1
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
------x Game and Fisheries Committee : Public Hearing on Proposed : Recodification of Pennsylvania : Game Law : ------x
Pages 1 through 24 0 Majority Caucus Main Capitol Building | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ',
Friday, October 18, 198 5
Met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m.
BEFORE:
REPRESENTATIVE RUSSELL P. LETTERMAN, Majority Chairman REPRESENTATIVE CLARENCE DIETZ, Minority Chairman REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR CARLSON REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT GODSHALL REPRESENTATIVE DAVID LEVDANSKY REPRESENTATIVE MERLE PHILLIPS REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE SMITH REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD STABACK REPRESENTATIVE FRANK YANDRISEVITS
JAMES LOVETTE, Executive Director
Commonwealth Reporting Company, Inc. 700 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Camp Hill Philadelphia (717) 761-7150 (Z1S) 731-1687 2
CONTENTS^
Page
Opening Statements by Chairman Russell P. Letterman 3
Peter Duncan, Pennsylvania Game Commission 5 Gerald Kirkpatrick
James Bieryr Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs 43 Victoria Greenlee
Brenda Sharnbaugh, Pennsylvania State Grange 74
Billy Bond, Hammermill Paper Company 78 Ron Brenneman Jim Speice
Bryon Shissler, Wildlife Managers 91
George Durrwachter, Texas-Blockhouse Fish and Game Club 109 Paul Asper
Steve Wentzler, Pennsylvania Trappers Association 135 Gary Walter Vince Megargel
Richard Weaver, National Wild Turkey Federation, 141 Pennsylvania Chapter
Jack Fidler, Pennsylvania Dog Owners Protective 150 Association
Joseph Nichols, Consulting Engineer for Firearms Industry 166
Karl Brown, Pennsylvania Farmers' Association 175
Al Myers, Pennsylvanians for Responsible Use of Animals 185
Troy Stump, ZooAmerica 18 9
Wilbur Amand
Cathy Liss, Society for Animal Protective Legislation 203
Nancy Hannum, Chester County Fox Hunters Association 220
James Umbrell, AFSCME, Council 8 9 228 Ray Lizzio -0- 3
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The hour of 9:00 having arrived, we will call this meeting to order.
I am very sorry, folks, that we don't have more legislators. They seem to have lost interest after a few of these hearings.
We do have Clarence Dietz with us; he is the Minority
Chairman of the Fish and Game Committee. I am Representative
Letterman, the Majority Chairman; and Bobby Godshall from — where is that place. Bob? Lansdowne?
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: Lansdowne.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: An old turkey farmer down in the big city.
We have had tremendous turnouts. I just can't under stand what happened. Everybody said they were going to be here. I guess they might be a little late. We are going to get started anyhow.
I want to open by saying that this is a working docu ment. What we intend to do with this working document is to take testimony from everybody that desires to give it to us.
We will take everything that is of any change that we have in the document; that, in turn, will be gone over in our office.
We will then have a committee meeting of all members of the Fish and Game Committee. Each item which you bring up 4
will be voted on individually.
Mr. Staback, it is nice to see you.
We think that what we have come up with is a pretty good document. I think this is an ideal way for us to do it, bringing it out as a working document. That way everybody understands it is really open for change.
There are a lot of things, and there are a lot of suggestions that have been made so far that we have found to be very good, and we will be proposing them to the Committee.
There are several things that have been said about this that I would like to bring out at the start.
One of the changes that was made was pertaining to vote by the Senate. Instead of a two-third vote, it would just be a majority vote.
Uhen I introduced the proposal, I had it at two-thirds.
That was changed in committee by the Committee itself. They had made that suggestion, and they voted on it and changed it to a majority vote.
I would like for you to know why. One of the main reasons is that most every other commission or appointment
is done by majority anymore instead of by two-thirds.
The PUC, the Fish Commission, the Game Commission —
I think that is all that is two-thirds anymore. The rest is all by majority.
I don't know that it is politics. I don't know what 5
the reasoning for it is, but everything seems to be changing in that way.
Personally, I do not see any difference, except if we change it — I am a Democrat; if you change it now, it gives the Republicans a little edge over me. So, I would be a fool to do it myself. Anyone who says I did it, I just want you to know that is not true. I am not that dumb. I might look it and act it sometimes, but I am really not.
Okay. We are going to start this morning with Peter
Duncan from the Pennsylvania Game Commission. I think every body knows Peter. They had better.
MR. DUNCAN: Is this the place, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes, please.
Pete, would you please introduce yourself, your name and where you are from, so that the stenographer can get it, and introduce anybody that you have brought with you from your group?
That goes for everybody when you testify. We would appreciate it if you would do that.
MR. DUNCAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
Pete Duncan, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission.
Immediately to my left is Gerald Kirkpatrick, our
Chief of the Bureau of Law Enforcement for the Pennsylvania
Game Commission. 6
We have various and sundry staff members here this morning, Ilr. Chairman; but Mr. Kirkpatrick is the one immediately to my left.
It is with pleasure and optimism that I appear before you today to offer comment on behalf of the Game Commission concerning the proposed codification of the game law. Need less to say, codification, in our judgment, is long overdue.
This is a historic undertaking; and at the outset, I want to sincerely congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, members of your committee, your staff, and those in the Legislative
Reference Bureau, who have skillfully and methodically pre pared the working draft of this important, proposed new legislation.
The document you have prepared represents the first time since 1937 that any substantial effort has been made to streamline and modernize Pennsylvania's outdated wildlife statutes.
Your proposal is more easily read and understood by those to whom it applies; and for the first time in half a century, w<= ha^e before us proposed legislation that effec tively rids the game law of confusing language, redundancies, and contradictions — the offspring of hundreds of amendments, confounding not only to sportsmen, but auite often even to those of us in the Commission.
We applaud your efforts to produce a codification that 7
is more readily understandable. VJe thank you for allowing us to provide input during the preparation of this document.
The manner in which you sought advice and counsel, first internally, and now externally, through these proceed ings, can only serve to show the proposed codification in a most positive light.
We are pleased the proposed codification provides more realistic penalties, consistent V7ith today's economy and sense of justice.
Ue are also pleased to note the proposed codification provides effective deterrents against poaching and commercial exploitation of wildlife known to be widespread and growing in recent years.
Under this proposal, the Commission will be authorized to develop civil penalties calling for the recovery of damages for wildlife destroyed in violation of this statute.
The document also provides needed flexibility, giving the Commission authority to implement programs and changes on a more timely basis.
As a general statement, we are both pleased and excited that this document has finally reached this stage of development; and to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, we applaud all those who are responsible for advancing this codification to where we can finally see light at the end of the tunnel.
VJe do, however, have some recommendations we shall 8
respectfully submit for your consideration, as the merits of this important legislation are discussed by you and your colleagues in committee.
We call to your attention page 11, lines 4 through 8, the definition, "animal." The term used in the working draft is too broad and, in essence, would give the Game Commission jurisdiction over all non-domestic birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and most invertebrates. Our jurisdiction should be limited to only "wild birds" and
"wild animals."
We, as much as we are accused of it at times, do not want to step into other jurisdictions, Mr. Chairman, and we just think a tighter definition there — it is more an editorial change than anything else.
We suggest the term "animal" serves no purpose in codification, and we recommend this definition be deleted entirely.
Throughout Title 34, where appropriate, the word
"animal" should be replaced with "wild mammal." An example would be a change in the definition on page 17, lines 23 and
24, to keep that consistent, Mr. Chairman, all the way through.
Again, pertaining to definitions, under "game birds," on page 14, line 8, for purposes of clarification, the docu ment should specify Hungarian partridges, and wild doves i 9 should ,be deleted and replaced with mourninq doves.
I think in those definitions, Mr. Chairman, it is just dqves. That can include a whole host of doves. To be more specific, we say mourning doves. With partridges, that could be any number of birds. I think we should specify
Hungarian partridges, which is what is meant.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: There are four kinds of doves, right?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes, I think there are four. One of my staff -f- Jerry is here. There are four doves?
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think.
MR. DUNCAN: There are at least four species of doves.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: White wings?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes, there are white wings and several others.
On page 14, at line 18, we suggest an additional para graph, to precede "Management Unit," which defines "manage~ ment" as: the regulation, recovery, enhancement and preservation of all wild birds and wild mammals occurring within the boundaries of the Commonwealth, including but not limited to: game and furbearer harvests, law enforcement, habitat development, land acquisition, species inventories, research, information and education, and propagation.
It is a good, we think, useful, broad definition of the term "management; and we would ask your consideration in 10
including it.
Again, on page 14, lines 26 and 21 should be elimi nated. The hunting and harvest of the common crow is regulated under Title 58 of the Consolidated Statutes. For
the purposes of Title 34, there is no need for a definition of "non-game birds," and were appropriate, the term should be eliminated, such as on page 16, line 1, and other loca tions.
Referring now to page 17, lines 15 through 19, the definitions "unprotected animals" and "unprotected birds" should also be eliminated.
Specific powers and duties defined in Section 2102(b), page 24, lines 25 and 26, would grant to the Commission authority to add to or change the classification of any wild bird and wild animal, or now as we would suggest mammal.
The status of wild birds and wild mammals would con tinue to be regulated under Title 58.
Again, Mr. Chairman, it is not changing any of the substance. It is just a better change — at least, we believe a better word reference.
Page 18, lines 12 through 15, continues to denote confidence in the Game Commission's need and ability to regulate hunting and trapping through the Commonwealth.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we believe that that 11
definitely should stay in the codification to eliminate the probability of having a whole host of local ordinances.
We support that intent, certainly, of paragraph (c), but would have no objection if the Committee desires to add additional language providing that political subdivisions, through their solicitors, could request the Commission to modify certain hunting and trapping activities where a legitimate threat to public health and safety can be demonstrated and documented, as long as the Commission, Mr.
Chairman, would have final authority on the matter.
We would suggest that page 18, lines 9 through 11, be amended to read: (b) Methods of Management — the Commission shall utilize hunting and trapping as methods of effecting necessary management of game, furbearer, and wildlife populations.
We think that needs certainly to be stated, Mr.
Chairman, and have no problem with that. It is more of an editorial change, rather than the primary; it is a method of management.
That then will conclude our suggestions and recom mendations concerning the definitions set forth in Chapter 1 of the Preliminary Provisions.
I would like now to call your attention to Chapter 3,
Subchapter A, relating to the organization, composition, confirmation and terms of the Commission. 12
Paragraph A on page 19 provides that commissioners may be confirmed with the advice and consent of a majority of the elected members of the Senate. We have some problems with the simple majority, and 1*11 try to explain our reasoning.
Historically, the Game Commission has reflected the bi-partisan nature of interests in the Commonwealth's wild life resources. People from all walks of life and from a full breadth of the political spectrum have consistently supported the Commission over the years.
We believe that tradition is highly desirable and, in fact, has been one of the primary determining factors in placing the Pennsylvania Game Commission at the forefront of wildlife management in the United States.
We are concerned that confirmation of commissioners by a simple majority could conceivably upset that balance or, at the very least, be perceived as upsetting that historical balance.
Therefore, we would ask that the Committee consider this important provision in codification and revert to a previous version requiring two-thirds majority of the
Pennsylvania Senate for confirmation of commissioners.
