's an important issue that we've made a priority, and our board has made a priority in recent years, which is making hunting as accessible as possible to as many of our hunters as possible. And Sunday hunting is certainly in line with that philosophy. We see that as one of our top, if not the top priority that we have moving forward. Because if you look at our license demographics and look at what's happening across the country, license sales are on a long decline. And we've been fortunate in Pennsylvania. Our decline hasn't happened as quickly as it has in other states. but if you look at the Midwest states for instance states that are often compared to Pennsylvania where their numbers have dropped to the point that they aren't able to manage wildlife anymore specifically aren't able to manage deer and as Senator Dush mentioned we're already hearing those kind of concerns we're already seeing them in certain parts of the state if we don't maintain a robust hunter population it's going to threaten our ability to manage wildlife and manage deer So that's why we have made it such a priority to make hunting as accessible as possible, to remove those barriers. And I appreciate you wanting to work with us on that legislation because that is directly in line with that, making it easy for those new hunters to potentially have an antlerous license with them when they go out in their first season. Giving them a greater chance at success through having an antlerous license is only going to help recruit them for year after and year after. And that's so important for us as an agency. That's what we've been focused on. It's what we're going to continue to make a priority.
So I feel like I need to reiterate the question, if I can. Just, and I threw a bunch at you, but what's, so what are you doing as far as, I don't know, next three years or whatever for the wildlife management effort? as far as recruiting hunters I just want to make sure I understand your sorry my question basically was we know things are going down and we know we're working on bringing them rising but with the current trend of decrease how are we trying to organize to manage our wildlife and to keep the efforts going.
Yeah and you exactly right Recognizing that where things are headed we made it a priority in addition to making hunting as accessible as possible to expand opportunities and to expand season lengths Sunday hunting was a great opportunity to do so. We've been allocating more antlerless deer tags in recent years in order to control that harvest and control that population. Again, going back to Senator Dusch's comment about where we're seeing places where it's growing, and we're hearing from communities, particularly agricultural community, the impact that deer are having on them. So we're increasing opportunities and expanding participation in order to allow us to keep that deer population at the level where it needs to be. So it's kind of an all-hands-on-deck strategy. I can't single out one particular thing. I think there's a variety of tactics and strategies that we're using to try to get there.
Thank you. Didn't mean to be difficult. Just wanted to get more in there. Go ahead. Thank you, Chairman. On page 39 of your report, Steve, your fund balance is listed at $504 million. In an error in not just this Commonwealth, we're facing a $5 billion deficit. but the number one issue we're hearing from our constituents, not just in Pennsylvania but around the country, is affordability. Prices have just gone up the last four years. Do you have any plans? We've talked about this all three years I've been here. What are we doing maybe to make hunting more affordable to sportsmen or to spend this money? or what are we doing with the money is the intention to continue. It's been over $400 or $500 billion every year I've been here. I was first told it was just a total blip, but yet each year it's about $100 million that comes from oil and gas leases. What's your plan, and is it the position of the commission that they'll continue to hold on to a half billion dollars in reserves when your annual budget's maybe $200 million?
Yes, Senator, that's a great question as well. I would say that to your first point about affordability, we recognize that as an issue, and that's why we've been very cautious about how we spend down that reserve because when that money is gone, we have two options, right? We can either cut programs or try to raise the cost of a hunting license. Neither of those options are good options. I'd like to see our hunting license stay where it's at for as long as possible. It's been going on 27 years since that legislation was changed that raised the cost of a hunting license. It's been $20 as a base license going back to the late 90s. I don't see that as a flaw. I think that's a great thing because it makes hunting accessible, again, to my point with Senator Malone. That's critical in this era of removing barriers, reducing friction, and having such an affordable license is a great way to do that. So that's why we've been closely monitoring that game fund balance. That's why there's not a rush necessarily to spend it down. We'd like to keep it there. By having a nice balance, by having that nice source of revenue, it allows us to keep our licenses at a very affordable rate, the most affordable rate in the country, which can only help us when it comes to recruiting new hunters and retaining the ones that we have.
