Freedom, farming, and free-time factor into latest Sunday hunting debate in Pa.
A hunter walks across a field. (Getty Images)
The topic of Sunday hunting is not new in Pennsylvania.
For years, advocates, including the Pennsylvania Game Commission, have argued the state's 'blue laws' prohibiting hunting on Sundays stunt the growth of the sport. But, groups representing hikers and horseback riders have said they believe it's important to have one day a week to enjoy the outdoors without the sound of gunfire in the fields and woods.
One thing that has shifted during the most recent debate are the faces and arguments surrounding Sunday hunting. While legislators behind the latest proposals say they believe this could be the year it becomes law, here's a look at the key voices in the discussion.
The duo leading the charge to repeal Pennsylvania's Sunday hunting prohibition
Earlier this month, a Republican state senator representing northwestern Pennsylvania and a state House Democrat representing parts of Allegheny County re-introduced separate pieces of similar legislation that could fully repeal Pennsylvania's Sunday hunting ban.
Sen. Dan Laughlin (R-Erie), who has been spearheading the issue since being elected in 2016, introduced Senate Bill 67, while Rep. Mandy Steele (D-Allegheny), first elected three years ago, introduced House Bill 851.
For Laughlin, the issue boils down to freedom.
'Currently in Pennsylvania, you can stop at a liquor store and buy some whiskey, buy some medical-use cannabis, and then head to the casino and do that all on a Sunday, but you can't take a 12-year-old-kid out squirrel hunting right now,' Laughlin told the Capital-Star. His legislation would have Pennsylvania join 39 states that have no limits on Sunday hunting.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Steele said her bill this time around is very similar to the one introduced in the previous session and was constructed with the input of the Game Commission, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, and other advocacy groups that 'meets everyone's needs well.'
She described hunting as a 'great American tradition.'
'It is incredibly grounding for children. It's a way to get them connected to the land, understand their place in the ecosystem,' Steele said. 'It's healthy. It's wholesome. It's time outdoors.'
Her legislation would remove the prohibition from state law and allow the Game Commission to continue to decide which Sundays would be added for hunting. Her proposal would also require at least one member of the commission to have a background in agriculture.
In 2019, Gov. Tom Wolf signed a bill that ended the complete ban to allow hunting on three Sundays, one during archery deer season, one during rifle deer season, and one selected by the Game Commission. Laughlin, who was a first term Senator, also sponsored that legislation.
'It's something obviously I feel pretty passionate about and, you know, I'm going to get this done,' Laughlin said about the latest effort. 'I believe that it will be this session, hopefully even this year.'
The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau was one of the biggest obstacles in years past, but after tweaks to the proposal, the group has come out in favor of the bill.
Laughlin and Steele are on opposite sides of the aisle and serving in different chambers, but they said they have worked together to get specifics worked out and are aiming to achieve the same goal.
Laughlin also believes passing this bill would provide economic benefits and create 'thousands of jobs' in the state, specifically rural economies.
'It gets people to their camps,' Laughlin said. 'I know there's been some discussion around the Saturday opener, whether that has helped or hurt small businesses in Pennsylvania, and having this availability for people to come in and hunt an entire weekend will bring people in from out of state to spend money in these rural areas.'
Steele also cited free-time as one of the driving forces behind crafting the legislation.
'People are working sometimes six days a week, and if they can't get out on Sundays, in many cases, that means they can't hunt,' Steele said.
Why hasn't it passed in previous sessions?
Laughlin, who was reelected to a third term in 2024 in a purple region of the state, thinks that 'some politics may have been playing in on it.'
'You can't really separate politics out of Harrisburg too much,' Laughlin said. 'But you know, I'm not up for re-election for another four years, won by a fairly wide margin up here. I don't think anyone is going to hold up Sunday hunting at this point, over Dan Laughlin being the senator in Erie County.'
Steele said last session they 'were a little bit rushed' as one of the reasons it didn't get across the finish line and expects it to be voted on in committee soon.