'Jhile we recognize that no language can ever ensure absolutely that partisanship will be prevented, a two-thirds majority for confirmation does, in our judgment, increase 13
the probability that bi-partisanship will prevail.
Paragraph (c) on page 20 provides that commissioners would serve eight-year terms, could not succeed themselves, and could not continue to serve after their term expires.
We have reservations here, also.
First, we question that there is magic in a single eight-year term. It has been our experience that in some instances it takes a new commissioner three to four years to familiarize himself or herself with the agency and the role of a commission member.
If a commissioner demonstrates his or her ability to represent a constituency with a degree of distinction, as most do, we see no logical reason why he or she should not be able to succeed themselves, especially if sportsmen and others in the geographical district support his or her re appointment .
Second, consider what could happen once a candidate's term had expired and, for whatever reason, the Governor, or the Senate, would choose not to appoint or confirm a suc cessor.
Inasmuch as an incumbent commissioner could not serve after his term expired, it's conceivable any number of vacancies could go unfilled.
Providing that an incumbent commissioner could suc ceed himself or herself, or at least continue to serve until 14
a successor was confirraed, would ensure continuity, and the
Commission could continue to function effectively as a regulatory and policy-making body.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would call your attention to Section 7 on page 173, in which the Act of April 21, 1915
(Public Law 156 Number 77), is repealed.
This Act extends the powers and duties of foresters, forest rangers, game protectors, deputy game protectors, waterways conservation officers, and deputy waterways con servation officers.
We respectfully request that this Act not be repealed in codification.
At this time, the Pennsylvania Game Commission can use all the help we can get. While the fish and boat code extends to waterways conservation officers the authority to enforce game and wildlife statutes, we would not want to see foresters, forest rangers, and park personnel stripped of their power to enforce provisions of the game and wildlife code. We have enjoyed reciprocal enforcement powers for years.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again compliment you, the Committee, your staff, and those in the Legislative
Reference Bureau, who have worked long and diligently to produce this working draft of codification. It is a good, constructive effort. 15
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
It is my sincere hope that codification of Title 34 of the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes will be approved in this session of the General Assembly.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
Does anybody have any questions? Bobby Godshall?
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: On page 5 of your testimony,
Pete —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Representative Godshall,
Montgomery County.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: — as far as confirmation of commission members —
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: — this was passed, I believe, in committee by a 13-to-l vote, and there was no opposition by the Game Commission at that time.
I am looking at this; and the Governor at this point makes the appointments, and he has a specific amount of days in order to do that, and then the Senate has to confirm.
I think, really, the intent of this was to try to take this out of the political realm. I guess if we can look at what happened with the Turnpike, where a two-thirds confirmation didn't come for a number of years, a simple 16
majority would have come in a short period of time; this would eliminate the vacancies, et cetera.
I think the intent of the Committee was to try to take this thing out of the bi-partisan politics system, where we couldn't get the two-thirds confirmation, and all kinds of political games were played, and it would be much more simplier to get this guy through on a simple majority.
That was the intent of the Committee.
I think what you are doing is totally taking it — you are putting it back into the political world rather than taking it out.
MR. DUNCAN: I understand, Representative, that that, indeed, was the intent of the Committee. I don't quarrel with that intent at all. In fact, I think it is quite accurate.
I do think, though, that serious consideration must be given to the bi-partisan support that — as I mentioned in the testimony, I don't think there is any guarantee that you can ever ensure that partisanship won't at least be con sidered.
But I think if you require support from both sides of the aisle, it does lend certainly a strong perception to the sportsmen and sportswomen of the Commonwealth that you need both sides of the aisle in order to confirm a commis sioner to the Pennsylvania Game Commission; and, therefore, 17
it lessens the probability of it being done with just one side's support.
I recognize that we could argue the point probably for hours and hours. The Commission feels that historically in the Game Commission the two-thirds majority has worked.
We recognize that in other instances things have been stalled for months and months and months. But in the Commission's history it has worked very well, and the Commission does not want it changed.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: I believe there is presently a vacancy down in the Southeastern District. When a name was submitted by the Governor, the first thing I heard coming over from the Senate was the minority party said that we will — a spokesman for the minority party said that we will give you so many votes, but we need a couple of judges in Allegheny County.
This is the political game that we are playing. It is not partisan support. It means that we are willing to make a deal.
There is nothing wrong with making a deal, because maybe those judges are needed in Allegheny County.
I think what we intended to do was take it out of politics rather than leave it in.
I have one other question. On the eight-year term, in the sessions that I had been involved in, there was only 18
about one other person, I think, that objected to this. I had spoken with two Commission members who were in favor of the eight-year term — that is, Game Commission members — because they say in their terms that the people get old and get tired and they just hang in there.
As you say in here, "If a commissioner demonstrates his or her ability to represent a constituency with a degree of distinction, as most do" — does anybody know here of any commissioner that was removed, who was one of the few that didn't?
MR. DUNCAN: I don't know off the top of my head,
Representative, whether there had been any that had been removed down through history or not.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: It has been a lifetime appointment at this point, and I don't see any need in that.
I think with the 12 million people we have in Pennsylvania, we have a lot of people that have ability to serve on these commissions, and I don't think it should be a lifetime appointment. Anybody that is on there for 15 or 20 years,
I am positive, gets a little tired.
I think the eight-year term was, again, put in there because of bringing new people in with new ideas and new energy. I think the eight years is good.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Anybody else?
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Mr. Executive Director, I 19
somewhat disagree with you, too, on the confirmation process.
I could go back a couple of years and I can see how confirmation was held up. Unless there is an actual trade off in some instances, it could, in a sense, have a devastating effect upon the operation of the Game Commission, where you may have the one side holding fast.
In most cases here, I think that you will find that it is going to take the opposition party, the minority party, the cooperation of them in order to get that confirmation.
Like Bob said to you there, using nominees in the
Senate, holding them up as a trade-off for other offices, this is just the wrong process. This is my feeling about it.
I really wanted to know just how stronly you were speaking to that.
MR. DUNCAN: Well, I recognize that there are argu ments, and I think logical and solid arguments on both sides of this issue. I think you and Representative Godshall have made a strong and a logical argument for a simple majority prevailing.
I think you can also make a logical argument for a two-thirds majority prevailing as well, only from the stand point that it does — certainly, in my memory, there has never been two-thirds of the Pennsylvania Senate controlled by one political party. So, it increases the probability that you do have to have bi-partisan support to get a 20
commissioner confirmed.
It was that principle that the Commission feels strongly about: retaining that principle and increasing the probability of bi-partisan support. That is fully recogniz ing that that does pose problems sometimes, and I understand the kind of dealing that you are talking about.
That is one of the down sides that you don't like to admit happens, but in reality does, and I think we all know that.
I think the principle that the Commission is trying to have you consider very, very carefully, you want to make it all one political party or you want to ensure at least that the other party is — you are going to need some support there, even though it is minority support, in order to get somebody confirmed.
We think that principle is worth very careful con sideration by the Committee. We also recognize that there are two arguments to it; and both of them logical, I might add.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Well, in the past, I have been affiliated with the Pennsylvania Federation very closely; not in recent years, but in past years.
What you are trying to tell me — and there was co operation there. When the Federation spoke, the Governor's
Office and the Senate listened. 21
Those commissions, both the Game Commission and the
Fish Commission, in fact, years ago — those appointments and confirmations mostly came throuqh the Pennsylvania
Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.
In more recent years, actually, some of those nominees and confirmations were involved in the political process.
Now, are you trying to tell me that the Governor shouldn't be in a position to listen to the Federation or any other organization using his better judgment in appoint ing members of the Pennsylvania Game Commission, that he is not entitled to have that consideration taken over in the
Senate by the majority there?
I mean, I really feel, you know, that when the
Governor's Office sends a nominee over, they do it with all sincerity; and after they have very thoroughly investigated in most cases, maybe not all, the nominee that they send over.
I feel that either way you go — I feel that actually the majority over there is better.
MR. DUNCAN: Certainly, in my experience,
Representative, I think we have excellent members that have been appointed through the gubernatorial process and confirmed by the Senate.
In my short tenure with the Pennsylvania Game
Commission and looking back through history, I think it is a system, while nobody would ever dare say that it is perfect, 22
it has worked remarkably well, and the caliber and quality of commissioners that the Pennsylvania Game Commission has enjoyed throughout its history has been one of the real wild life success stories, I think, throughout the United States.
All we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this issue deserves, I think, careful consideration and deliberation by the Committee before a final decision is made; and I under stand your argument.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Representative Levdansky is here from Allegheny County. Thank you for getting here.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Let me make a few other intro ductions first.
Representative Terry Scheetz from Lancaster County is with us and Merle Phillips from Northumberland County.
Thank you, Merle, for coming.
Okay, Dave.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan, I apologize for being a little bit late.
Flights out of Pittsburgh were a little bit delayed.
I have a couple questions relating to one area of the new codification that I am very much interested in, and that is the issue of whether or not a hunter who has already harvested his big game should be permitted to carry a fire arm in the woods, in the forests, or fields after the legal 23
taking of big game.
I have passed over there to you a copy of some pro posed language that I would just like to get your feedback to and see what your ideas would be on this.
MR. DUNCAN: Mr. Chairman, the language, I think, to which you are referring — and correct me if I am wrong — is the language that would prohibit the carrying of any fire arm that is currently in this version of codification once the big game has been harvested.
In our discussion on that particular issue, my dis cussions with you and other members of the Committee as well as within the Pennsylvania Game Commission, several of the commissioners and several of the staff have indicated that there are some legitimate problems with an immediate imposi tion of not being able to carry a firearm after they have harvested the antlered or antlerless deer, in the sense that if you are, say, two miles away from camp, you are partici pating in a drive, and the buck comes up and you shoot the animal, you have harvested it, at that point technically the way it is currently drafted, you would not be allowed to carry that weapon.
Now, that would impose some real practical problems if you are a couple miles away from camp. You would either have to sit the rifle down and take your chances that it was going to be there when you came back to pick it up — on the 24
other side of this coin, it does pose legitimate enforcement
problems for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, as you know.
I think that is what we are trying to address.
I think, on the other hand, the law abiding citizen,
if he is allowed or she is allowed to carry that particular weapon for a period of time throughout the remainder of that day, then the Pennsylvania Game Commission could support that kind of an amendment.
I haven't read this, but does this address that?
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Yes. I see in there, if I may quote, it says, "it is unlawful for any person who has
lawfully killed ... big game, and after removal of the car cass to their vehicle, permanent or temporary abode, or
other place of safekeeDing."
So, I am giving the hunter who is on a drive, or whatever, a period of time to get his deer out of the woods.
In other words, what I am saying is the gun has to follow
the deer.
MR. DUNCAN: It addresses the concern that has been
brought up to the Commission. I haven't had a chance to
think of all of the various ramifications of this language.
Certainly, the intent would satisfy the Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: I understand we do need a
reasonable grace period for a hunter to get his deer or bear out of the woods. 25
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: I think during that period of time he should at least have it unloaded. Once, however, he gets his deer or bear out of the woods, onto his vehicle or in his vehicle, or out to his cabin or home or whatever, trailer or what-have-you, it is just my personal opinion that at that point he shouldn't be able to carry anything.