What's your response to the people who say that the oil and gas leases, which are on Commonwealth land, should belong? to the people of Pennsylvania, and that money should actually go back to the general fund or to the benefit, or at least in some case, to offset some of the pain that the people in Pennsylvania feel. It's rising school taxes, rising costs of groceries, and now gasoline, after it has come down significantly, is going back up. Yeah, I would say that while I certainly won't attempt to speak on behalf of all of our hunters,
all 850,000 of them the hunters that I've spoken to have a sense of that that revenue that we have coming in off of game lands which were purchased with their hunting license dollars they'd like to see it coming back to the agency and the agency investing that money in the future of our sport and in the future of how we manage wildlife they they are the ones who who paved the way for the agency to experience the financial benefits that we have in recent years. So the expectation and the way the law is currently written is that money comes back to the agency so that we can reinvest it back into our sport and back into wildlife and back into habitat, and that's what we've been doing.
Thank you.
Senator Hutchinson, you're going to do it. I could add a comment to Steve there. And something to point out, one of the things that I think is of note when you look at that pie chart of where our sources of income come from. Our second largest single source of income this past year was interest income. So by having that healthy balance in the game fund, we're able to count on a significant source of revenue coming from interest off of that balance that allows us to sustain operations at a high level and keep hunting affordable and continue to manage wildlife with the ongoing threats of diseases and habitat fragmentation and the types of struggles that we face, by having that healthy balance, that allows us to generate a significant source of income from that. So the struggle between spending down the balance versus using the balance to generate yet another source of revenue is something we're very mindful of.
Yes, but keep in mind, there are very few families in Pennsylvania that can say that 20% of their revenue comes from interest. I mean, this is, you know, at a time when people are suffering and affordability is the number one issue. I'm not sure that, you know, saying that you're generating 20% of your income from interest is a good thing. And so if there are ways that we can find and the commission can find to address the issue of affordability, your federal reimbursement comes from taxes that are on products that hunters and sportsmen purchase. So that's what we're focused on as a legislature, looking for ways to make people's lives easier. But I appreciate the comment. Thank you.
We're joined by Senator Bacchosi, who does not have a question, but Senator Hutchinson has another question.
Thank you. First, I want to go into the issue of appraisals on land purchases. When other government agencies have a transfer of land, an appraisal is required. I think we've talked about this in the past, and my understanding is that sometimes you have appraisals and others you do not. that there are, I'll call them loopholes, that allow some transactions to not have an upfront appraisal Do you think it good policy for a public transaction to not have a valid appraisal done before the transaction occurs?
I think, Senator, you're correct that the law does not require us to get an appraisal. There are some instances in which we have, and then there's some instances in which it's just not something that we could do based on the case-by-case basis for that specific parcel. There are some parcels, and we've talked about our natural gas leasing, that are adjacent potentially to the game lands, where that parcel means more to us from a value standpoint than it would to anyone else. So we keep all that in mind when we are negotiating the acquisition price. We evaluate each one on a case-by-case basis, but to your point, we are not required in every instance to receive an appraisal. In every instance, we always establish a value, whether it be by a formal real estate appraisal or sometimes a comparative market analysis or other methods. But in each and every case, when we're looking to acquire a piece of land, we do a thorough land examination to determine what those values are. So while it might not be a typical formal real estate appraisal, it might look a little different. But in each case, we're establishing a value.
Well, that value you establish, is that disclosed before the actual transaction occurs?
I'd have to ask, disclosed in what way?
So that people know what you think it's worth versus what you're actually getting.
We don't publish those appraisals publicly? No, if that's your question.
