User fees for PA state game lands?

[The Solemates]

if this happens, guess I'll have to find other trails to hike each year for a week over thanksgiving. half of the mid-state trail uses game lands. i aint payin over $100 to hike it for a week each year.

[handlebar]

Based on post #17, every US taxpayer is already subsidizing the SGLs via the federal match. The ideas that the access permit should be higher is ludicrous. Currently there is no dispersed camping permitted on SGLs. The Game Commission does not build nor maintain trails on these lands traversed by portions of the Mid-State Trail, North Country Trail, Tuscarora Trail, Quehanna Trail, and others. What expenses does the Game Commission have related to non-hunting use of the lands that justifies a charge higher than an in-state hunting license? Yes, they did purchase the lands years ago when they were distressed-–-by logging clear cuts or strip mining and essentially useless and nearly worthless for any other purpose. To the extent the lands show improvements, it's related to enhancing the game harvest (wildlife feed clearings, access "roads" for hunters, etc) or enforcing hunting regulations (patrol roads). This seems to be simply a grab for more revenues perhaps to offset the declining revenues from hunting licenses, or possibly to fund crony purchases of additional lands or the hiring of politically-connected folks to new jobs to enforce the fees. A bad idea by and large----especially if non-hunters are charged a higher rate.

[ki0eh]

They also have increasing revenues from fracking, derived through much more opaque processes than PA DCNR.

Note the Federal assistance by and large comes from the Pittman-Robertson tax on ammo. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federal...robertson.html

[ki0eh]

half of the mid-state trail uses game lands.

As of this morning, 16.4% (but who's counting? )

(After next week, a little less as part of Section 2 should be moving off onto private land if the volunteer crew is able to finish.)

[rocketsocks]

if this happens, guess I'll have to find other trails to hike each year for a week over thanksgiving. half of the mid-state trail uses game lands. i aint payin over $100 to hike it for a week each year.

I concur. They said thay would do a study $$$ I would hope the study group realizes that they would not only loose the money for permits not purchased, but that those folks will not be there the spend other monies as well;ie gas to get home, food, lodging for those that don't camp but came to day hike, and night time entertainment. Anything other than a small modest fee is just a bad idea...it's just a bad idea.

[bonius]

I think this is one of those things where it's technically illegal, but the Game Commission can't afford to pay wardens to enforce it, so everybody gets away with it anyway.

[Traveler]

FYI. This issue is being discussed by the PA Game Commission.

http://timesleader.com/news/outdoors...d-be-a-reality

Activities such as birdwatching, mountain biking, and horseback riding were mentioned in the article, not AT hiking. The AT typically operates on a stand alone basis through a granted or purchased easement (some sections are still on a handshake agreement with private owners). The AT staffs its own support groups (member chapters) using volunteers to maintain and police the trail. Charging for trail use would require the State to set up and fund trail maintenance at or above the level of care currently being provided (as a basic legal tenet). The exception would be charging for use of services on State land (parking, bathrooms, etc) or using a State trail system to access the AT.

The issue of collecting fees alone would be daunting, where does that happen, at every cross road the the AT crosses or using Game Land Patrols to find "illegals" on the trail? Good luck collecting funds from those who understand topographical maps and the ability to move around fixed fee sites. A good idea for a TV Reality show to compete with the Duck People, "Trail Cops" but thats about as far as that idea goes.

The State does have a compelling interest to solicit fees to cover their costs of land acquisition and maintenance/staffing of parks and lands, which is why there is fishing and hunting licensing to help offset the costs of stocking ponds, game fields, and wardens. The AT does not typically incur cost to a state, which would be very difficult to demonstrate the need to recover costs from. Few States want to take on that expense and additional liability that would follow such a move.

[rocketsocks]

Sounds like the talks are headed in the right direction, good deal...and I won't look at birds while on the AT.

[Don H]

Latest update:
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/l...ermits-only-be

"The permit being proposed would be required only for those riding bicycles, horses or snowmobiles on designated trails on game lands. Others, such as hikers or birdwatchers without a hunting or furtaker's license, would continue to be able to use game lands in the same manner they do now."