I only mention it because I have received lots of correspondence —
MR. DUNCAN: Oh, I am sure.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: — from various fish and game protectors throughout the state, some of whom tell me that your Research Department estimates that we are losing
50 percent of our deer herd to other than legal hunting and another gentleman who feels that in-season multiple, illegal kill nearly equals or possibly even exceeds the reported legal kill.
MR. DUNCAN: It does. Our own information indicates about 52 percent. Uhen you see the figures every year of roughly 140,000 to 150,000 animals, white-tailed deer, that are harvested in Pennsylvania, you double that, because only on an average 52 percent of the people report, statewide now, and it varies from county to county; but only 52 percent actually report their deer.
The legal kill is more than double. We add another — 2G
it is not quite 50 percent; it is lower than 50 percent.
Certainly, illegal kills are factored into the overall deer management system in Pennsylvania. It is higher than we would like.
I might just add one additional point. If you are working in law enforcement — and Jerry Kirkpatrick, to my left, is far more qualified to give you a perspective on this, certainly, than I am — it is one of the great frustra tions to go into the woods during deer season and see the person that you know by more than hunch is going to and will harvest a second animal.
On the other hand, the questxon, I think, the
Committee has to raise — and that is a great frustration to law enforcement officers all over the Commonwealth. It does not surprise me at all that in your canvassing of our game protectors that they overwhelmingly said, because of their experience, that that person should not be allowed to carry a weapon after they have harvested the animal, because in their experience over many, many years, they know that the majority of those people are going to harvest another animal if they get the opportunity to do it.
On the other hand, the cruestion, I think, the
Committee has to answer is: do you do that in order to curb those who would harvest the second animal — and our game protectors are telling you that a great majority would 27
do that — versus are you going to impose that imposition on everybody for the few who might violate it, or are you going to say that they be allowed to carry a firearm?
It is a touchy question, but there is no doubt that the Pennsylvania Game Commission throughout our history has said, without question, that the majority are out there harvesting another animal, and it does have an impact on the herd. How significant is open to debate.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: If we provide a reasonable grace period for a hunter to get to his camp —
MR. DUNCAN: We could support that.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: — you could, in fact, support that?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Okay. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: On that subject — and I have to continually bring this up — there has been a court decision made on this in Clinton County by Judge Brown. No one has ever challenged that. Until it is challenged, it stands the way it is. He says that you just can't carry a firearm after you kill a deer.
We know the language needs tightened up. !7hat we had thought about v/as saying that you could carry a firearm as long as it wasn't a firearm legal to kill big game. 28
Now that, in turn, does not keep you from bearing arms. That, in turn, does not say to you that you can't keep something for protection, if that is what people want to say they use it for. Or it doesn't say that you couldn't use something to shoot in case you hurt yourself and need help.
MR. DUNCAN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that addresses the problem as well.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The most amazing thing to me in these hearings so far has been the full support of almost every club, sportsmen's club, that we have talked to — and,
I mean, men that are members of NRA and everything else have come up and said, "No, this is where the line has to be drawn."
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We were really amazed that this many people were really coming up with this stand.
MR. DUNCAN: Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is correct, that the great majority of the sportsmen and women of the Commonwealth say that that is — that is a legitimate regulation, that doesn't impose any great hardship and is well within the realm of circumspect regulation.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You know, the one thing about these people who go to camp — I don't know how everybody else is, but I know that if I kill a deer the first morning, 29
I mean, that is not the end of my hunting, and I don't want it to be the end of my hunting.
MR. DUNCAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN LETTERtlAN: I want to go out there with the rest of the guys. I don't want to sit back at camp and do their cooking.
I1R. DUNCAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: So, I always go out and help drive and do something like that when I go to camp.
MR. DUNCAN: So do I.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: But there really isn't much sense in us saying that we need that firearm to go along.
MR. DUNCAN: It is really not much different, Mr.
Chairman — right now, we don't allow you to have a weapon when you are spotlighting; you are not allowed to have a weapon when you hunt archery deer. It is that same kind of,
I think, common sense regulation.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: So, if \/e put that wording in there, that would allow you to carry something —
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — but not the one that is legal to shoot deer with.
I really appreciated your statements. I think when we are talking about the confirmation, that what we have done with the eight-year term then coincides v/ith what we 30
have done with the confirmation.
The one thing we can do is — I guess you overlooked it — we can put in that he can continue to serve until there is an appointment made, which would keep it full.
I don't know, Pete, what will happen when I take this back to the Committee.
MR. DUNCAN: True. I understand.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The thing is —
MR. DUNCAN: V7e wanted to bring it to your attention to carefully consider it.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We will give that careful con sideration.
I personally like the eight-year term. I like that for the fact that I think we need other ideas and people from other areas. I think after eight years maybe some of them get to feel, "Oh, geez, do I have to go there again today?"
You know, I have served on a lot of committees. I feel the same way. A lot of times I don't want to come and go after I have been there for a long time.
I think we could really get better and more qualified people and younger people with new ideas and keep some of them. One thing about it is that the terms are all staggered, and they will continue to be staggered. It would work over the same method it does now, so that no group of people would 31
lose at the same time.
MR. DUNCAN: Mr. Chairman, I think all we were really saying was — and I know that you have had the same kind of difficulties with other issues that are brought before the
General Assembly — we have difficulty with the concept that there is magic in either two years, four years, eight years, twelve years, whatever.
I know that you have faced the same arguments with
General Assembly members.
I can visualize people serving two years on the
Pennsylvania Game Commission and perhaps not doing very well or not being terribly interested in it, or 20 years.
On the other hand, I can also say that the great majority of the Game Commissioners, certainly in my experi ence, they are intensely interested in what they do. Good ness knows, they are not in it for the money. They get their expenses and a heck of a lot of grief and aggravation, and that is it.
They have served exceptionally well from the first day that they were put on the Pennsylvania Game Commission throughout 20 years or however long they served.
So, it is very difficult — I understand what you are trying to do and ensuring new blood coming on the Commission.
On the other hand, it is hard to say that six or eight or ten or twelve years, that there is a magic time 32
frame. So, we just wanted to call it to your attention.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. I have one other intro duction to make. Representative Carlson from Upper God's
Country is here.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I got in a little bit late, as you know.
Number one, what time element are we talking after the deer is killed? That concerns me.
MR. DUNCAN: I don't know that this language that I was just given a few minutes ago talks about that.
What it says not/ in the codification is "immediately."
That is what we said we had some problems with; if there could be an appropriate grace period in there, 24 hours or —
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: At the end of the day.
MR. DUNCAN: — at the end of the day.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: T7hat upsets me is that everytime a law is passed or something is interjected, it is always for the outlaw or the criminal; there is nothing for the honest individual that is out there hunting, fishing, driving their car, or whatever the case may be. Every law that is put in the books is surrounded by the criminal, and it upsets me.
It just makes more work for District Attorneys, more work for game wardens, trying to interpret the law and say,
"Well, this guy did this," or "He didn't do that." 33
MR. DUNCAN: Well, I think one of the things we are trying to address in this particular regulation or this particular part of the law would be to try to eliminate not only the confusion for the game protector — right now, those cases routinely can't be touched as a practical matter.
They just simply can't be touched, because you have to try to prove intent or motivation. You steer clear of it.
A game protector in his right mind is not going to touch anybody that is carrying a firearm after they have harvested their animal, unless they actually catch the individual in the act.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: That is what leaves the loop hole. Unless you have it set in concrete — this is where the waiver comes in. It is all a snap decision by the game warden or a deputy game warden.
You know the problems that they have had with deputized individuals. It becomes personality conflicts or whatever the case may be. There aren't problems much with game wardens, but deputized people. They are out there working hard. They don't get much compensation from the
Game Commission either, but they are dedicated individuals.
They are all decision making just like that.
(Representative Carlson snapping fingers.)
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I saw the guy put the gun out the window; or I saw him put the gun, blah, blah, blah. 34
If his tag is marked that he killed a deer on December
1, and he has got a gun December 2, there is no question in anybody's mind: in that game warden's, the District
Justice's, whatever. Case dismissed. I mean, it is all over.
Everytime that there is a case taken to a District
Justice in the State of Pennsylvania, your game wardens are tied up all day, District Attorneys are tied up all day, sitting in there arguing cases. They are borderline; they are tippy; they can go either way. It shouldn't be.
MR. DUNCAN: I think that is why we will certainly support an appropriate time frame in there, you know, that allows them to carry a weapon.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I would like to interject and have support from the rest of the members to at lesat go to the next day, and from the Game Commission.
MR. DUNCAN: We would support that, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: It was just like the spot lighting. That is another incident that goes back onto the criminal and not the sportsman.
I have had a lot of individuals, whether in the
Northern Tier of Potter or Tioga or Philadelphia or
Pittsburgh or whatever, they bring their families, and this is a luxury.
I get in the woods damn little. The mountains are getting bigger. But when it gets 9:00 at night or 8:00, it 35
is an opportunity for me to see a buck.
Now, that is eliminated because there are certain individuals out there that are criminals and spotlighting and shooting. So now, 1 percent of the criminals is taking it away from 99 percent of the sportsmen.
MR. LOVETTE: I have a few questions just for the record.
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: Isn't it a fact that during the recodification process the Game Commission was given opportunities to make comments?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes, that is absolutely correct. We stated at the outset of our testimony that we appreciated that opportunity.
MR. LOVETTE: Isn't it also a fact that the majority of the comments that you made today are the result of changes that were made at the July 24-25 hearing?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes, I think that is correct. Most of the comments made were the result of some of the changes made.
MR. LOVETTE: On page 7, at the bottom of the page, you suggested that we allow foresters, forest rangers, and park personnel to have enforcement power of the Commission.
I have a little bit of a worry about whether or not — are we going to limit what they can enforce because of the 36
fact — can this document give your personnel enforcement authorities?
Do the forest rangers, foresters, and park personnel have enforcement authority now?
MR. DUNCAN: No, they do not?
MR. LOVETTE: What law enforcement authority do they have?
MR. DUNCAN: The only way they would be able to do that, Jim, would be if they were to become a deputy game protector or be a Commission employee.
MR. LOVETTE: In other words, what you are saying is that the only ones out there enforcing the game law pro visions are those indivuals that are deputized and recognized by the Commission?
MR. DUNCAN: That is correct. It is working under the direct supervision of a district game protector.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: Just as a suggestion, if there is any question about their legal authority, build that right into the language of the proposed amendment.
MR. LOVETTE: Well, if you could give us language.
You know, the fish law does not allow the Bureau of Forestry, forest rangers, or park personnel to handle the enforcement provisions. I know that they are limited somewhat already.
I know that most of the comments that Representative
Carlson said, if we gave every person who worked for the 37
Bureau of Forestry enforcement powers, we may really have some problems.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would agree; but also, I have to support that they should be able to continue on their lands to act ex officio on matters relating to game law enforcement.
MR. LOVETTE: I have no problem with that.
MR. DUNCAN: I think we can work the language out.
MR. LOVETTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We have another Representative,
Frank Yandrisevits, here. I think that is close. Isn't it,
Frank?
REPRESENTATIVE YANDRISEVITS: Close.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Glad to have you.
Dave, you have one more question?
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try to keep this brief.
Back to carrying a gun after you get your deer, in searching for some areas of compromise, we initially thought that we could perhaps permit the carrying of a gun that is not legally permitted for the taking of a deer.