Yes. Because I am considering a legislation to require something along the lines of a formal appraisal on all these transactions. but we will see how that goes forward. Also wanted to touch briefly on payment in lieu of taxes. There is obviously the game fund does pay a payment in lieu of taxes for acreage owned but there's also an additional amount that is taken from the gaming industry funds to pay an additional portion on game lands. Some of us feel that that is not a – well, what we're doing, when we do that, we are taking money away from gambling proceeds that was originally sold as a way to reduce property taxes in school districts across Pennsylvania. But instead, we're using a portion of that money, in this case, to pay a payment in lieu of taxes for game commission lands, and the game commission has resources available to pay, pay that themselves. Would you be opposed to a change Of course the gaming legislation would have to be changed and I understand that not your you don control that But would you be supportive of changing it such that the Game Commission pays all of that payment of taxes, thereby allowing more resources to be available for individuals across the state who have lower property taxes? Senator, as you said, that would require legislation.
So just as a general rule, I'm hesitant to say how our stance would be on legislation. until I could see the details of that legislation. But from an overall philosophy standpoint, I think it's something that we'd be open to discussing with you on what that could look like. And then, yeah, I'll leave it at that for now.
So it's not, I'm open to the conversation with you on how that could be done.
Thank you.
One other question if I have a. Sure. I'm trying to think. I have some legislation to make sure that realty transfer taxes are assessed on all transactions of real estate that you folks would be involved in. And, again, my understanding is that sometimes those are paid, but there are – I'll call them loopholes to allow getting around paying those. I don't think that's fair or kosher for our local governments who get a large portion of that realty transfer tax. to lose out on that because in addition to that, going forward, that piece of property will never change hands again. There will not be the ability for developments or improvements that would bring more economic activity and more taxes to local governments. So the least that we should do, I think, is that that very last time that the land will ever change ownership, that we should have a realty transfer tax assessed on that property. I didn't know if – now that bill is in print, Senate Bill 1109. I wondered if you folks are supportive of that or not.
Senator, I'd like to do a fiscal analysis on that, if we could, get an idea of potential what the cost would be to the commission, and, again, be happy to talk to you about that once we've done that analysis.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Chairman Malone. Hey, thanks. So going back to your, well, the awesome agencies work with their law enforcement. As you know across the country across our commonwealth law enforcement agencies have had challenges both recruiting and retaining individuals So what is the commission approach to recruitment and retention challenges? Because you guys seem to be nailing it. Yeah, I appreciate that. I think we are so
fortunate to have the officers that we do where we haven't experienced what you were referring to across the country of not being able to provide the coverage that is necessary from a law enforcement standpoint. We've been able to graduate six classes in a row. We are preparing for another class. We're taking a break for this year, but already recruiting and bringing potential candidates on for the next class to come. When it comes to what we can do for officers, most people are surprised to hear that as executive director, I can't set their compensation. It is something under the law that is set by the Office of Administration for officers, for all Commonwealth employees. So that aspect of it is not something that I have the ability to control, but we can and have made investments on the type of equipment we provide them, the training we provide them. We have in the past couple of years, we're able to develop an incredible state-of-the-art dispatch center where we can remain in contact with our officers. And again, having spent some time with them this past fall, there's such a safety aspect to that for them, where they are in an encounter, they can radio back to dispatch, let them know that they're going to be having an encounter with an individual and then check back later. So those are the things that we've been focused on because those are the things within our control. And, again, appreciate you being there and showing your support for our officers the other week. They're critical to everything we do as an agency.
Thank you. Thank you. You are relieved. Our second testifier is Tim Schaefer, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Thank you. Questions? Let's do that. The mic on. If you guys want to start with questions, I don't want to miss anybody's opportunity to ask anything. Great. I'm happy to defer. Chairman Malone. Sure. So we just got the – anyway, we just got Act 28, 2025, right, for the abandoned boats. Yep. And we actually got together a few weeks ago and talked about it a bit. So what is the environmental impact on abandoned boats, and approximately how many do we have that we currently know of in the Commonwealth? Right.