[kidchill]

This is pretty much in line with my previous post...hiking being relatively low impact, and where is the money actually going? I'm not overly concerned about this legislation, as it doesn't really change anything for me. If they are truly low on revenue for the repairing of trails/maintenance, and there truly is a significant impact from said activities (horses/snowmobiles/bikers), then it "seems" fair. Also, you can just buy a hunting license, which isn't all that expensive, really.

[1234]

I have no problem with this what so ever...if Pennsylvania game lands are anything like Virginia's Wildlife Management Areas, its not going to be the same as other public lands that are usually managed for general public use. WMAs are managed by the department of Game and Inland fisheries and much of their budget and funding is paid for by hunting and fishing licenses as well as boat fees.

The DGIF customer is not the general public, but those who buy the licenses and fees. So now we have a segment of the population who do not pay the fees or buy the licenses increasingly making use of these resources. I for example like to go to the Chickahominy WMA to use the shooting range -- but I am not a hunter nor a fisherman. I've benefited and enjoyed the range. Isn't it only right, that those who want to use these resources pay into their protection and maintenance as well? I have the choice of buying a license or paying a daily ($4) or yearly fee ($24). It looks as though PA is doing the same that Virginia did 2 years ago... and if you want to avoid the fee, dont use resources paid for by someone else

About VaDGIF fee schedule at Chickahominy -- http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/access-permit/

THAT is a corck, they put the money in the general fund and steal it. Happens every year, not 10% go back to the WMA. 100% against any fees for hiking. period! They say one thing and do another. ALL THEY WANT is YOUR $$$$ any way they can get it.

[Don H]

Also, you can just buy a hunting license, which isn't all that expensive, really.

$101.70 for a PA non-resident hunting license.

[Tuckahoe]

THAT is a corck, they put the money in the general fund and steal it. Happens every year, noin 10% go back to the WMA. 100% against any fees for hiking. period! They say one thing and do another. ALL THEY WANT is YOUR $$$$ any way they can get it.

Do you know something or are you just blowing it out your a$$?

I based my opinion on the assumption that PA Game Commission may be similar to Virginia's Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

The VaDGIF a special funded agency with a current budget of about $60 million receives 0 (yes ZERO) general funds that means 0 monies from tax revenue (except the sales tax on boats). The entirety of the budget comes from non-general funds, with about $25 million (or 42%) coming from licensing and $15 million (or 25%) from federal funds and grants such as Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson (that is excize taxes paid on firearms, ammunition, and fishing equipment).

Further 72% of the department's budget goes to the management of wildlife and fisheries.

State budget information is pretty eash to find --
http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/buddoc11/index.cfm

And the VaDGIF covers their funding pretty well too.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/about/f...-summary/2015/

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/about/f...#license-sales

So what was your point again?

[1234]

Do you know something or are you just blowing it out your a$$?

I based my opinion on the assumption that PA Game Commission may be similar to Virginia's Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

The VaDGIF a special funded agency with a current budget of about $60 million receives 0 (yes ZERO) general funds that means 0 monies from tax revenue (except the sales tax on boats). The entirety of the budget comes from non-general funds, with about $25 million (or 42%) coming from licensing and $15 million (or 25%) from federal funds and grants such as Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson (that is excize taxes paid on firearms, ammunition, and fishing equipment).

Further 72% of the department's budget goes to the management of wildlife and fisheries.

State budget information is pretty eash to find --
http://dpb.virginia.gov/budget/buddoc11/index.cfm

And the VaDGIF covers their funding pretty well too.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/about/f...-summary/2015/

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/about/f...#license-sales

So what was your point again?

Looks to me like all DGIF's funding comes from TAXeS, you may call it license, money from federal govt. taxs on guns and ammo, TO ME they are just taxes. I love the new, "fees" everybody seems to call everything. If a banks charges you, it is interest no matter what they WANT to call it. If the government takes your money it is taxs no matter what they call it. I see no list of income from licenses issued by Virginia and I do not see where DGIF gets to keep all the money we spend on licenses. They like to say we "only" use license money for wildlife projects to make it sound like they get all the money. But that is not what they are saying, They are saying the state does not give them any money because it is the other way around. I do not think your first line was called for or necessary. I have been buying license from Virginia for over 50 years and I see "ONE" project they spent money on and it cost me $10 to use it, each time I go there. The boat launch at Lynnhaven Inlet. To me a "user fee" is just a tax in disguise. If ya think different that is fine, I am ok with it. Really, no need to be ugly.

