Summary#
HR-652 is a Pennsylvania House resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to study pay, benefits and job classification for state game wardens and waterways conservation officers. It does not amend an existing Act or itself change officers’ pay, benefits, jobs or agency structure; its stated purpose is to inform lawmakers about those issues, including if the agencies were unified. It has been introduced and referred to the House Game and Fisheries Committee, so it is not yet adopted.
- The committee must compare the officers’ current compensation and benefits with those of law enforcement officers doing similar work in other states.
- The committee must also recommend appropriate compensation, benefits and classification for officers under a possible unified conservation law enforcement structure, and compare that package with similar out-of-state officers.
- The committee must send its findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Game and Fisheries committees within 180 days after the resolution is adopted.
What it means for you#
- Game wardens and waterways conservation officers: The resolution would require a study of their current pay and benefits and recommendations for a possible unified structure. It does not itself raise or lower pay, change benefits, or reclassify anyone.
- The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee: If the resolution is adopted, it must conduct the study and deliver its report within 180 days.
- The Pennsylvania Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission: The resolution does not merge the commissions or their law enforcement bureaus. It asks the committee to examine compensation and classification if a unified structure were implemented.
- The public: The resolution does not directly change public services, enforcement powers, or hunting, fishing or boating rules.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The resolution requires the committee to conduct a study if adopted, but gives no estimate of its cost or staffing needs.
- It does not appropriate money or change officer pay, benefits, fees or taxes.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not specify how the committee should gather information or what methods it should use to compare officers’ work and compensation across states.
- It does not define “similar duties” or set criteria for the proposed officer classifications.
- It does not say whether or how the commissions, officers, unions or other groups would take part in the study.
- It does not say what would happen to the recommendations or whether either commission would act on them.
- The 180-day deadline starts only if the resolution is adopted. The resolution does not set a date for adoption.
Case for#
- The resolution appears intended to give lawmakers information about officer compensation and benefits before considering changes to conservation law enforcement.
- Comparing Pennsylvania officers with officers doing similar work in other states could help identify differences in pay, benefits and classification.
- Studying a possible unified structure’s compensation needs could help lawmakers consider that option without treating unification as already decided.
- The resolution says the commissions jointly commissioned a 2025 study that found unification could streamline communication, improve efficiency and provide more officer coverage during peak seasons. This resolution would examine compensation and classification in that possible structure.
Case against#
- The study and recommendations would not themselves resolve any pay or classification differences; the resolution does not require lawmakers or the commissions to act on them.
- The resolution does not set a method for choosing comparison states or deciding which officers have similar duties. Those choices could affect the recommendations.
- The report must consider compensation under a unified structure, but the resolution does not require the agencies to unify or explain how that structure would work.