So what the senator is referring to is Pennsylvania, and thank you to the General Assembly for passing the act that helps us to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels. And the boats that we're talking about are primarily 1980s, 90s, early 2000s, vintage fiberglass ski boats, right? You weren't seeing a lot of metal john boats because you could sell those for scrap. So when these are abandoned on our waterways, they will leak fuels. They'll leak other chemicals. There'll be a public safety hazard for first responders. One of these things breaks loose. You immediately think that there's been a boating accident, and first responders are out there trying to help the victims when, in fact, there might not have been one. So up until Act 28, it really was just a littering penalty in Pennsylvania, and it was, frankly, cheaper for someone to dispose of their boat by just tying it up in the case of some pretty well-publicized images. out in front of the football stadium in Pittsburgh along the Three Rivers or, you know, banding it along a roadway. I don't know the numbers. I could check that for you. I know
we've done that analysis. Our law enforcement staff did as thorough of an analysis as they could. But what Act 28 does is now gives municipalities and those that are closest to the issue the ability to deal with these. There are now processes in place. We synced it up and made it analogous and similar to how abandoned vehicles are dealt with. So increase the penalties, allow for restitution costs if the local municipalities had those costs for dealing with it, relieved of some liability concerns. Happy to say it's working, and you were at a House Game of Fisheries Committee hearing that we did a couple weeks ago. I know our staff has been to Philadelphia. We've been talking to the folks in Pittsburgh, and this is working. It's getting these boats out of our waterways and off of city streets where they don't belong. Thank you.
Senator Hutchinson, do you have any questions?
Not right now. I may in a second, but no.
So, Executive Director Schaefer, I understand both your agency and the Game Commission has engaged with third parties to look at consolidation, serving mutual services. Can you give us an update on how that's going?
Sure. So what the center is referring to is a study that we've jointly with the Game Commission contracted with a group called the Wildlife Management Institute. So they are the foremost expert in natural resource governance, certainly in the country, and if not the world. And I do want to give a lot of credit to Steve and his board. A little over a year ago, we looked at each other and said, is there a way? And a lot of the questions for Steve was about, you know, how do we make things affordable? How do we make every license dollar go as far as we can? And that's what this analysis is really about. How can we maximize the investments that we make into conservation? And oftentimes, you know, it's the same user base, hunters and anglers, you know, using the same electronic license system. You got services that are being provided by officers in the field Probably the best example that I given a lot that a lot of people in this room have heard but I think it helps to sort of boil down what we looking at here If you drive up along the Susquehanna River north of Harrisburg, you know, up north of your district, you'll pass a fish and boat launch and a game launch and a fish and boat launch and a game boat launch. These boat launches that are stacked up, that are both used by waterfowl hunters, both used by anglers that are serviced by different maintenance departments coming from different places, different funding streams, is there a way that we could deliver boating access services to waterfowl hunters and anglers in a way that's more cost-effective, more efficient, and could result in perhaps putting another officer on the water or having some of the folks that have been doing the maintenance work do the habitat work. It's really all about maximizing the investments in conservation. The study is being conducted right now. It's due June 1st. And looking forward to seeing the results and sharing it with our board and with the General Assembly. Thank you.
We look forward to that, too. Senator Hutchinson.
That is the subject area I wanted to touch on and maybe ask you to give a little bit more detail of the scope of that study. Is this totally an internal look at, like, your finances, game commission finances? Is there any outside, you know, are they talking to anglers, hunters yet or ever? Or is this strictly a sort of an economic analysis, financial analysis, for lack of a better term? Knowing that finances also includes things like personnel and all that. So just a little bit more about the scope of how and what they're looking at.
Yeah, happy to. And we've shared a summary of the analysis with the committee chairs and executive directors. We'll be sure to do that again just to make sure everybody has that sort of bulleted points, what they are. Maybe to answer your second point, that's sort of what I've been doing, and I know Steve's been doing a lot, is talking with the hunters and the anglers, explaining what the study is. I just, as it was at the Unified Sportsman of Pennsylvania's meeting on Sunday, explaining what the study is. So really, we're given the rationale for why we're doing the study, why we want to see how we can maximize these investments in conservation. So I'd say we're doing that missionary work, if you will, with the sportsman for right now. And then the WI, Wildlife Management Institute, yeah, they are the ones that are doing sort of the internal analysis of both agencies. And you'll see the summary. It's looking at long-term revenues, trends, participation rates for both agencies, where are things, where are expenses. So it really a look under the hood of the agencies that we asked for Thank you And keep up that outside work too Just you know it a new concept for Pennsylvania
And we want to hear what folks at least don't want them surprised when this study comes out. I mean, just know, hey, guys, we're looking at this. We don't know where it's leading, but we just want you to know. and that way they're not falling out of bed in the morning like, oh, my gosh, look what's happening.
