Pennsylvania Game News - August 2013 - 3

tors. No one wanted to pay to hunt.
But other states were implementing
hunting licenses, and it seemed like a
surefire way to raise money for wildlife
protection and conservation.
It has been written that Joseph
Kalbfus, former agency executive secretary, initially wasn’t a fan of hunting
licenses; he apparently thought funding
should come from the General Fund,
maybe because it offered stability. But
by 1905 he had changed his mind.
Responding to the Pennsylvania
State Sportsmen’s Association’s yearning for advancement of legislation for
a hunting license, Kalbfus wrote in the
agency 1905 annual report, “The man
who does not engage in hunting is not
asked to part with one single cent for
this purpose. The fee, while nominal
to each individual contributor, will in
the aggregate place enough cash in our
hands to efficiently conduct the work
of our office without asking the State
for any appropriation whatever.”
The reasoning was sound. There was
precedent. But the General Assembly
refused to budge. The sentiment was
hunting and fishing were free forms of
recreation and they needed to stay that
way. What the legislators didn’t see
coming, though, were the increasing
costs associated with managing wildlife. It was a growing field with expenses
for enforcing game laws; protecting and
improving habitat; buying, raising and
releasing game, not to mention buying
equipment to conduct these varied
and increasing duties. They also didn’t
recognize the resolve of organized
hunters and conservation leaders to
push a license through. Each annual
defeat spurred a new reorganization
and charge.
In 1909, Kalbfus reasoned in his
AUGUST 2013

annual report that Pennsylvania was
falling behind progressive wildlife
management programs in other states.
“I understand that some 18 or more
states in this Union, including New
York and New Jersey, have already
adopted measures imposing a license
upon all persons who hunt . . . I have
been making careful inquiry regarding
this matter for several years and believe
this resident hunters’ license law to be
the only solution . . . ”
Still, the assemblymen refused
to move on the issue. Worse, their
idling was urged on by the Hunters’
and Anglers’ Protective Association,
a Harrisburg-based group that was
convinced license dollars would be
used to build roads and parks, and “to
relieve the average legislator of the
responsibility of providing any funds
for the protection of game.” So, the
battle dragged on.
The arguments between the factions
ranged from whether licenses should
be displayed, the minimum age limit,
license exemptions, and how the revenue would be spent or divided. Petitions were circulated by sportsmen’s
clubs. The Game Commission issued
bulletins. Back and forth it went.
In January 1913, the Game Commission circulated a proclamation that
stirred the conservation troops. It read:
“After years of effort, the Game Commission finds it impossible to induce
our Legislature to appropriate sufficient
funds to protect and propagate game
for the three percent of our population that hunts; for years the Game
Commission has advocated and again
called to the attention of our sportsmen the $1 resident hunter’s license,
which would furnish ample means
for the protection and propagation of
3

Pennsylvania Game News - August 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Pennsylvania Game News - August 2013