Pennsylvania House Bill HB1075

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/31/25
• Refer: 3/31/25

Caption

In property and buildings, further providing for price paid for acquisitions and improvements.

Summary

House Bill 1075 amends Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which governs game and wildlife matters, to change how much the Pennsylvania Game Commission may pay when acquiring land for game lands. Under current law, the commission’s authority was capped at $400 per acre for most game-land purchases, with a separate provision allowing purchases in a county of the second class to be made at a fair and reasonable price consistent with local market value. HB1075 removes the $400-per-acre cap and also strikes the county-of-the-second-class limitation, leaving the commission able to pay a fair and reasonable price, exclusive of federal and other cost-sharing funds, consistent with market value in the locality. The bill would therefore give the Game Commission greater flexibility in purchasing land for public hunting and wildlife management purposes, especially in areas where land values exceed the old statutory cap. It does not create a new program or funding source, but it changes the pricing standard for acquisitions of game lands and would apply immediately upon enactment.

Impact

HB1075 would amend Section 705(a) of Title 34 by eliminating the statutory $400-per-acre ceiling on game-land acquisitions and broadening the fair-market-value standard to apply generally rather than only in counties of the second class. The practical effect is to increase the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s authority to negotiate and pay market-based prices for land acquisitions, potentially making it easier to assemble or expand game lands in higher-value real estate markets. The bill affects the Game Commission, landowners selling property for game lands, and any acquisition transactions involving federal or other cost-sharing funds.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented debate or voting pattern to assess. Based on the text alone, the bill appears administratively focused and likely intended to modernize an outdated acquisition cap rather than to make a controversial policy change. The introduction by a bipartisan mix of sponsors may suggest broad interest in the issue, but the available record does not show formal support or opposition.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely fiscal and policy-related: supporters may argue that the $400-per-acre cap is obsolete and prevents the Game Commission from competing in today’s land market, while critics may worry that removing the cap could increase acquisition costs or reduce legislative control over spending. Another possible issue is the removal of the county-of-the-second-class language, which may be viewed as expanding the higher-price authority statewide rather than limiting it to a specific county classification. No specific opponents or committee objections are identified in the provided materials.