The only problem I see with that is this. Number one, hunters or individuals attempting to take a second deer would either go towards ,22's, the use of .22 rifles, which
I am informed are quite present among poachers anyhow.
Number two, that kind of language wouldn't prevent an 38
individual so intent on taking a second deer from going on the high side; that is, carrying a submachine gun out in the woods — I mean, that is not normally permitted legally for the taking of deer — or a semi-automatic rifle or automatic rifle.
I am just a little bit concerned with that kind of language you can effectively, on the low side and on the high side, really undercut the intent of the language.
MR. DUNCAN: You know, your point is well taken. But my personal thoughts — and I only say that as I see it in the working — I think that prohibiting the carrying of a firearm or implement that is lawful for use in hunting deer is a middle-of-the-road approach in an attempt to attack the problem; rather than going full blown, total, absolute prohibition, prohibit the carrying of a firearm lawful for hunting deer.
Now, if a person wants to carry a .22 or a semi automatic handgun for protection, I think that if that individual is then going to carry that a step further and use that as an acquiesce to kill a second deer, I think that could be well handled. That is my personal opinion.
That really cramps a person's style or his intent to kill a second deer by making that limitation.
I think that is a middle-of-the-road approach. It doesn't deny due process to carry firearms and is 39
constitutional as I see it.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: How about the case of the
.22 rifle?
MR. DUNCAN: Well, you know, in that eventuality, we have expertise to determine whether or not that was a .22
Magnum, which is prohibited, to kill that deer. We don't have any problem with that.
MR. KIRKPATRICK: That is legal for killing a deer now.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: It is?
MR. DUNCAN: No.
We have no problem — we have expertise to handle those situations.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Understand my concern.
MR. DUNCAN: I understand. I understand totally.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Anybody who is so intent on breaking the law on the down side —
MR. DUNCAN: I have to somewhat agree with
Representative Carlson, too, that I think it ought to be a reasonable approach: if that individual wants to carry a firearm legitimately, I think he should be permitted to do that.
Under that compromise, middle-of-the-road approach, he would be able to do that. That is how I perceive it.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We can tighten that language.
The lower end I am not concerned about as much as I would be 40
the upper.
MR. DUNCAN: Well, you can't carry a machine gun, any way, lawfully under federal law.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. I guess that is all — no, that is not all. Go ahead, Ed.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: The first question —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: State your name so that the —
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: Representative Staback from
Lackawanna County.
The first question I have, Russ, is directed to you.
In reference to the court case that you made reference to, the individual that was arrested, was he arrested for carry ing a gun while that gun was in the loaded state?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: The gun was not loaded?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No. He had it clipped, loaded clipped.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: In his pocket?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: In his pocket.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: And that has never been contested?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: That is unbelievable.
One point I did want to make, in addition to that, this is the fourth hearing that I have attended regarding 41
the recodification; I have attended them all. Not in one case can I recall was this issue brought up voluntarily regarding carrying, including today.
I do recall two or three gentlemen in different areas who voiced oppositions to the recod law as it was, prohibit ing them from carry a gun in the loaded state, things like that, because it went against their constitutional rights.
Everytime the issue came up, the dialogue was prompted. No one offered it. As a result, the assumption would be that that particular change in the recod was no problem for anyone. I would have to assume it would be no problem for the Game Commission, if an individual was allowed to carry a firearm in an unloaded state after he killed a deer, whether it was the opening day or the last day of buck or doe or whatever.
Individuals that want to participate in drives and just have it with them in an unloaded state, for whatever that reason may be, either getting lost in the woods and using it as a signaling device or being hurt and using the gun for the same purpose — I find it very, very difficult to believe, Jerry, that you fellows can think that any sportsman, after he has killed a deer, and chooses to carry a gun in that state is going out there with the intent of taking another deer, that the majority of the sportsmen are that way. I just do not believe that. I do not believe it. 42
I do not believe that we should be handicapped to that degree. I do not see a problem in carrying a firearm, as long as it is in an unloaded state, for the duration of the entire season.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERIIAN: Okay. Thank you very much,
Peter.
I1R. DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much; and, again, my appreciation on behalf of the Commission to all of the Committee members and the staff who worked on this.
I think we have narrowed the areas down to just a few areas of controversy at this point. That, in itself, is a very significant accomplishment, when you consider that you have before you the entire game law that has been pieced together since 1895; and when you are down, really, to just a half dozen areas of difference of opinion, it is a remark able accomplishment in its own right.
vve will work in any way we can with you to try to smooth over those areas until codification is finally redone.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you.
Janes Biery, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's
Clubs.
In case most of you people are not aware, this docu ment was not prepared by the Game Commission. It was 43
prepared in my office by my staff through going over every thing. We read over all of the comments that have been given to us by clubs and individuals writing to us.
Ue did request the Game Commission to send Harry Nolf
— he was asked to come and to just make sure what we were doing could legally be operated in the full code.
I just want you to know that, that most of this stuff was done in our office and not by the Game Commission.
Okay, Mr. Biery, you may start.
MR. BIERY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Jim Biery, Jr., Game Committee Chairman and
Second Vice-President of the Pennsylvania Federation of
Spor tsmen's Clubs.
With me this morning is Victoria Greenlee, the
Executive Secretary of our organization.
Our organization consists of about 80,000 members representing some 550 individual clubs who are affiliated by county groups.
Copies of the proposed recodification were sent to our eight Division Game Committee Chairmen who were asked to solicit the various clubs and counties for their comments.
As you know, certain individuals, counties, and clubs within our organization elected to appear before the
Committee to offer their suggestions.
On the other hand, the information I've prepared for 44
this hearing represents the collective opinions of the
Division Game Committee Chairmen who constitute the official game policy-making body for our organization.
I want to bring this to your attention, because I feel that within a large organization such as ours, we recognize that there will be some differences of opinion.
Therefore, it is logical to expect that there may not be unanimity on certain provisions of the proposal.
I want to interject two comments here, fir. Chairman.
First of all, I will at times digress just slightly from the written testimony which I prepared because of some last- minute suggestions that were made to me.
Secondly, there will also be some instances where I want to comment on certain suggestions inasmuch as I have heard some of the discussion here this morning that may merit some additional comment from our organization.
Following are comments we wish to make, and some of these we are just asking you to look at.
For example, the first one, redefine or clarify the section to include air-guns. There was some question about whether or not an air-gun would be considered a firearm or not.
In connection with this section, Mr. Chairman, I received a comment from one gentleman whose claim is that he is concerned because of the definition that is involved here, 45
firearms.
If you look back further on through the codification, under the section that involves licensing, there is a pro vision in there that talks about the County Treasurer issuing a license for a firearm.
This means that if you followed the letter of the lav/, that maybe that could be interpreted to mean that to carry a shotgun or a rifle, that it might be necessary to secure that additional permit from the County Treasurer.
I do not believe that that is the intent. Neverthe less, we would ask that you have a look at that to make sure that that does not get in there.
The problem is that some letter of the law may specify that.
Incidentally, that reference was page 13, lines 17 to
19.
The second reference, page 13, line 28, suggests that we reclassify the raccoon as a "game animal." Many people take raccoons and use them for meat. They should not be compelled to purchase a furtaker's license for this.
Reinsert the word "raccoon" on page 14, line 4.
Item three, page 19, lines 14 and 15, our members feel that the present system which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the members of the Senate for con firmation of a Game Commissioner be retained. 46
Having heard this discussion this morning, I want to add a comment here. Some people have talked about the amount of political activity or politicizing that is involved with a nomination confirmation by the Senate.
It seems to me that if you talk about the amount of political activity, that it requires a lot more political activity to obtain bipartisan support than it does simply to obtain majority support. Maybe I am wrong about that.
The point is that if you stick with the simple majority, it just may be that the situation — rather it may be that you are, indeed, decreasing the amount of political activity and thereby lessening the amount of political activity that you might have connected with the confirmation of a seat.
I appreciate the comments that Representative Godshall and Representative Dietz made, and you, too, for that matter.
I am in wholehearted agreement. I think that the issue should be carefully considered as Pete Duncan suggested earlier.
However, what I am doing here is I am obligated, of course, as Game Committee Chairman to report the feelings of our organization.
Page 20, lines 13, 17 to 20, line 19 should be changed there to read, "fills a vacancy of less than 2 years duration." 47
A good man should not lose his chance to serve at least eight years as a Game Commissioner if a restriction is imposed.
V7e personally agree that some people may be there too long and that maybe you would want to consider a limit of two terms.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I already had that changed this morning. We have new wording, which will say that if a man is elected to fill a position for two years, that he may run on his own term for eight years. We are going to change that.
MR. BIERY: Okay; fine.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I believe that would be bad.
MR. BIERY: We certainly appreciate that.
We also feel that if we have good commissioners, it should be possible to keep them on; and if not, terminate them at the expiration of their term in office.
We likewise find no provision to designate the dates when any commissioner's term begins or expires or to assure that appointments are made on a staggered basis so as to avoid the situation where an entire Commission could be replaced at one time.
I think that issue has already been addressed, too.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes, it can be. We have researched that, and it has been done, staggered the same 48
way as it is now.
MR. BIERY: Right. Of course, someone had expressed in our organization a thought about throwing the rascals out if they didn't like all of the Game Commissioners; they want to get rid of the entire Commission.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No, they can't do it.
MR. BIERY: They can't do it; right.
Page 23, line 24, the quorum for commissioners required to officially transact business at any meeting should remain at five.
Page 25, line 30, and page 26, line 1, we agree with restrictions on releasing lists of license holders or sub scribers to the "Game News" except for Commission use.
Page 28, lines 5 to 11, we agree that a penalty should be imposed for an uncollectible check, but perhaps it should be about $15, especially if just a $10 permit fee is involved.
No provision is made, however, for those cases where the bank or financial institution is at fault. r'7hen this happens and is proven, no penalty should be levied.
Page 29, lines 8 and 14, we do not feel that specific allocations of monies from license sales should be imposed by lav/.
It is our opinion that the Game Commission is a pro fessional agency fully capable of directing discretionary 49
amounts or percentages to be used for game management, propagation, or other activities and/or studies.
We will agree that close watch should be kept on those expenditures in certain areas to make sure that the money is, indeed, going to the more demanding projects or prioritizing projects.
Page 38, line 30, we welcome the increase in cost to
$4 00 per acre to the Commission in the acquisition of game lands or wildlife areas. The prohibition against using game lands for disposition of various types of waste is likewise welcome.
Page 41, line 25, we suggest adding the term "land fill materials" in this sentence.
Page 54, lines 3 to 23 — this is just a general comment on the page — it is our understanding that some magistrates or JP's determine the degree of guilt in cer tain cases, depending upon the specie of animal.
That degree of guilt may be oftentimes less — or can be less than that prescribed by law.
We suggest that language be inserted to make certain that all magistrates are required to follow the letter of the law rather than permit discretionary powers.
Now, this does not mean that — we are not suggesting that we hamstring or hogtie those local judicial officials.
Nevertheless, if a penalty is to be imposed for a certain 50
violation, then that should be very clear that that should be the penalty that is, indeed, levied.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: That is what we did by putting it all in writing in that one section.
Tim, by us putting all of those violations and penalties in that one section, doesn't that mandate that a magistrate must follow those?
