Regardless of the rest of the changes that are located in this proposal, I agree that the following should happen to help be able to keep a volunteer fire department and rescue personnel functioning:

reduce the cost of supplies by purchasing in bulk or in a discounted format for volunteer fire fighters and emergency medical services first responders.

HB 4057 amends W. Va. Code §5F-2-2 to clarify and expand the secretary of each department’s internal management authority, including rulemaking authority and the ability to develop a central purchasing program to reduce costs for volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services (EMS) first responders by purchasing supplies in bulk or at a discount.   I support cost-saving measures for EMS, but I am concerned that “efficiency” authority can be used as a substitute for stable funding or can centralize decision-making without sufficient guardrails. This matters because EMS/ambulance access is already strained, and purchasing reform alone does not fix staffing, reimbursement, insurance access, or service availability. What HB 4057 FACTUALLY DOES •Authorizes secretaries to promulgate rules (as defined in W. Va. Code §29A-1-2) and to do so under the state Administrative Procedures Act (Chapter 29A).   •Adds authority to make rules to develop a central purchasing program for volunteer firefighters and EMS first responders.   •Reaffirms procurement/property actions must be consistent with state purchasing/property laws, including §5A-3-1 et seq., §5A-10-1 et seq., and §5A-3-11 et seq.  •States that secretaries’ powers may not be exercised if doing so would violate federal law or jeopardize federal program approval/existence/funding. (§5F-2-2(c) as shown in the bill text).   •References classified service employee rights and recall/layoff protections tied to §29-6-10 and §29-6-10a.   My concerns / requested safeguards (still within the bill’s scope) •Do not treat bulk purchasing as “funding.” HB 4057 creates an administrative purchasing tool, but it does not guarantee service coverage, staffing, or reimbursement stability for ambulance providers.   •Transparency and accountability: Because HB 4057 relies on rulemaking under Chapter 29A and §29A-1-2, the rules should require public reporting on pricing, vendors, conflict-of-interest controls, and the actual savings achieved for EMS squads.   •No service reductions hidden under “efficiency”: The broad “internal management” powers in §5F-2-2 (reorganization, consolidations, transfers, etc.) should not be used to reduce EMS readiness, coverage, or response capability in rural areas.   •Local access must improve, not worsen: Any purchasing program should prioritize getting essential supplies to volunteer EMS and fire departments quickly and equitably statewide, not creating delays or barriers through centralized processes.   Bottom line: I support HB 4057 if it is implemented strictly as a cost-reduction tool for EMS/fire supplies and paired with transparency and protections so “efficiency” authority is not used to justify cuts or reduce access to essential emergency services.  

As a veteran, I think this is a good perk for veterans living in West Virginia, especially given that surrounding states already offer these benefits.

While I have no issues with allowing youth or handicapped to harvest a buck or doe during the youth season(s), this should not be done via legislative process. Putting such regulations in state code is bad policy. The DNR has a process to follow with this decision being made by the Natural Resources Commission. Please respect the process and do not advance this bill out of committee.

This bill needs to pass. This is integral to the recruitment of young hunters. As an owner of a business that is closely tied to the deer hunters of West Virginia we have seen a downward spiral of recruitment amongst the "tween" ages of 10 -15 into hunting. While I am concerned of creating further generations of "buck only" hunters, now is not the time to quibble over this fact. Instead we must bring our children into the outdoors and hooking them o n the thrill of the hunt and teaching them the values of self reliance. It is a shame to tell a child that they cannot shoot an antlered buck during a season set aside for them to teach skills and to recruit new hunters. We must look inwardly at ourselves in West Virginia, we are the best of people. We must however not get stuck in the archaic way thinking about hunting license restructures and tag allocation. We must lead and if there is a state that can lead the nation in hunter recruitment, retention and reactivation, it is West Virginia! We MUST have this bill in this form to accomplish this!

West Virginia should keep the youth deer season doe-only and not allow buck harvest in order to protect herd quality, support long-term conservation goals, and preserve the original intent of the youth season.

The youth season was created to introduce young hunters to the sport in a low-pressure, educational environment while promoting responsible wildlife management. Allowing buck harvest during this season undermines that purpose by shifting the focus toward trophy opportunity rather than learning, ethics, and conservation.

From a biological standpoint, buck harvest—especially of young bucks—can negatively impact age structure and future breeding potential. West Virginia has worked for years to improve herd balance and buck age classes, and opening buck harvest during youth season risks reversing that progress. Doe-only harvest aligns with sound management by helping control population levels without compromising buck quality.

Additionally, allowing buck harvest during youth season creates increased pressure on bucks before the regular seasons begin, which is unfair to other hunters and inconsistent with the principle of equitable opportunity. Youth hunters already enjoy a unique advantage with an early season; keeping it doe-only ensures that advantage supports conservation rather than competition.

Finally, a doe-only youth season emphasizes mentorship, patience, and respect for wildlife—values that shape ethical hunters for life. Protecting the integrity of the youth season protects the future of hunting in West Virginia.

For these reasons, West Virginia should maintain the youth deer season as doe-only and not allow buck harvest.

I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 4176, while also making clear that I understand and generally support the idea and goals behind this legislation. However, I do not support achieving those goals through legislative action that inserts politics into wildlife management. Wildlife management in West Virginia works best when it is guided by science, professional expertise, and biological data—not by statute or political pressure. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources and the Natural Resources Commission were specifically created to evaluate issues, gather public input, and make informed decisions based on long-term conservation needs. HB 4176, as written, shifts that responsibility toward the Legislature, which risks politicizing decisions that should remain apolitical and science-driven. While the concerns motivating this bill may be valid and worthy of discussion, they should be addressed through the existing regulatory process, collaboration with wildlife professionals, and public engagement—not through legislative mandates. Wildlife does not follow political cycles, and management decisions should not be influenced by them. I believe the objectives behind HB 4176 can be better achieved by allowing the appropriate agencies to study the issue, propose solutions, and adjust management strategies based on data and field experience. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 4176 and allow wildlife professionals to continue managing West Virginia’s resources without political interference. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment and for considering a science-based, non-political approach to wildlife management.

