Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elk Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Game Commission staff outline options to limit nonresident elk winners, including a 10% cap or license requirement
Summary
Staff recommended two board options to address rising nonresident success rates for elk draws: cap nonresident winners at 10% per season, or require nonresidents to purchase a nonresident hunting license to apply (raising the application cost from about $12 to $114).
Pennsylvania Game Commission staff presented two policy options intended to reduce the proportion of nonresident hunters drawn for limited elk licenses after staff analysis showed a rising share of nonresident winners in recent years.
Jeremy Banfield, the Commission’s elk biologist, said the number of nonresident applicants and nonresident winners has increased over the past five years. Staff offered two remedies for the board to consider: a per‑season cap that would limit nonresident winners to 10 percent of licenses, or a requirement that nonresident applicants also purchase a nonresident hunting license to apply, which would raise the effective application cost for nonresidents from roughly $12 to about $114.
Banfield illustrated the potential effect with recent drawing data: a 10 percent cap would have shifted several nonresident license winners to residents in prior years—17 licenses over a three‑year period by staff calculations—while the licensing‑fee option would likely reduce the number of nonresident applicants because the application cost would increase substantially. “I would expect a pretty strong reduction in the number of nonresident applicants,” Banfield said when asked whether the license requirement would lower application counts, but he said the change is not easily predicted.
Staff framed the issue as social policy more than biology: Banfield said either approach would not directly affect elk biology or population dynamics but responds to persistent concerns voiced by resident hunters about access and allocation. He noted that a one‑third share of nonresident applicants already purchase a nonresident hunting license, leaving roughly two thirds who do not and who would be most affected by a new license requirement.
Other commissioners said the matter has been raised for years and asked the board to weigh options. No final board vote or policy decision was recorded in the transcript.
Ending: Staff said they will return to the board with language and options for formal consideration; commissioners will deliberate the social and allocation tradeoffs at the board meeting.