MR. MALINAK: It is in law. Whether they follow it is up to their interpretation.
Now, Bob Zech, we had discussions on that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: It is a fixed penalty.
MR. BIERY: Okay; fine. That will satisfy our concern.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I am sorry to interrupt you, but
I would forget some of these, and they are very good; but some of the things we have changed, and I want you to know we have changed them.
MR. BIERY: Right. I appreciate that. I will cer tainly stand corrected, and I appreciate the comments.
Believe me, they are more than welcome.
Page 66, line 13, the penalty for killing an elk or bear out of season should be raised to $1,000. The provision for a reduced penalty for killing wildlife by mistake should be retained as is.
Page 76, line 14, we support a provision to prohibit the feeding of all wildlife from September 1 until the day 51
following the regular antlerless deer season.
I believe you had some controversy and probably some discussion regarding that point.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We haven't had any.
MR. BIERY: Haven't you?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No.
MR. BIERY: I am surprised.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We were surprised, too.
MR. BIERY: We did.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We have had some people say that they can't get feed to the animals after that time. I say to them, "That is when you forget to take the feed anyhow, after, when it is really needed."
I think we are going to see more and better feeding programs by a lot of organizations.
MR. BIERY: We certainly hope so. We would support those, indeed.
Page 79, lines 21 to 30, we would like to see clari fication in this section. We believe that it is patently unfair to expect all hunters to be aware of areas that have been previously baited by other individuals.
We believe that the areas around feeders should be posted and that absolutely no hunting or pursuit of game, unless wounded or for retrieval, be permitted within at least
200 yards of feeder locations. 52
I think Representative Carlson will remember the case two years ago in Tioga County where a judgment was made that certain individuals would be warned or arrested within a certain area surrounding a bear baited area at Leetonia. I don't know whether you are familiar with that case or not.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Somewhat. My son was a
District Attorney.
MR. BIERY: Okay; then he was involved in the case, right. I was at one of the camps, but I was not arrested.
The point is that we are asking for some clarification or some kind of arrangement so that if a stranger gets in there and just accidentally walks in close by a hidden feeder, we don't feel that he should be penalized for that.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: That is back to what I said about these are judgment calls.
MR. BIERY: That is right.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: It should be more defined.
I1R. BIERY: That is correct. That is why we are suggesting some definition here.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: It takes the heat off of the sportsman. It takes the heat off of the game warden.
MR. BIERY: Right; and the judicial officials, too.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Right.
MR. BIERY: We agree wholeheartedly with that.
Page 83, lines 14 to 17, we agree with the provision 53
to prohibit spotlighting after 11:00 p.m. There is some
sentiment that spotlighting should also be prohibited for
the two days immediately preceding the open season for the i
early archery season, bear season, regular buck, and antler-
less deer seasons.
Of course, what we are suggesting is that there is
some thought or feeling that in addition to prohibiting
spotlighting during the open seasons, that they include the
weekend before those seasons open, since they do open on
Mondays, in general.
Page 88, line 20, we cannot agree that tagging and
inspection of deer and turkey is necessary. To require the
hunter to deliver deer and turkey to an inspection station
is unreasonable.
"Je may have misinterpreted the intent of that, but
that is the way it looks to us, that they would have to —
it might be necessary to handle deer and turkey the same
way they handle bear. If that is not the case, we stand
corrected.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I do not believe that is the
case.
MR. BIERY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We will have it checked and read
more thoroughly.
MR. BIERY: Yes, would you? lie would appreciate that. 54
Page 105, lines 28 to 30, and page 106, lines 1 and 2, we question what happened to the provision prohibiting shoot ing within 25 yards of a highway. We also find nothing about
"road hunting."
Finally, we believe the section pertaining to shooting across highways should include the current language to permit shooting across highways if the line of fire is high enough to substantially clear all cross traffic.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We changed that.
I1R. BIERY: You changed that one, too; right. You are reading our minds.
Page 106, line 11, the words "or through" a safety zone cause us some concern. Because of the presence of brush, woodland, et cetera, occupied dwellings in such zones are not always visible. VJe feel that all such areas should be posted as safety zone areas.
Page 115, lines 24 to 27, we feel that any and all fines for game law violations should be paid within 13 0 days.
If the convicted person fails to pay within that period, he should be sentenced to serve a jail term in lieu of or in addition to the fine.
Page 117, lines 9 to 18, we feel that small game should be included in the regulations dealing with the wear ing of fluorescent orange. Waterfowl hunters, however, should be excluded. 55
The 360 degree arc visibility requirement is good,
except that if the color is to be worn "front and back com
bined," there may be a problem of visibility from the side.
I address just those bibs that you wear front and
back. It may be a small probability that there would be a visibility problem there, but it perhaps does exist.
We have appointed, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, a
committee to look into this requirement about wearing
fluorescent orange, because, as you know, there has been
some controversy about whether or not it should be required
in turkey season and the like. So, we are going to have a
second look at that, too.
Page 120, lines 17 and 23, we would like to see para
graphs (1) and (2) deleted. The newly expanded hunter
education program includes many topics which must be covered
that are not included in armed forces training.
!7e also want to suggest, strongly suggest, that if
we are talking about hunter education, that the trapper or
furtaker education course be kept separate and maintained
as a separate part, not at all combined with the hunter
education course.
Ne have talked with the Commission about that. There
has been some discussion about it. Pete is smiling right
now.
Again, like I said, that is the way the people in our 56
organization feel.
Page 129, line 30, and page 130, line 1, we strongly feel that some emergency or temporary arrangement should be provided to accommodate those people who may have left home without their licenses when traveling some distance to a hunting camp or location.
This can happen easily in bear season or antlerless deer season; in your rush to pack everything, you forget to stick the license in.
If you are down in Philadelphia and you have driven up to Representative Carlson's territory, it is kind of a chore to turn around and get back.
We don't know how it could be handled.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We can work with the Game
Commission on something. You know, the man has already pur chased that. If he brings proof at a later date —
MR. B1ERY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — I would think that that should suffice. I agree with you. We will have to come up with some kind of a temporary tag; just like if you lose a license tag off a car, we make one up of cardboard and stick it on, and it is legal to drive until you get a new tag.
MR. BIERY: This happened in our family a couple years ago. It just happened that the suggestion did, indeed, come from the other members of our organization. 57
I will just forget that last line there talking about the reasonableness of distance.
Pages 139 to 141, there is a general feeling that many of the permit fees, with the exception of fox hunts, have been increased more than necessary. We would prefer a general increase of about 50 percent.
Page 148, line 14, amateur taxidermists are currently allowed to mount specimens for friends and relatives without charging for the service.
Ttfe believe that the proposed wording unnecessarily restricts those activities. The language and intent is not altogether clear to us. So, we ask that you consider some changes in the interest of clarification and in the opportunity to give the apprentice taxidermist an opportunity to gain experience.
Jerry Kirkpatrick is familiar with the discussion, a rather lengthy discussion, that we had at our meeting on this. I think we had agreed at the time that we take a second look at that and see whether something could be done about it.
Pages 168 to 17 0, the sections involving hunting with handguns and licensing requirements should be reviewed and clarified so that anyone who engages in this type of sport- hunting clearly understands what he is permitted to do.
I had alluded to that problem earlier. 58
Mr. Chairman, xn conclusion to my remarks, I would like to make two comments about the series of four public hearings you have held.
It appears to us that two rather uninvited special interest groups have shown up to submit testimony which is not truly germane to the topic of recodification.
First, you heard from the aminal protectionists and anti-trapping groups, and then you heard from the township and municipal interests. I believe both of those groups have been represented prior to this time.
rJe all know that groups such as these advocate an out right ban on hunting, trapping, or any other form of taking game.
That concept completely ignores the principles of scientific wildlife management and the best interests of the resource.
Their specious statements and childlike personifica tion of wildlife simply cannot be supported in terms of wildlife resource management.
Certain groups within the township, municipal, and county governments have proposed to regulate hunting within their jurisdicational areas. We feel that they should be told in no uncertain terms that the Legislature and the Game
Commission are jointly responsible for wildlife resources, with a reminder that there are other areas of responsibility 59
open to them by law where they may have at least a little expertise in handling the problems.
In other words, we want to make sure that the protec tion afforded to the hunter by the provisions of pre emption remain intact.
We compliment you. You have done an excellent job in the past in this area. We are with you 100 percent by way of support and cooperation.
Finally, I want to comment the Committee, staff, and others who participated in the preparation of this legisla tion. We appreciate the complexity and difficulties you faced in this formidable task. Overall, we are very well pleased with your efforts.
Thanks very much for the opportunity to present our testimony.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
I would just like to make a comment on the last sub ject here on who should be allowed to testify. You know, being political and being here, if I would have attempted to keep them from testifying, I would have been called a political animal. I am really, but I didn't want to be called that outright.
So, what I have really said to them is that you will get a fair opportunity to testify. As you know, we have kept this as wide open to everybody as possible. We do not 60
want to shut anybody off, since this was not done since 1937; we thought it only fair to let everybody who is concerned.
One other comment; we discussed this morning in my office — we got here very early with some of the staff, and we were going over some of the different things — $25 for a bad check was discussed. We are thinking about changing the language.
We also are looking at what happens, and we will look at what happens, to the person when the bank screws up —
MR. BIERY: Right.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — becuase we know they use a number anymore and not a name. Sometimes we do have money in the bank under that account.
If they can prove that, then we will take a look at it, and we will see what we can do there.
The one thing that I just can't agree with cind that is that specific allocation of money. The reason I am saying that to you, Ilr. Biery, is because that was specifically put in the increase in that manner. That amount of money would not have been in that increase had it not been accepted by the Committee for that specific purpose.
We, in general I think, feel that we have a lot of biologists out there that we would like to see directed by the Game Commission in a more exact manner to what we were speaking of. 61
If we give them the money to do that, then we should get more specific answers and have somebody really detailed
— as we did in the area of the bear, we want someone like that with the deer. We would love to see that.
We feel that there is somebody withxn the organiza tion who could really do that if they had the money. So, we put it up for that purpose. I want you to know that that is why they got that. 'What does it amount to? Over $1 million.
MR. BIERY: Right. There is a program involving habitat management, I think, where an allocation is made from the antlerless deer fund.
We find no problem with the intent.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Everytime we talk to the Game
Commission, we hear the reason for this is the habitat. We have now given them money to study that habitat to be sure that that is exactly where it is coming from.
I have talked to Pete about it and everything else.
I know they don't like money line item. But this was put in on a full vote of the House to do that — or the Committee.
I just can't take it out. I am not able to remove that now, since the one bill has been passed.
MR. LOVETTE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: Jim, you are aware of the 585 language. 62
MR. BIERY: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: We omitted Section 1401, specifically
Section Z, Subchapters Z.l and Z.2; and we did have problems with one of the amendments that was made at one of the committee meetings, and it carried through from the very beginning.
We made an agreement in committee that we would take
585 exactly as it was passed because of all of the heated debate on that. We put it exactly in the recod without any change. That is the reason it is there.
MR. BIERY: Mr. Chairman, may I make just one comment in response to your note regarding those other two groups that I alluded to earlier?
I want to make it clear that we strongly feel that they have a right to be heard and that they absolutely have every right in the world to be here.