Last June, the House passed Steele's proposal to repeal Pennsylvania's Sunday hunting ban by a 129-73 vote, but it did not make it through the Senate. She cited the amount of bipartisan support as a reason she's optimistic it will become law this session.
'When you talk about hunting within the framework of A: incredible economic opportunity for Pennsylvania and B: This… (would) be really important for the health of Pennsylvania forest,' Steele said. 'We're hearing from wildlife biologists. We're hearing from the forest ecologist that the Pennsylvania herd is too large and that we need to get more people hunting in the woods. The way to do that is with Sunday hunting.'
'When you understand that, people get on board,' she added.
Farmers for Sunday hunting
The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau has historically opposed legislation aimed at repealing the ban, in part due to the long standing tradition. However, Mitchell Kurek, state and local affairs specialist with the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, told the Capital-Star a shift in attitude has taken place in recent years as a result of crop damage.
'The impact is devastating,' Kurek said. 'Tens of thousands of dollars could be the difference between if that farm can survive or not.'
'At this point, we're looking for any solutions, any tools that could be added to the farmers arsenal and Sunday hunting is one of those tools,' Kurek said.
He emphasized that proposals that could fully end the Sunday hunting prohibition is 'not a mandate.'
'This isn't forcing anybody to open up their property on Sunday,' Kurek said. 'At the end of the day, what we're looking to do is reduce this herd size as quickly as we can…to the end of mitigating some of the damage.'
For lawmakers to earn the support of the Farm Bureau, their organization asked for multiple components to be included that would provide agricultural benefits. Kurek says among them are stronger trespassing laws, agricultural representation on the Game Commission, streamlining the process of deer removal for crop damage, and connecting farmers to reliable hunters via a hunter access program.
Like both sponsors of the legislation, Kurek says his group is 'extremely hopeful and optimistic' that the legislation gets across the finish line this session.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hikers concerns remain
While the politics over Sunday hunting have shifted for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, the Keystone Trails Association (KTA), which advocates for hikers in the state, remains firm in its opposition.
'KTA continues to be concerned that Sunday hunting has the potential to impact the hiking experience and to present a safety threat to hikers on public lands on Sundays,' said Brook Lenker, the organization's executive director.
He said a lot of unknowns remain about the measures, including how many Sundays will ultimately be approved for hunting. Lenker also views keeping the public informed about which additional Sundays will be open for hunters as a challenge.
'It just underscores our concern for hiker safety and the hiking experience, because nobody likes to be out in the woods and hearing loud gunshots, and certainly doesn't want to be in harm's way,' Lenker said. 'And it really does disrupt …let's face it… for hikers to experience the serenity of the forest or wild spaces.'
However, Lenker said even if he doesn't fully agree with repealing the Sunday hunting ban, he understands some of the arguments that allow more hunters in the woods and provide young people another day to hunt.
'But I also would argue that Sundays, as they are now, are available for the very sort of safe and wholesome enjoyment of trails for youth and their families,' Lenker said. 'And I feel like this erodes that, because some of the seasons are at a time of year that's sublime for hiking, so it creates a conflict at some of the best times of year for hiking.'
Lenker has described the matter of Sunday hunting to be a 'complicated issue' and added he hopes if the proposal becomes law, it is rolled out with caution.
'We also are realists and understand that if this does pass, that…we're not going to be yelling and screaming at the Game Commission,' Lenker said. 'But we are going to say, 'Okay, now that you know you've had your wishes granted, how can you do this really carefully?''
The Pennsylvania Equine Council has also historically been opposed to the legislation, but has not commented on the latest proposals.
Farmers are concerned about crop damage. Is Sunday hunting the remedy?
Mark Lichtenwalner's family has owned a farm for more than 90 years in Lehigh County. He told the Capital-Star deer damaging crops is a big issue.
'This deer thing is such a frustrating issue for us,' Lichtenwalner said. 'I think I can speak for a lot of other farmers. We feel helpless.'
At this point in his life, Lichtenwalner said he does not have to depend on the farm for income as much in the past and most of his 200 acres is rented to a relative to grow corn and soybeans. In his plot, he tries to focus on growing vegetables and has a retail farm market in the summertime. But deer damaging crops is detrimental to his business.