[mikec]

Fees to hike in Game Lands, fees to hike in WMA's, fees to drive in hot lanes or on certain roads- when is this going to end? If this keeps up they will charge us for the air that we breathe!

[Traveler]

Looks to me like all DGIF's funding comes from TAXeS, you may call it license, money from federal govt. taxs on guns and ammo, TO ME they are just taxes. I love the new, "fees" everybody seems to call everything. If a banks charges you, it is interest no matter what they WANT to call it. If the government takes your money it is taxs no matter what they call it. I see no list of income from licenses issued by Virginia and I do not see where DGIF gets to keep all the money we spend on licenses. They like to say we "only" use license money for wildlife projects to make it sound like they get all the money. But that is not what they are saying, They are saying the state does not give them any money because it is the other way around. I do not think your first line was called for or necessary. I have been buying license from Virginia for over 50 years and I see "ONE" project they spent money on and it cost me $10 to use it, each time I go there. The boat launch at Lynnhaven Inlet. To me a "user fee" is just a tax in disguise. If ya think different that is fine, I am ok with it. Really, no need to be ugly.

User fees like these are typically used to support the costs generated by the activities. Fishing licenses and hunting licenses help pay the costs of stocking fish and game, for example. Fees can be apportioned so part of the fee goes to different places like warden services, maintenance of open lands, and other processes, services, materials/maintenance, and information needs of these activities. To claim all fees go to general revenue as "taxes" highly simplifies a complex subject and ignores the facts of the issue.

One reason you are seeing more/higher fees in some areas is due to local, regional, State, and Federal government cuts to support the costs generated by activities. In this instance, users have to pay the difference to support their interests. I have no issue paying my way to support these things, and I'm sure you don't want a free ride and pay no fees or taxes to use what others pay for.

[TheYoungOne]

User fees like these are typically used to support the costs generated by the activities. Fishing licenses and hunting licenses help pay the costs of stocking fish and game, for example. Fees can be apportioned so part of the fee goes to different places like warden services, maintenance of open lands, and other processes, services, materials/maintenance, and information needs of these activities. To claim all fees go to general revenue as "taxes" highly simplifies a complex subject and ignores the facts of the issue.

One reason you are seeing more/higher fees in some areas is due to local, regional, State, and Federal government cuts to support the costs generated by activities. In this instance, users have to pay the difference to support their interests. I have no issue paying my way to support these things, and I'm sure you don't want a free ride and pay no fees or taxes to use what others pay for.

I agree

I don't like the comment that the fees should be more than a $20.0 PA state hunting license. I think something like a $5 yearly non-hunter permit fee is more reasonable. I stated a thread a while back on WB asking if PA was the worst part of the trail.

http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...e-AT&highlight=

Other than the rocks, The Northern section of PA from Port Clinton to before you hit the Delaware Water Gap, is pretty trashy, and a bit seedy. That section of trail in PA is also mostly State Game Land. If a $5 annual hiker fee will keep out the rift raft with spray paint can, the Junkies, and the slobs, then I am all for it. More than $20 per person is excessive.

[TheYoungOne]

On a side note. In the PA governors race, better hope the Democrat Tom Wolf does not win....he support it.

http://www.wolfforpa.com/sections/pa...g-and-outdoors

[AegisIII]

(Not really planning on continuing further...), but, just where are you reading that into?

[freightliner]

Ever once in a blue moon I'm wrong and this might be one of them but on the maps for the AT thru PA it says its on a National Scenic Trail Corridor. It is very narrow and thats why they say stay on the trail. I don't think this hiker tax will be placed on us. If it is I demand all rocks be remove from the trail and hand pump wells every 5 miles.