What we question is their "motive" or where they are coming from, because, in general, the purposes of the organizations, as we understand them, and the intent and thrust of their comments seems to be contrary to the principles of scientific wildlife management in general.
Maybe we are wrong, but —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We will determine that.
MR. BIERY: Yes, I am sure you will. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Questions? Bobby? 63
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: I just want to say I do agree with you on this one point that I think is really essential in here on the number of commissioners who attend meetings should stay at five.
Maybe there is some problem with getting five commissioners to attend the meeting. If that is the case,
I think we ought to know who is attending and who isn't attending, because if they are not, they are not doing their job.
I wholeheartedly agree. When I saw a quorum would constitute a majority that are members in attendance, I am also very opposed to that.
I think when we have something as big as this state, we don't want to have two or three members making decisions for the entire state.
I thank you for your testimony.
MR. BIERY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I already wrote notes to that this morning, also.
T7e really hashed things over this morning; believe me, we did.
Representative Carlson?
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Jim, as head of the
Sportsmen's Clubs in the State of Pennsylvania representing
55 county groups, have you had any concern or inquiries in 64
regards to the eminent domaxn that is listed in the —
MR. BIERY: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: None whatsoever?
MR. BIERY: No, sir. None has been brought to my attention.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: May I speak on that?
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Yes; go ahead.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Eminent domain as it is in the law has not been changed.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Eminent domain as it is in the law, when you go back over the history of the Game Commission, as we have done, has never once used that, except in cases where a title could not be cleared. That is all it has ever been used for, is the clearing of a title for the sale of land.
It has never been used where anybody has a camp or anybody has anything that they didn't want them to have.
It is like four people own something. One man cannot be found or, I don't know, maybe he is dead. But to clear that title, they have to do that in law. Is that right,
Jerry?
MR. DUNCAN: They have used it to quiet title.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Can we put language in there for just quiet title? 65
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: We have approximately 3,000 or 4,000 acres in standing timber, and probably the camps themselves with 3,000 or 4,000 acres. We could probably take in $100,000 a year cutting timber.
With an eminent domain in here, I know you are not going to use it. That is an assumption, again.
But if you come along and the State of Pennsylvania says, "Okay, we are condemning this group," whether they are bad guys or whether the Commonwealth wants to take more land, et cetera — but here is a multitude of monetary value, and the law says $4 00.
I will tell you, you would have one hell of a war on your hands if you took some hunting lands for $400. I think there would probably be a lot of dead legislators and senators.
MR. DUNCAN: I couldn't agree with you more,
Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I would like to see the law changed only to the benefit of clarifying a deed, et cetera, in that kind of opening.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I am sure we can change that.
What do you think, Jerry?
MR. DUNCAN: I don't see any problem with it. We have operated all of these years without it being in there.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I understand that. For a 66
highway I can understand it. But unless —
MR. DUNCAN: You do see condemnation powers for quiet ing title, to clear titles —
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: That is right. I have no objection.
MR. DUNCAN: We certainly, during my tenure —
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Yes; but you tell little John
Doe out there that belongs to a hunting camp, "We are not going to do it," and he brings it, and I have got it right in my pocket where it says you can —
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: You can only travel 55 miles an hour down the highway; but, hell, they build cars that travel 100. You know, the visibility is there.
MR. DUNCAN: You do need certain powers to quiet title.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: We will give you that.
MR. DUNCAN: That is not done very often.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: That can be in there.
MR. DUNCAN: That is fine.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: They can put it in there in big black letters.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Will you prepare — could you get together with the Game Commission and prepare language for that? 67
MR. DUNCAN: May I interject this very quickly?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. DUNCAN: There was one circumstance — this was before I came to the Commission — 25 years ago, I think, at Middle Creek, where condemnation was used in the Middle
Creek Wildlife Management Area.
That case was appealed all the way to the Supreme
Court. The condemnation was upheld.
That was the only time, to the best of our records, that condemnation was ever used by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission.
It was used in certain circumstances by the old
Department of Forest and Waters and now the Department of
Environmental Resources. It has been used, I think, once or twice with the Pennsylvania rish Commission.
As a general rule — just so you understand where we are coming from, I have absolutely no objection at all to make certain that we can quiet title, but we will not in my tenure use condemnation. We always do it on a willing buyer/ willing seller basis. If we can't do it on that basis, the practice will not be done.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: If we don't need it, then I would rather have it rewritten so that it clarifies your point and so forth.
In Potter County, which is one county I represent, the 68
State of Pennsylvania, including the Game Commission and the Department of Forest and Waters, probably owns 70 percent of the county; 17,000 population; "x" number of dollars to run the county. The State pays 60 cents an acre: 20 cents for the township, 20 for the school, 20 for the County
Commissioners — 60 cents.
Now, if they keep gobbling up more and more — you have only got 17,000 people. And it happens in Tioga County; they own 40 percent, I think, in Tioga County, or roughly that vicinity.
Here you have that same nucleus of people paying for all of those services and not bringing in any tax or revenue or no chance for any future growth.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I will be putting something in there to try to bump that up a little bit more. We have got it in past years. Now since you have got an increase in license fee, we would like to have a little of it back.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: I may give the Executive
Director of the Game Commission some information, in view of the fact that I spent nine years over on the Fish Commission, and I think it should also be included by agreement, because sometimes there could be — there are times when you, as well as the Fish Commission, could have an agreement for some
reason between the property owner and yourselves whereby you 69
would use the process of eminent domain.
MR. DUNCAN: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: All right. Jim, you made a statement there from your testimony that you had written down about the elimination of the wording in there in regards to servicemen who may not have had the opportunity to have taken the hunter training course prior to going into the service.
He could be in the service one year or he could make it a lifetime or he could be in there ten years, eight or ten years, and get out.
Now, could you tell me any branch of the military service that doesn't give basic training as the very first thing to the recruit or someone who goes into the service?
MR. BIERY: They all get the basic training, of course.
The point we want to make is that if the serviceman is given a firearm education course, in comparison with the hunter education course which we currently require in Pennsylvania, there is nothing about landowner relationships, hunting ethics, the lost hunter, first aid, other topics that have been recently introduced in the newly expanded ten-hour course — those topics are not covered in the federal or service type training. That is the situation that we are alluding to in making that statement.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Isn't it true that the hunter 70
training course was sold by you, the Pennsylvania Federation,
and by the Game Commission on the basis of safety rather
than all of this other landowner relationship and so forth
that you are talking about?
MR. BIERY: Originally, yes; when the course was first
started, yes. That was when the first four-hour courses were started and the program began in 1959.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Isn't it true, also, that the hunter safety course was mostly given and sold on the basis of 12-year-olds rather than those of legal age, 21 or older —
MR. BIERY: That is true.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: — taking the training course?
MR. BIERY: That is right.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Now since you have sold this,
now you are saying that they must come along and they must have a landowner course in — I don't know what you call it.
MR. BIERY: Ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Relations.
MR. BIERY: Hunter ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: And everything else.
MR. BIERY: That is true. That is because the situa
tion has changed to a remarkable degree over the 25-year
history of the course that was given.
In other words, we feel that we have reached a
critical stage in relationships with farmers and landowners. 71
We feel that the social and economic conditions obviously in
1985 are far different than they were in the early 1960's when the program was first instituted.
Therefore, we feel the responsibility to upgrade the course so that it meets the requirements of the current environment or the current world.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: What percentage of the licensees has a disrespect for the landowner; could you tell me?
MR. BIERY: No, I couldn't; but I would guess that there are far too many to suit me.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: What percentage would it be?
MR. BIERY: I have no idea.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: I just can't buy the fact that a person that is either drafted into military service, he goes through basic training, even after that he goes out to the range and he qualifies, and he qualifies on the range, and he has a gun in his possession, and he has to clean it and he has to break it down at every inspection — it doesn't matter if he is in the Air Force, whether he is in the Navy, or whether he is in the Marines.
From a safety point of view, I cannot see a problem with granting those Veterans or those people who have served this country protecting you and myself from landowners and everyone from having to take a hunter safety course, 72
especially when he was inconvenienced in some way; when he went into the service, his life was disrupted.
Personally, I cannot see why he has to take a hunter safety course.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay; fine. David?
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Thank you, Chairman
Letterman.
Mr. Biery, thank you very much for your comments. I have one question and then one comment.
My question is — you probably anticipate this — the issue of whether or not a hunter should be permitted to carry a gun in the woods after he legally harvests his deer or bear.
Could you give me the Federation's position on my suggestion that we prohibit the possession of a firearm after taking a deer?
MR. BIERY: Representative Levdansky, there was some considerable amount of private discussion at a meeting we held with the Division Game Committee Chairmen regarding this topic.
We, of course, did not have an opportunity to review your proposal at that time. But I feel positive that we would be very supportive of what you are suggesting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Thank you. I appreciate that. Please take a formal look at it and then inform me of — 73
MR. BIERY: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: — your organization's position.
One comment I have is, in your testxmony,you made some comments about people who are anti-hunting in nature. A lot of the testimony was taken at the first public hearing.
There are a couple of municipalities that restrict the discharge of firearms. I want to assure you that the officials in those communities took those actions for public safety considerations and not because of anti-hunting reasons.
As a matter of fact, Jefferson Borough will be upping their fine for the discharge of a single projectile firearm.
They do this at the request of archery hunters in the area who are having a bonanza year. Just the day before yester day someone shot a 250-pound deer. So, it is not anti- hunting in nature on the part of these municipalities.
I am confident that between the Game Commission and the local government people that we can come up with some sort of compromise to protect the interests of hunting and at the same time protecting the public safety.
MR. BIERY: Precisely. That is what we are suggesting.
CHAIRMAN LETTERIIAN: He just told us that selfish groups get things for themselves. I will tell you: that is a good point that the Game Commission has. The words that we should put in there are that they should be allowed to 74
petition the Game Commission for those rights to shut hunting off.
MR. BIERY: Right.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: If we don't, we will have anti- hunters out there that get to be township officials that would go ahead and do it.
We are going to look very strong at that piece of legislation, and we are going to try to keep it so that they have to get the petition to close off hunting in an area.
We feel that there are too many situations that can arise if they have it the way they want right now.
Okay; thank you very, very much.
MR. BIERY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The turnout is pretty good.
There is a lot of good material. It is too bad that we have a schedule that we must keep.
I am going to change a little bit, and I am going to call Brenda Shambaugh from the Pennsylvania State Grange.
She will give her written testimony to the Committee for our overview and everything, but she will not accept questions, because she must leave.
Thank you.
MS. SHAMBAUGH: I really appreciate that, Chairman.
Unfortunately, I have a 12:00 commitment up in Schuylkill 75
County. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly.
Rather than read through my testimony, I would just like to mention that the Grange is the largest farm and rural organization in Pennsylvania representing 42,000 members.
We have gone through your recodification and appreci ate all of the work that you and your staff have done.
There are several sections that I would like to dis cuss briefly and then a few comments on things that we feel might be included later on at another date.
Section 546 deals with deterrent fences, increasing the amount from $35,000 to $100,000. We wholeheartedly agree with that section.
Section 555 deals with bear damage. We have had quite a few members who have had increased bear damage in the last few years. So, we feel as much action that can be taken to reduce the herd would be appreciated.
