NO SUBSTANCE, NO VALUE, NO PURPOSE. SAY NO TO THE 16 AMENDMENTS FOR THE STEELE DEAL

 

CONTACT: Hunters United for Sunday Hunting

TELEPHONE: 717-350-6741

EMAIL: huntersforsundayhunting@gmail.com

WEBSITE: facebook.com/HuntersUnitedForSundayHunting

Correspondence For:

Rep. Joanna E. McClinton

Rep. Matthew D. Bradford

Rep. Dan L. Miller

Rep. Bryan Cutler

Rep. Timothy J. O'Neal

My name is Kevin Askew, I am the executive director of Hunters United for

Sunday Hunting, the lead organization working to end the archaic blue law prohibiting hunting on Sunday.  I am addressing you as the decision makers and leadership team for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  First, I recognize the tough and stressful task you all have in navigating, deciding, and tabling quality legislation for a vote.  It has to be a daunting duty.  This brings me to the subject at hand The Steele Deal of HB2106, HB2107, HB2108, and the 16 irrelevant and ridiculous amendments that have been introduced for consideration and inclusion.  These amendments have no substance or value and serve no purpose being added to The Steele Deal.  They just don’t.

This has been a nearly 53-year process getting to this current position and point of removing the blue law prohibiting hunting on Sunday bringing PA into the 21st Century societal standards.  Rep. Mandy Steele has done a tremendous job, one that could not be done in all those years of bringing all the stakeholders of hunter-conservation, agriculture, Pennsylvania Game Commission, law enforcement, and legislators to the bargaining table with the common goal of penning a fair deal for all, The Steele Deal. 

Take a moment and put all the politics and emotions aside.  Simply and frankly The Steele Deal provides everything needed not everything wanted.  HB2106 removes the archaic blue law deemed unenforceable in 1976 by the PA Supreme Court.  HB2106 also strengthens trespass laws something that agriculture and hunter-conservation have both wanted. HB2107 provides a tool that will connect hunters and agriculture to assist with the crop damage issues being experienced throughout the commonwealth by farmers. HB2108 is a hunter-conservation and agriculture mission multiplier when viewed and interpreted correctly.  It quantifies and qualifies what has existed for at least a decade on the PGC commissioner board as an agriculturist. That applicant will now have to meet the criteria of being knowledgeable in the area of wildlife management as well as actively engaged in a normal agricultural operation as defined in the Right-to-Farm Law. 

This legislation is not about Rep. Mandy Steele and what she wants.  It’s not about politically punishing or controlling the PGC.  It’s not about any individual politician's idealogy. It’s not about one political party versus another.  It’s not about your personal feelings as a leader.  What The Steele Deal is all about is doing the right thing and ending this 53-year benign fight to remove the blue law while benefiting agriculture and updating the long-needed trespass laws.   This is about allowing free people to be free people as stated in the PA Constitution  “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”

French philosopher and author Jean-Paul Sarte wrote “Only the guy who isn't rowing has time to rock the boat.” I implore you as leaders to do the right thing. Do not molest The Steele Deal with any of the 16 irrelevant amendments.  They are of no value and do no good for the quality piece of legislation presented by Rep. Mandy Steele and sponsors. All stakeholders have worked on and agreed to The Steele Deal.  Do not allow those who are not rowing the boat to only rock it.

You as leaders are on the cusp of history.  It is time to end the stupidity and get this done.  Five decades is long enough.  Don’t be the leaders that make it six decades.

Thank you for your time.  Please do not hesitate to contact me for further

discussion on this issue.  

///Kevin B. Askew///

Executive Director, Hunters United for Sunday Hunting

Reference: 

The outdoor industry [including hunting/shooting/trapping] added more value to

our commonwealth’s gross domestic product than all of Pennsylvania’s farms,

all of Pennsylvania’s oil and gas wells, and even all of Pennsylvania’s lawyers. 

2021 Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.

PA House Bill 2106 

PA House Bill 2107

PA House Bill 2108

Steele Deal 16 Amendments

Pennsylvania Constitution

Misc:

Western Pennsylvania farmers support Sunday deer hunting legislation

Hunters Celebrate More Than 25 Percent Surge Over Past Five Years

HB1300 - DON’T USE THE PA GAME FUND. FINANCE THE AGRICULTURE PA CLEAN STREAMS PROGRAM WITH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

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 

Farmers may choose to receive the proceeds from easement sales in a lump sum payment, installments up to five years, or on a long-term installment basis.  Many farmers use the proceeds from easement sales to reduce debt loads, expand operations, and pass on farms to the next generation.

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

HOW MANY FARMERS DOES THE PENNSYLVANIA FARM BUREAU REPRESENT?

Pa. Farm Bureau advertising display shows actual membership as of November 2018. The image breaks down the total membership. Regular members/farmers that can vote on Pa. Farm Bureau issues and Associate members/non-farmer who have no voting authority at all

HOW MANY FARMERS DOES THE PENNSYLVANIA FARM BUREAU REPRESENT? “Pennsylvania Farm Bureau is the state’s largest farm organization with a volunteer membership of more than 62,000 farm and rural families, representing farms of every size and commodity across Pennsylvania,” July 10, 2017 press release. Just ask any of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau leadership and this is the first thing they will gladly tell you.  But do they really? The short answer is no.  Fact is Pa. Farm Bureau only represents 22,648 voting members who are actual farmers.  These are the only people that matter when it comes to PFB issues and voting.  No one else can vote. The two different memberships are explained on pfb.com [PFB website]. “Voting members decide our organization’s priorities and related activity and have the opportunity to participate in the development of Farm Bureau’s policies on a broad range of issues.” 1) Farmer Member [total of 22,648] - a person who is actively engaged in the production of agricultural products, whose principal occupation is farming. Only Farmer members have the privilege of voting on Farm Bureau policy issues. 2) Non-Farmer Member [total of 39,357] - anyone who is interested in agriculture and where their food comes from, whose family or livelihood benefits from agriculture or is involved with agriculture on a part-time basis. Non-farmer members are able to utilize most privileges of membership (except for voting on Farm Bureau policy issues). These member numbers, definition, and authority within the PFB structure are extremely important. They are definitely worth taking note of and paying attention too [yes, you Pa. legislature, the PFB is not as strong as they want you to believe]. When you break it down there are more non-members without any type of influence than there are members with full privileges. This all leads to a bigger question;  Why the secrecy?  Is Pa. Farm Bureau afraid they won’t be taken seriously.  Or is it that the paper tiger is less scary when viewed in the correct light. It is almost as if Pa. Farm Bureau is embarrassed by how few farmers are in the organization. Probably for good reason. Data from an October 2018 survey titled Pennsylvania 2017 State Agriculture Overview shows there are 58,000 farm operations in the state. With less than half the available farmers choosing to not be in or join Pa. Farm Bureau.  There is obvious truth to statements from farmers who say ‘the Pa. Farm Bureau does not represent me.’

Reference

Pfb.com

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=PENNSYLVANIA