'You know, we're probably losing on my little farm $10,000 a year of potential business we could have had,' he said.
'I've been working with donating some vegetables to a local food pantry the last couple years, and I'd like to do more for them,' he added. 'I can't, because the deer.'
He said crop damage has gotten so bad for farmers that he's talked to some who have pretty much given up on some land because of it.
But, Lichtenwalner describes himself as 'kind of on the fence' about Sunday hunting legislation, saying he sees both the pros and cons of it. In the end, he doesn't think it will have a meaningful impact for farmers.
'We have a 365 day problem,' he said. 'One day doesn't mean anything.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Public media funding cuts hit Chicago: WBEZ, WTTW brace for impact
President Trump and the Republican-majority U.S. House moved one step closer to cutting funding for public media, putting local organizations in limbo. The latest: The House passed a bill Thursday afternoon to cancel over $1 billion in funding for PBS and NPR, via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This funding was included in the 2025 fiscal year budget, but this action removes it. Why it matters: Federal funding for public media could vanish — and Chicago stations like WBEZ and WTTW are bracing for the fallout. The big picture: The move breaks decades of bipartisan tradition treating CPB funding as apolitical and throws public media companies into budgetary chaos. What they're saying: "If approved, this cancellation of funding would eliminate critical investments, stripping resources that we use to power independent journalism, educational programming, emergency alerts and the infrastructure that supports the entire network of newsrooms nationwide," Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell wrote to station members. "This could threaten the ability of PBS, and member stations like WTTW, to operate autonomously," a WTTW spokesperson said in a statement. By the numbers: The cuts would amount to about 6 percent of Chicago Public Media's budget, which the organization estimates to be about $3 million annually. That's not factoring in possible syndication costs handed down by National Public Radio, which is also losing funding from this bill. For WTTW, 10% of its 2024 budget came from federal funding. Zoom in: Chicago Public Media and WTTW (which also includes WFMT-FM) are among the largest public media organizations. Chicago Public Media (WBEZ/Sun-Times) reported revenue of $70 million for 2024, while WTTW had a total operating budget of $32.7 million. Both organizations receive significant revenue from member donations. Yes, but: Smaller Illinois radio stations, such as WILL-FM in Urbana, WUIS-FM in Springfield, and WNIJ-FM in DeKalb, have significantly higher federal funding, in some cases accounting for half of their budgets. Those stations are attached to local universities. Zoom out: It's unclear if the organizations will supercharge fundraising to attract more private donors or cut back on programming and staff. Chicago Public Media recently cut staff at both the Sun-Times and WBEZ. The intrigue: The rescission package aims to claw back funding that Congress previously approved for fiscal year 2025. It primarily consists of cuts identified by DOGE, which include funding for foreign aid programs such as USAID. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding is usually allocated every two years, so this cuts the second year of funding and puts future allocations in serious doubt. The rescission bill is rare in government. Trump attempted to use it during his first term, but was defeated in the Senate. Between the lines: Republicans have increasingly painted public media as left-leaning and biased, citing PBS programs like "Sesame Street" as "woke propaganda." The other side: Public media offers a variety of independent programming from news, culture, food and children's programs, funded to avoid programming influenced by corporations and commercials.


Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Reacts to Donald Trump's 'Unprecedented' Medicaid Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed concern for the privacy of immigrants in his state, following reports that the Trump administration has shared Medicaid data with immigration officials. An internal memo and emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Medicaid officials unsuccessfully sought to block the data transfer, citing legal and ethical concerns. Nevertheless, two top advisers to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the dataset handed over to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the emails show. Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were given just 54 minutes on Tuesday to comply with the directive. "We deeply value the privacy of all Californians," Newsom's office told Newsweek in a statement. "This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families who are already under relentless, indiscriminate attack by this administration. The federal government continues to instill fear across this nation and shroud its continued violation of Americans' privacy rights in propaganda." Newsweek reached out to DHS and the Department for Health and Human Services for comment via email and contact form Friday afternoon. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California... California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer granted an emergency temporary restraining order to stop President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard, on June 12, 2025, at the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco. More Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via AP Why It Matters Reports of increased data sharing between federal agencies for the purpose of immigration enforcement have caused concerns for several weeks. The Trump administration has said the data is vital in finding illegal immigrants who should be deported. What To Know The dataset included the information of people living in California, Illinois, Washington state and Washington, D.C., all of which allow non-U.S. citizens to enroll in Medicaid programs that pay for their expenses using only state taxpayer dollars. CMS transferred the information just as the Trump administration was ramping up its enforcement efforts in Southern California. Newsom's office said it was concerned about how deportation officials might utilize the data, especially as federal authorities conduct immigration raids with the assistance of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles. Besides helping authorities locate migrants, experts said, the government could also use the information to scuttle the hopes of migrants seeking green cards, permanent residency or citizenship if they had ever obtained Medicaid benefits funded by the federal government. CMS announced late last month that it was reviewing some states' Medicaid enrollees to ensure federal funds have not been used to pay for coverage for people with "unsatisfactory immigration status." In a letter sent to state Medicaid officials, CMS said that the effort was part of Trump's February 19 executive order titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders." As part of the review, California, Washington and Illinois shared details about non-U.S. citizens who have enrolled in their state's Medicaid program, according to a June 6 memo signed by Medicaid Deputy Director Sara Vitolo that was obtained by AP. The memo was written by several CMS officials under Vitolo's supervision, according to sources familiar with the process. The data includes addresses, names, Social Security numbers and claims data for enrollees in those states, according to the memo and two people familiar with what the states sent to CMS. Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share details about the data exchange. CMS officials attempted to fight the data sharing request from Homeland Security, saying that complying would violate federal laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, according to Vitolo's memo. "Multiple federal statutory and regulatory authorities do not permit CMS to share this information with entities outside of CMS," Vitolo wrote, further explaining that the sharing of such personal data is allowed only for directly administering the Medicaid program. Sharing information about Medicaid applicants or enrollees with DHS officials would violate a "longstanding policy," wrote Vitolo, a career employee, to Trump appointee Kim Brandt, deputy administrator and chief operating officer of CMS. The legal arguments outlined in the memo were not persuasive to Trump appointees at HHS, which oversees Medicaid. Four days after the memo was sent, on June 10, HHS officials directed the transfer of "the data to DHS by 5:30 ET today," according to email exchanges obtained by AP. Former government officials said the move was unusual because CMS, which has access to personal health data for nearly half of the country, does not typically share such sensitive information with other departments. "DHS has no role in anything related to Medicaid," said Jeffrey Grant, a former career employee at CMS. Beyond her legal arguments, Vitolo said sharing the information with DHS could have a chilling effect on states, perhaps prompting them to withhold information. States, she added, needed to guard against the "legal risk" they were taking by giving federal officials data that could be shared with deportation officials. A 'Concerning' Development All states must legally provide emergency Medicaid services to non-U.S. citizens, including to those who are lawfully present but have not yet met a five-year wait to apply for Medicaid. Seven states, along with the District of Columbia, allow immigrants who are not living legally in the country to enroll—with full benefits—in their state's Medicaid program. The states launched these programs during the Biden administration and said they would not bill the federal government to cover those immigrants' health care costs. The Trump administration has raised doubts about that pledge. Nixon said that the state's Medicaid programs for immigrants "opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid—and forced hard-working Americans to foot the bill." All of the states—California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota and Colorado—have Democratic governors. As a result of his state's budget woes, Newsom announced earlier this year that he would freeze enrollment in the program. Illinois will shut down its program for roughly 30,000 non-U.S. citizens in July. The remaining states have not yet submitted the identifiable data to CMS as part of the review, according to a public health official who has reviewed CMS' requests to the states. What People Are Saying U.S. Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told AP that the data sharing was legal: "With respect to the recent data sharing between CMS and DHS, HHS acted entirely within its legal authority—and in full compliance with all applicable laws—to ensure that Medicaid benefits are reserved for individuals who are lawfully entitled to receive them." California Governor Gavin Newsom's office, in a statement sent to Newsweek: "Sharing Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security—which is itself legally dubious—will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse, and Americans more broadly. "Federal law requires emergency care to be provided to all to save lives, and the federal government helps pay for it for low-income individuals, regardless of immigration status. Every state should be concerned about this data sharing and its implications for the safety and health of its communities. We will continue to vigorously defend Californians' privacy rights and explore all avenues to protect their information and safety." What Happens Next Republicans in Congress are continuing to look to limit undocumented immigrants from accessing federal programs while continuing to scrutinize whether sanctuary jurisdictions allow them to receive benefits. This article contains reporting by The Associated Press.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Touts Higher Duty Rate for Chinese Imports Under New Trade Deal
Hours after his cabinet announced that the United States would resume its previously agreed upon trade truce with China, President Donald Trump stoked confusion by revealing a new tariff rate of 55 percent for the sourcing superpower. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, along with U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer, traveled to London this week to sit down with Chinese trade officials following weeks of trade tensions and the crumbling of a provisional agreement solidified in Switzerland in mid-May. More from Sourcing Journal China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here? Trump Likely to Extend Tariff Pause as Negotiations Take Shape, Treasury Secretary Says China and US Return to Terms of May Trade Truce At the end of negotiations on Tuesday, Lutnick indicated that both sides had agreed to 'implement the Geneva consensus' upon approval from Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. That deal centered on the deferral of reciprocal duties—lowered on the U.S. side to 30 percent and China's side to 10 percent—for three months. But by Wednesday morning, Trump had Truthed new information about the deal, saying that China will now pay a 55-percent duty rate, while the U.S. will still be subject to 10-percent tariffs on any goods imported into China. An all-caps missive said the deal with China was done, though subject to final approval by Xi and himself. 'RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT!' he wrote. The president did not elucidate the reasoning for the 55-percent rate, which appears on its face to be a a 25-percent increase from the May agreement. But a White House spokesperson, who spoke to The Guardian anonymously, said the rate includes Trump's 10-percent universal baseline tariffs, a previous 20-percent punitive duty for fentanyl trafficking and an existing 25-percent tariff on China-made goods. 'A reported 55 percent tariff on our largest supplier of American apparel and footwear, stacked on top of already high MFN and Section 301 rates is not a win for America,' Steve Lamar, president and CEO of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said in a statement. 'We're closely watching for more details, but the reality is this: nearly all clothes and shoes sold in the U.S. are now subject to elevated tariff rates,' he added. 'These costs will hit American families hard especially as they get ready for back-to-school shopping and the holiday seasons. New trade deals that bring lower tariffs can't come soon enough.' At a budget meeting with the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, Secretary Bessent seemed to hint that the China deal may be shakier than the president indicated in his post on Truth Social. 'China has a singular opportunity to stabilize its economy by shifting away from excess production towards greater consumption. But the country needs to be a reliable partner in trade negotiations,' he told the Committee. 'If China will course-correct by upholding its end of the initial trade agreement we outlined in Geneva last month, then a big, beautiful rebalancing of the world's two largest economies is possible.' Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America senior vice president Andy Polk told Sourcing Journal that he believes this week's trade talks represent 'more political marketing than anything else.' 'It is positive that high level talks continue in hopes of getting us closer to a tariff end-game,' he said. 'However, there doesn't seem to be anything rally new coming out of these talks, just a climb down from threats.' Calling the president's tariff calculations 'very confusing,' Polk said he believes the 55-percent rate includes the Section 301 duties from his first term, the 20-percent fentanyl-related tariffs and the 10-percent baseline duties for all trade partners, among others. 'It is not a new tariff rate he is adding, it just seems to be fuzzy tariff math on his part.''Perhaps these steps forward will continue to unlock other issues to reduce this trade impasse, but I am not sure they are tackling the big items in a speed we need,' Polk said. 'We need a real deal that reduces tariffs back to reasonable levels quickly, and one that stabilizes them so shoe companies aren't jolted around constantly.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data