Section 2312 discusses deer spotting. Our members feel that — we appreciate the fact that you have eliminated the last hour, from midnight to 11:00 p.m. Our members feel that spotlighting should only be allowed until 10:00 p.m.
Section 2305 discusses feeding of game and wildlife.
We, again, appreciate that being put into the recodification; but we feel that the time when you and I would be allowed to feed should be including June 1 through December 31, 76
expanding that time period a little further.
A suggestion that has been made several times before by the Grange dealing with deer and crop damage and the number of deer that are killed every year would be to equalize the deer population by increasing license sales in the heavily populated areas.
To do that, what you would have to do is hold county public hearings, and they would determine the levels of deer population and deer damage in that area, and then have the quotas set accordingly.
We would also like to see an open season on both raccoons and crows, and we feel that the fox population has been increasing substantially over the past couple of years.
We have suggested that a fox bounty be put in place.
We have been told that that would definitely not be effective; but we feel that if a fox bounty is not effective, some other means must be found to reduce the increasing fox numbers.
We feel that a limited live trapping of woodchucks should be incorporated into the recodification for those individuals who have suffered a profit loss because of wood- chucks .
We contend that coyotes are creating a revenue loss for farmers. So, consequently, an indemnity payment program should be created for coyote damage and livestock loss.
We had a situation out in Midwestern Pennsylvania 77
where 20 sheep were lost due to one coyote, which the Game
Commission thankfully went in and got the coyote, but it took time. Consequently, the farmer lost quite a bit of revenue.
Basically, that is the gist of this report. If you have any questions, I have time for maybe one or two. If not, you can always call us at our office, and I would be more than happy to sit down with any of you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much. I think you have to go. We can digest what you had to say. We will call you if we want a clear understanding.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Anybody that has anything that they want changed, I would appreciate it if you would come up with specific wording and send it to us; and we will take a good, hard look at it. We want to know exactly what you are saying. By just giving us an idea of a change, we might not have the wording the way you like it.
So, if you can give us wording, at least we could have someone look at it and analyze it, so that we get exactly what you are saying.
MS. SHAMBAUGH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very, very much.
MS. SHAMBAUGH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You are welcome. 78
Billy Bond from Hammermill Paper Company.
Fellows, I just want you to know, this gentleman is from Alabama, and we did a little job on Alabama last week.
Bill has a couple comments to make, too, on this.
Okay, sir.
MR. BOND: I am not here to protest, Mr. Chairman, the fact that your big old Pennsylvania boys just beat up on our little Alabama boys.
My name is Billy C. Bond. I am the Director of
Corporate Forest Resources for Hammermill Paper Company based in Erie.
To my left is Ron Brenneman. Ron is a graduate wild life biologist that serves on our staff.
Over in the audience with me, also, is Mr. Jim Speice, with Hammermill and in charge of public relations and govern mental affairs.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this landmark legislation and present our comments at this hearing.
Hammermill owns 165,000 acres of commercial forest land in Northwest and North Central Pennsylvania for the purpose of providing a perpetual supply of wood fibre for our several mills located within the state.
Ninety-seven percent of this acreage is open to the public for recreational and hunting use through our member ship in the Game Commission's Forest Game Cooperative Program, 79
We are particularly concerned that thxs legislation recognize the need to maintain wildlife populations in balance with other land uses.
For example, as a commercial forest landowner,
Hammermill is acutely aware of the need to protect our seed lings from damage due to deer browsing.
On the other hand, as a participant in the Game
Commission's Forest Game Cooperative Program we appreciate the desire to have large deer populations to maximize hunting opportunities.
These conflicting interests must be balanced. While we support efforts to provide the proper food and cover for a healthy deer herd, we believe deer numbers must not be permitted to rise to a level that interferes with our efforts to regenerate new stands of trees.
Presently, the imbalance between deer population and carrying capacity of the land requires us to fence many of our regeneration cuts. Such fencing costs approximately $35 per acre for materials only or $28,000 yearly to construct.
These fences remain in place for a three to five-year period, when they are removed and used on new regeneration cuts.
After the fences are removed, the acreage returns to a condition of balance. The previously fenced areas provide a new source of food and cover for wildlife to sustain itself 80
and multiply without substantial damage to the seedlings which have grown above the reach of deer.
As you can see, our state's white-tailed deer present a paradox. They need to have the habitat found on private farms and forest land for both food and shelter, while private landowners have no control of their numbers.
And, in addition, on private commercial forest land, neither the government nor the public provides any assistance in paying the food bill. It is at the sole discretion of the government when, where, and how such wildlife can be hunted.
As a result of this paradox, substantial damage is incurred on private forest land.
In 1981 Dr. David Marquis, of the U.S. Forest Service, documented this damage in his publication entitled, "Effect of Deer Browsing on Timber Production in Allegheny Hardwood
Forest of Northwestern Pennsylvania." I have attached a copy of this report to your copy of this testimony.
In this study, he assessed deer damage at $13 per acre per year in the Allegheny Hardwood Forest of North western and North Central Pennsylvania. On Hammermill acreage, this amounts to a loss of over $2 million per year.
Under the existing game law, those engaged in the business of agriculture, orchards, or tree nurseries are provided certain protection, including the right to remove 81
game or wildlife actually engaged in the material destruction of cultivated crops, fruit trees, vegetables, livestock, poultry, or beehives, and the right to make application for fencing materials to protect the same.
We believe that practicing forestry on a commercial basis is a business similar to those who engage in agri culture, orchards, or tree nurseries and, therefore, should enjoy the same rights and privileges.
For years a double standard has existed, and it is time to correct the inequities.
Specifically, we request the following amendments to the proposed legislation:
The first, under Section 541-546, pages 30 through 32: the owners of farms, orchards, or nurseries are permitted to apply to the Game Commission for fencing materials not to exceed $100,000 a year.
It is our belief that these same provisions can and should be extended to the owners of forest lands that are under commercial forest management and open to public hunting under the Forest Game Cooperative Program.
Of course, such assistance should be limited to those areas where deer are preventing the re-establishment of trees in recently regenerated areas.
This can be accomplished by a redescription of crops on page 30, line 20, of the above section to add the language, 82
"or where deer are preventing tree regeneration on forest lands that have been harvested ... such commercial forest landowners may make application."
It is our suggestion that in order to finance these activities $100,000 should be deducted from the existing habitat improvement and restoration fund.
The source of this financing is logical inasmuch as fencing of regeneration cuts will provide considerable variety in wildlife food and cover while protecting the future forest crop.
Our second request, under Section 2121, pages 60 through 64: owners of cultivated crops, fruit trees, vege table gardens, livestock, poultry, or beehives are provided relief by permitting, under the strict provisions of Section
2121 through 2125, the removal of game or wildlife which are actually engaged in the material destruction of culti vated crops, fruit trees, vegetables, livestock, poultry, or beehives.
Rule 2121 should be amended to recognize the fact that many of Pennsylvania's forest landowners have their lands under intensive forest management.
Over 1,000 of these forest landowners have been certified as professional tree farmers. These tree farmers should be provided the same protection under the law as farmers, beekeepers, and nurseries. 83
It is proposed that the phrase "or tree farmers" be added to Section 2121(a)(1), line 22, and Section 2121(a)(3), line 27.
In the process of making such a change, it would also be necessary to reclarify the definition of a person found in
2121(c), page 62, as follows:
"(c) Definition — As used in this subchapter the word
'person' shall be limited to any person or corporation culti vating, as a primary means of gaining a livelihood or other financial gain, any lands for general or specialized crop purposes, truck farming or fruit orchards or nursery or tree farm being regularly maintained, as either the owner, manager, lessee or a member of the family of the owner or lessee assisting with the cultivation of the land, or a domiciled member of the household of the owner or lessee or an employee of the owner, manager or lessee, regularly and continuously assisting m the cultivation or management of the land."
Our third request: the recodification makes it clear in defining "management unit" under Section 102, page 14, and Section 322(c), 4, page 24, that in order for the State to manage various wildlife species, it may be necessary to establish ecologically defined management units to direct hunting pressures to specific areas of high animal populations while providing relief to those where populations are low.
We believe such management units need not be on a 84
county-wide basis. They may well cross county lines or be represented by individual properties or sections of the county.
To further enhance population control on these manage ment units, there needs to be clarification under Section
2722(b), page 133, line 6, permitting the issuance of antler- less licenses by the Pennsylvania Game Commission as well as persons acting on their behalf.
Similarly, the authority to issue permits spelled out in Section 1901(b), page 138, should be clarified to allow the recognition that certain private properties or portions thereof which are open to public hunting and which maintain cooperative agreements with the Game Commission may require the issuance of a limited number of antlerless licenses.
Thus, an individual property or a grouping of properties could be treated as a management unit.
The changes we propose are extremely important to the present forest landowners of the Commonwealth who own approximately 78 percent of the commercial forest land in the state.
If these lands are not allowed to adequately revege- tate themselves due to deer damage, they are lost as future habitat for deer and other wildlife. Future generations of recreationists and hunters will be denied the enjoyment of the wildlife abundance we presently have in Pennsylvania. 85
More importantly, the landowners who rely on their acreage to earn a living have a constitutional right to pro
tect their property. The corporate landowner is offered the
same protection under the Constitution.
Companies have a responsibility to their shareholders
to maximize their return on their investment while maintain
ing these lands for the use of future generations.
We recognize our obligation and we feel certain that
the changes we have proposed will help us carry out these
responsibilities.
I recognize the challenge you face in this recodifica
tion process, and I commend you on the effort you are making
to generate game laws that treat all landowners in a fair
and equitable manner.
I appreciate the opportunity to share the concerns of
Hammermill Paper Company with you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
Robert Godshall?
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: Mr. Bond, I agree with you
on this management unit thing. I think our Game Commission,
as a necessity, is going to have to look at that. The deer population on some of the farmlands is getting out of control.
Even up in Potter County where we have a lot of property, we have a tract up there. We used to be able to 86
see 100 or 150 deer; we can't see five or six anymore.
So, I think even in the individual counties there is really a drastic need, in my estimation, of management units where we can issue — maybe even on the antlerless deer license you can kill two deer or whatever. In some places they are underharvested; in other places they are totally overharvested in the same county.
The thing I want to say is that I will probably have to get in touch with Ron Brenneman, since we don't have many deer in our tract, to see what we can do about depopulating some of land during deer season. For the record, maybe you can help me out on that.
MR. BOND: Would you like to borrow some of ours?
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: I would definitely like to borrow some of yours, because we have very few over in the north central part where I am.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. I would just like to make a comment that we are going to have to work with the Game
Commission very close and see what we can come up with.
What you suggested as far as the fencing from that certain phase of hunting, we would probably have to pass legislation to do that, because I think the legislation was written in such a way that it is only used for habitat 87
improvement.
Now, whether we can say fencing could come out of that or something like that I don't know. We will have to research that and find out.
I do know that I have listened to you people many, many times. It always appears to me that if hunters want to have good hunting in the future, maybe we had better start to take heed to what you are telling us today —
MR. BOND: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — because without that forest, there are not many places for deer to hide.
MR. BOND: Yes, sir. That is what we are saying. Our company has been for many years one of the best friends that hunters in North Central Pennsylvania have, in that 97 per cent of our 165,000 acres are available to them for hunting.
