Open letter to the Pennsylvania Legislature
To say that there is much hostility to the proposals in Pennsylvania House Bill 1300, Session 2023 that targets the PA Game Commissions Game Fund and transfers money to the PA Clean Streams agriculture program is an understatement. Nearly every hunter-conservation organization along with various mainstream conservation groups has issued letters of opposition.
It is unclear who introduced the amendment and for what reason. But one thing is for sure the disappointment is palpable. Especially with those senators who have done a lot for hunter-conservation and then voted in favor of the PA Game Fund money being taken. There has not been a clear reason given as to why the money needs to come from the PA Game Fund.
HB1300 immediately transfers $150 million from conservation and places a tax estimated at $10 million per year on the real property that the PGC holds. Both of these violate the rules of the PA Game Fund as it relates to the Pittman and Robertson Act which allocates yearly federal dollars to every state. The PGC would lose an estimated $40 million per year because of these actions. Once Pittman and Robertson's funding is lost there is no solution or option for when it could return, if at all.
Knowing that taking the $150 million from the PA Game Fund will result in a detrimental impact monetarily on the PGC and its ability to affect the wildlife resources of the commonwealth what can be done?
It starts by understanding the PA Clean Streams Act origination and what it does. Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Fund was created with $220 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act, and funds conservation programs including ACAP, designed to share the costs to farmers for farm management practices that reduce sediment in waterways, keeping the nutrients out of waterways, and on the farm to build soil health.
It's also important to understand that agriculture is prospering in PA “According to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, with $7.8 billion in cash receipts annually from production agriculture alone the Commonwealth’s farms and agribusinesses are a leading economic driver in the state. It only stands to reason that since this deals strictly with agriculture [and they obviously have the money] they are the ones who should foot the bill for this subsidy.
Where can the funding come from if it's so important?
The first thing is to accept and understand that this is another government allowance to an already heavily subsidized agriculture industry. So in typical government fashion, the subsidy can’t ever go away. It must be funded perpetually and without question, especially when it comes to agricultural survival without government aid.
Option one: When the $220 million ACAP funding is depleted let the subsidy fund lapse until a dedicated funding stream can be found from agriculture and agriculture only.
Option two: It has been reported that the state has a surplus of $13 billion. Take $150 million and invest it in the PA Clean Streams fund as an influx. In the next 12 months and prior to the next budget deadline vigorously pursue alternative funding preferably from agriculture.
Option three and one that has longevity: With $7.8 billion in cash generated and taxes being paid directly to the state; dedicate $150 million of that tax revenue yearly in order to fund the PA Clean Streams Act. This process would be very similar to the Pittman and Robertson model that helps feed the PA Game Fund.
Option four and one that has longevity: The PA Farmland Preservation Program has been budgeted $2.5 million. Farmers benefit from the land being purchased by the state and preserved. The farmer receives a financial stipend for placing the property in the preservation program. Update the financial transaction rules that 20 percent will be taken from the purchase price of every property and placed into the PA Clean Streams Fund. This is still a benefit to the farmer and agriculture. The farmer receives an 80 percent return and continues normal operations, the property is placed in preservation status, and the PA Farmland Preservation Program remains funded with an existing agriculture source providing the needed financing for the PA Clean Streams Fund. Again, very similar to the PA Game Fund and Pittman and Robertson, but with government money only.
*How proceeds can be used from the PA Farmland Preservation Progam
The above options are much more conducive overall than the short-term removal of $150 million from the PA Game Fund and the loss of $40 million in Pittman and Robertson funding. Hunter-conservation should not have to pay for what agriculture is responsible for. If a solution cannot be found within the confines of agriculture and its funding and revenue source; then the best outcome is option one above; when the $220 million ACAP funding is depleted let the subsidy fund lapse until a dedicated funding stream can be found from agriculture and agriculture only.
The taxation of PGC real property is detrimental to the PA Game Fund and Pittman and Robertson. The taxation and use as written in HB1300 are in violation of the PA Game Fund as associated with Pittman and Robertson Funding. What can be done?
Option one: continue the tax exemption status of PGC real property allowing for monies to be used accordingly and PR monies not to be jeopardized.
Option two: as written the taxation revenue is intended for counties and municipalities where the PGC real property exists. What is not written is how the counties and municipalities must use the revenue. If feasible and does not violate any PR or Game Fund rules; establish a $10 million grant that counties and municipalities can use under the guidance of the PGC for conservation projects or efforts. Every county and municipality would have access to the grant for the direct benefit of hunter-conservation and the commonwealth's wildlife resources.
Option three: There are 52,000 reported farms in PA. Each of those producing $2,000 in income qualifies for tax exemptions. Increase the tax exemption threshold by $1,000 from $2,000 to $3,000 resulting in an assessment of a $52 million increase in taxable revenue to counties, schools, and municipalities in the state. With $7.8 billion in industrial income, this is affordable and will provide five times the tax revenue than the current proposal of $10 million from PGC real property and will negate the loss of Pittman and Robertson federal funding.
Hunters generate $121 million in state and local taxes. The direct economic benefit to the counties and municipalities is inherent in using these lands and properties. The taxation of the PGC real property is truly not needed.
Bottom line, the PA Game Fund, and Pittman and Robertson are crucial to hunter-conservation, the PGC, and the 480 species that depend on the funding to be there for habitat and conservation needs. Any other use is strictly criminal.
I hope this letter helps generate thought and discussion, provides alternatives, and solidifies why the $150 million and taxation of real property of PGC should not happen as dictated in HB1300.
The undersigned organizations support these options or others that do not jeopardize the PA Game Fund and federal Pittman and Robertson conservation funding. To discuss these options and others that do not affect the conservation funds of Pennsylvania contact 717-350-6741.
/s/ Hunters United for Sunday Hunting
/s/ Hunter Nation
/s/ Keystone Conservation Action
/s/ Pennsylvania Cooperating Conservation Organizations
No comments:
Post a Comment