Leave the wildlife management to the DNR, keep politics out of it.

1 per 1800 residents seems like a very low number of ambulance to people ratio, especially for WV where we are more spread out population wise, but it appears we had no ratio before and honestly we'll take what we can get at this point.

Ive been a Professional Firefighter for 23 years, and cant express how bad of an idea this is. This is not a job for a middle aged person.

Many fire departments set upper age limits, often around 40, for new professional firefighter applicants because the job places extreme physical and physiological demands on the body that intensify with age. Firefighting requires peak cardiovascular endurance, rapid recovery, strength under heavy load, and the ability to perform in high-heat, high-stress environments for extended periods, all while wearing 60 - 100 pounds of gear. As people age, the risk of cardiac events, musculoskeletal injuries, and slower recovery times increases, which can endanger not only the individual firefighter but also their crew and the public they serve. Additionally, departments invest heavily in training and pensions, so hiring younger applicants allows for a longer, safer operational career and a better return on that investment, while maintaining overall team readiness and safety. Furthermore, fire departments are often described as paramilitary organizations because they operate with a clear chain of command, formal ranks, strict training standards, uniforms, and disciplined procedures that emphasize obedience, teamwork, and accountability, much like the military. Orders are followed quickly and precisely, especially during emergencies where lives and property are at stake. Similarly, the military maintains age limits for enlistment, generally not accepting recruits over a certain age because of the intense physical demands, long-term readiness requirements, and the investment involved in training and career progression. In both systems, physical capability, adaptability to structured authority, and the ability to perform under extreme stress are essential, which is why age and organizational discipline play such an important role.

This bill is on the right track to help fire departments, especially smaller municipal and combination departments, recruit new hires. The current age restriction has proven for us in Buckhannon to be an obstacle to hire as we turn away applicants every year before the physical agility and written tests purely because of an age requirement. I think the bill could be more palatable and alleviate some concerns with pension systems by establishing that this only applies to the municipal fire and police retirement system. In this particular retirement system there are already older individuals being hired in as law enforcement officers. It is my understanding there is no age cap for a law enforcement officer that is certified and they do not have to be a prior member of the system. Why should fire departments not have the same flexibility in hiring? It is also a false narrative that this would water down fire departments. These “older” firefighters could be prior firefighters from other career departments in bordering states either moving here to be closer to family or having completed a 20 year stint and retired. They could be as young as 37 year olds. I believe as a state this would potentially help attract others into West Virginia as this will be a growing industry with the decline of volunteerism hurting fire departments.

This is a waste of money and hampers innovation. Do not approve this bill.

I am writing to express my opposition to House Bill 4504, which would require the Director of the Division of Natural Resources to enact new rules for hunting antlered deer. While responsible wildlife management and hunting traditions are important in our state, this bill as drafted risks undermining science-based conservation practices that ensure healthy deer populations and sustainable hunting opportunities for all West Virginians.   Wildlife management decisions—especially those that affect harvest rules for antlered deer—should be grounded in the best available population data and ecological expertise from the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources and its Natural Resources Commission. Requiring legislative direction for rule proposals may politicize wildlife management, potentially compromising established systems that balance harvest rates with long-term population health. A one-size-fits-all rule could lead to unintended declines in deer numbers or unfair harvest pressures in portions of the state where habitat conditions differ significantly.   Additionally, any adjustment to hunting regulations must ensure that funding for wildlife conservation and habitat programs remains strong and stable. Changing how rules are developed without clear, science-based standards and adequate funding risks eroding the very wildlife resources West Virginians treasure. I urge the Legislature to reject HB 4504 or to amend it significantly so that wildlife management expertise, scientific data, and stakeholder input—not solely legislative directive—guide decisions about deer hunting rules.

Once again, another bill is introduced that usurps the DNR Natural Resources Commission and the trained and well educated wildlife biologists who make recommendations based on science. The NRC lowered the buck limit (under pressure from certain legislators) which has only been in effect for one season. The effects of that change has not been given adequate time to determine if any change will result. Additionally, a quick look at a few Facebook pages WV Big Bucks and others will show that WV already has large bucks all over the state. Furthermore, hunting isn’t just about shooting big bucks. Feeding our families, making memories with family and friends is more important than shooting bucks with large antlers. The legislature shouldn’t be in the business of telling a hunter what they must shoot and forcing standards  that does nothing to promote a healthy whitetail population. This bill should not advance beyond this committee.

Last year you changed from harvesting 3 bucks to 2, you are taking food out of households that needs this meat. In some county's you can only kill 1 Doe during Doe season, and they need that buck for food. This will also hurt the Doe population. If hunter's that wanted the limit changed to 2 because they are wanting buck to grow bigger horns. Then they should do their own conservation on their own hunting area. I don't hunt for horns. I hunt for meat. So, in order to get the same amount of meat from last year. I will have to go to another county that lets you kill more Doe's in. That will cost me more money out of my pocket. Now this year you want to take more food from families. Also, with this year's winter will also thin the deer herds. Hunting is providing food for your family. If people want to hunt for just the horns have them go to a game ranch in OH, Il, PA, IA Etc. WV will never be a big horned buck State. We don't have the environment, large soybean and Corn fields to support them. So, please put the Buck hunting regulations back to 2024.