Yeah, and if I may, I saw we have partners in the room. I know at least Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is here, Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs is here, and Steve and I have jointly met with boards from both agencies and explained what we're doing very early on. We wanted this to be as transparent as possible and welcome the chance to continue to do that.
Great. Thank you. Good. Chairman Malone. Thank you. So the 24-25 fiscal year expenditures exceeded revenues by a little over than $4 million. Footnotes in the report discussed the reasons for shortfalls, including decrease in federal funding, decrease in boat fuel tax, general decline in sales, increase in personal cost and expenditures on infrastructure improvements and others. So what fiscal challenges are you all projecting over, like, the next five to ten years?
Yeah, and, you know, I actually personally ask that that footnote be put in there. I didn't want to catch anybody off guard and say, hey, what the heck's going on here? So we wanted to let you know why that was. And it was primarily a cash flow issue for us. You know, right now, if you looked at our reserves, they're at the lowest point that they are in the calendar year because trout season is about to start. So we will live off of those revenues going forward for the rest of the year. So in part that about $4 million difference was a result of just when the revenues came in, when the reporting happened. We also had two labor contracts that became effective for both AFSCME as well as FOP-covered employees that we had to provide back pay to. So I am happy to say that while that showed up there, we've been able to maintain about 70% of annual reserves and revenue. That's a number that we've been maintaining since 2019. And the reason we do that, one is for cash flow purposes, again, because most of the revenue comes in in the spring and you need to live off of it for the year. We also want to make sure that we've got adequate funds in place for emergencies. So whether it's one of our high hazard dams or a state fish hatchery that has an issue, we want to have that cash on hand to deal with it. And then also our federal fund. About a quarter of our revenue comes from federal funding And back when COVID hit there was a really real chance with the way federal systems were working we weren going to get those dollars And so we needed to keep those funds in there so we can meet our expenses So I can confidently say that we can keep those 70 of revenues and reserves. One of the ways that we're able to, I think, be as efficient as possible and even more efficient than ever is the result of a bill that Senator Rothman had that ultimately manifested itself in the fiscal code that gives us flexibility between the fish fund and the boat fund. So if you look at those dollars, they're reported in both in aggregate as well as the fish fund and the boat fund being spelled out individually. And it had been talked about for a number of years about being able to maybe combine the funds into one fish and boat fund or use the dollars interchangeably. And the example that really resonates with people, and I apologize for voice here, glass of water please, is if you're going to go fishing for walleye in Lake Erie these days, you're going to use a boat. And if we've got revenues in the boat fund that we could be using those boat fund dollars, thank you, to benefit the walleye fishery, the case was, well, let's be able to use those dollars interchangeably if they benefit both purposes. And by doing that, we think, we're confident that we're going to be able to avoid a license increase for a few years. If we can be as efficient as possible using the dollars that we have to their highest and best use for the anglers and voters, despite that blip that you saw of, again, mainly a cash flow issue of that $4 million this year, we think for the next few years we can get by, maintain that 70% of the annual reserves, and not have to raise license fees. Thank you.
Without any other questions, closing remarks from Chairman Malone. no problem no problem I want to thank the testifiers today both boards and commissions you are and the people in this room and the people on this committee we are the stewards of Pennsylvania's great heritage of hunting and fishing I attended an Eagle Scout presentation this weekend and they showed a video of the young Eagle Scout C.J. Wiles from Perry County his time And it was a five-minute video, and I noticed during the video and afterwards there wasn't a single iPad or cell phone or television screen or video game. We must expose our youth and the citizens of this great Commonwealth to our beautiful outdoors and hunting and fishing and the heritage because I think it's going to make them better people too. So thank you all for being here today. With that, the Committee of Game and Fisheries is adjourned until they call the chair.