We are concerned.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Mr. Bond, are you in a position where if you would have a definite area, a specific area, that you wanted hunted additionally hard, are you in a posi tion with your company to put enough men out there to ensure that that area is marked well, if we would be able to get the
Game Commission to allow more killing in that certain area?
MR. BOND: Yes, sir. In the past we have conducted what we call "red hat days" in cooperation with sportsmen's groups in our area, where we actually meet the sportsmen at 88
the properties, provide them with a red hat for safety pur poses, and actually carry them into certain sections of the property for hunting.
Of course, it would depend on the magnitude of the problem. But our basic answer is "yes;" we would cooperate with the sportsmen and the Game Commission.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Do I understand the clear cuts?
I have been told that clear cuts are not being regenerated because that is the first place deer will go and they are really overbrowsing in those clear cuts.
MR. BOND: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Does it take approximately five years to get that regenerated to a spot where — what? Is the growth up high enough or is it thick enough that you don't get hurt? What is it?
MR. BOND: Once the saplings reach five feet in height, these studies show that they are fairly safe from being overbrowsed. They are still browsed, but they are not overbrowsed to the extent that they are killed and they are not viable.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Pete, we will have to meet. I don't know what we will come up with. I don't know where we will go.
I know that it is a major problem; and it is something,
I think, we have to deal with. I think we can deal with it 89
in management units maybe.
You know, I am all for management units. I would think if we would go for specified areas, not do it on a statewide basis, but just do it where we are having the specific problem —
MR. DUNCAN: The problem is nobody can agree on a management unit. Ron Brenneman can't lay one out, and we can't lay one out either. We can all do it, but nobody will agree on what those units should be. In the end, you can't evenly distribute the deer. That is the difficulty. No matter v/hat the management unit, you can't evenly distribute
them throughout that management unit.
I wish we could find out a way to do it. Our minds are open. We are willing to discuss it with the Committee, certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: May I ask one question?
MR. BOND: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Do you lease any of this
165,000 acres for hunting?
MR. BOND: We have several small tracts that are presently under lease as a more or less study on the part of our company to determine if, in fact, exclusive hunting rights through a lease do, in fact, have an effect on the kill or the take from hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: You say, "several small 90
tracts." What would you consider small tracts?
MR. BOND: What is it?
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: 400 or 500 acres?
MR. BRENNEMAN: No. We have two properties presently under lease, each a little over 1,000 acres.
MR. BOND: Out of 165,000 acres, we would consider that to be small, about 3 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: The lease agreement would be somewhere near $1 an acre. Is that a fair assumption? I am not getting into your private affairs, but —
MR. BRENNEMAN: Yes, that is a fair assumption.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: That is a fair assumption.
No further questions.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BOND: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We are not going to take a lunch break. So, anybody who feels they have to eat, like I do, can run downstairs and grab a sandwich. There are several places down there that you can get one.
We are going to try to keep right on going. Hopefully, we can get through and catch up here.
Howard Hardy, Assistant Director of the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission, who is in the back of the room, we are glad to have you.
As a result of the urgence of Representative 91
Dombrowski and Representative Merry from Erie County, there will be an additional public hearing at Edinboro University on Thursday, October 31, 1985, to take testimony on the pro posed working document.
So, any of you who know anybody who might want to testify in this area should notify me. We will be putting it in the paper.
It will probably only be a morning session. Since it is being announced so late, we don't anticipate that many.
However, as I said, we try to be fair. The ones that feel we left them out, well, we are trying to cover them.
Erie, evidently, is always off in the far corner, where they feel they are left out if they don't have a hearing.
Okay. Next is Bryon Shissler from Wildlife Managers.
Please give your name and what you are, Bryon.
MR. SHISSLER: I am Bryon Shissler. I am a wildlife biologist from Wildlife Managers, a private consulting firm that specializes in managing private lands for wildlife here in Pennsylvania.
Allow me to begin by thanking Representative
Letterman and the Committee for the opportunity to comment on this working draft of the recodification of the
Pennsylvania Game Law.
It is a difficult and challenging task that this committee has undertaken, and we acknowledge and appreciate 92
the fine effort that has been put forth.
On the whole, we are supportive of this document and believe that it will serve the people of the Commonwealth and our commonly held resources well. We would, however, raise four points of concerns.
On page 18, lines 4 through 11, which again addresses the primary method of management being affected through hunt ing and fishing, we would like to bring to the Committee's attention that the Pennsylvania Game Commission has few species of wildlife under its jurisdiction that require hunt ing or trapping as a means of control or management.
Would ring-necked pheasant, ruffed grouse, or cotton- tailed rabbits overrun Pennsylvania if we failed to hunt them? Of course not. We hunt, not because we must, but because we choose to and we enjoy it.
It is inaccurate to suggest that hunting or trapping are either necessary or the primary method by which most wildlife species can or should be managed. Hunting is the harvest of good game management, just as the picking of a crop is the culmination of good gardening.
Habitat management is the backbone of good land stewardship. Hunting and trapping are the benefits we derive from those efforts. We would like to see that this document reflect those realities.
The second concern is on page 76, which outlaws the 93
feeding of all wildlife between September 1 and the end of deer season each license year, except for bird feeders located near someone's home.
The feeding of wildlife is a form of recreation and management that is older than the Game Commission itself.
This law would prevent persons from participating in that activity for over four months and certainly during the period when it is most commonly practiced, enjoyed, and needed.
As lawmakers you are constantly faced with decisions that demand a balance between protecting the public from those who operate outside the accepted norms and impinging on personal rights.
This law does not represent a good balance. It is based on one of two faulty assumptions. Either it assumes that everyone who feeds wildlife over the winter months is interested in baiting animals for harvest and, therefore, is a criminal; or it assumes that for the ease and convenience of enforcement, that it is acceptable to impinge upon law- abiding citizens' rights.
How many individuals in Pennsylvania with high standards and good intentions feed wildlife? Perhaps 1,000,
50,000, half a million?
Based on my own experience, I would suggest that it is a significant number. I know of several families who own in excess of 50 acres and who regularly feed deer, turkey, and 94
other wildlife throughout the year. They do not hunt, nor will they allow anyone else to hunt on their properties.
Are we to tell these people that this practice is now illegal?
In working with hunting clubs, I can assure you that there are a number of these organizations that feed wildlife with no malicious intent. Many have high standards for their sport and would no more shoot a deer or bear over bait than they would commit some other serious crime.
Feeding deer is not a practice that we at Wildlife
Managers promote. We believe and have shown that funds can be better spent in terms of building a deer herd by managing the existing habitat.
Still, many camps and property owners continue to feed because it is a direct, easily understood management practice that makes people feel good. It is not so much different from proposed trapping and transport of rabbits or the idea of planting wild food mixes for wildlife.
When camps do continue to feed, we recommend that they begin their feeding during the fall and continue it through late April. Deer are ruminant animals. That is to say, they have four-chambered stomachs that utilize microflora to aid in digestion.
These species of microflora fluctuate with the season and diet. Different foods require different species of microflora to digest them. As the diet shifts, so must the 95
species of microflora in order to digest the new foods.
Microflora normally shift with the seasons as the diet changes. These shifts require several weeks to occur.
Deer on low energy/protein diets are not able to shift floral populations to high-quality foods quickly. These animals often suffer from rumen shutdown and die as a result of being fed high-quality foods.
Responsible feeding of deer must begin during the fall.
It cannot wait on an artificial clock based on what is con venient for law enforcement, but instead it must consider the biology of the animal.
We do not condone or endorse the killing of deer or bear over bait. We strong encourage the prosecution of those who stoop to such unsportsmanlike behavior.
However, just as we would not support the abolition of guns because some people use them in crimes, we cannot sup port a law that in order to simplify enforcement makes feeding wildlife illegal.
We would strongly encourage the law be amended to eliminate hunting with a reasonable radius of an active feeder, but not make feeding itself a crime.
Owning a handgun does not make me a criminal; and by the same logic, operating a feeder does not make someone a slob hunter.
We would also express concern and urge caution with 96
respect to page 64, lines 4 through 8, and pages 78 and 79,
lines 21 through 30 and 4 through 8.
These areas of the law address baiting and crop
residues.
We believe that the law needs to be more clearly
defined. Is it the intent to prevent people from placing
bait over which they hunt? In which case, we strongly sup
port it. Or is the intent to make crop manipulation as a wildlife management tool illegal at the discretion of the
enforcement officer?
Under these laws, would it be illegal to grow crops
which, in the part or the whole, are left standing for wild
life, while still allowing hunting in that area?
Crop manipulation is one of the piers upons which
wildlife management is built. It is actively practiced on
state gamelands for dove, deer, waterfowl, and turkey. It
is, and has been, actively encouraged on private lands by
nearly every state and federal wildlife agency.
Is it now appropriate to pass broad specturm laws
that, with some "discretion" decide if and when these prac
tices are appropriate and when they are not?
We are concerned that these laws look to the con
servation officers to determine hunter motives and ethics, a
role that these officers should not be required to fill.
We would submit that government cannot, nor should it, 97
attempt to fine-tune outdoor ethics. Such attemps unavoid ably either create laws which are so open to officer discretion that it is difficult to know what is legal and what is not in any particular district, or they are so restrictive that they impinge upon ethical sportsmen.
We will always have those individuals who will operate outside the ethical norm. Let's not penalize those of us that do not in an attempt to "collar" those that do.
An effort to raise the level of hunter awareness, skill, and ethics is an admirable and necessary goal. It is, however, not an objective that can be achieved through restrictive legislation. It must be accomplished through educational programs and leadership.
Finally, I would also like to mention that we are con cerned about change in the game law requiring a simple majority as opposed to a two-thirds vote. We would support to see the two-thirds maintained.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Very good. Thank you.
A few short comments. One is your questioning whether or not a person can grow a crop for feeding and would he be arrested for letting that stand for deer.
Harry — is Harry here?
We have already spoken to that in the law. Harry, go ahead and answer that portion of it. 98
MR. NOLF: That would be an exception. We advocate the planting of wildlife food. There would be no problem with your manipulating the land. As long as it was not practiced on the game lands, we would support it.
It might not be clear in the law. We can address that later on.
MR. SHISSLER: I am hoping that is the case, because
I sat down and reviewed the recodification with several con servation officers in the state, and it was their interpreta tion that it would be their discretion as to whether you were or were not doing something illegal, in which case the sports man is in a very difficult position to interpret the law.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Where you said that the people raise crops and never hunt and never use them for anything else, they are actually safe to do that as the law is written
now.
If you have specific findings, I would like to have
them from you. We would be sure to look at them good, because we want this clarified.
You question again back here, I think — I can pick it out real quick — when people put a feeder up — you know, it is not just the person who puts a feeder up. It is everybody
traveling the woods and learns where a feeder is.
Once you have a feeder, deer or anything else will
develop a definite trail to come to that feeder. 99
I really question what damage we are doing in the time span we are shutting off no feeding at all, because as I understand, when we really need the feeding, it is at a later date; we are talking when deer season is over.
That is the question which I would like you as a biologist to address, also. You are telling me about the different stomachs they have and things like this, which I am sure you understand better than I do.
The feed that they are actually giving deer does not enhance that deer anyhow, the way I understand it. Most of the people that are feeding deer — we have learned that if you don't feed them, you have less death in an area than you do if you do feed them.
There are studies that are coming out to tell us this.
I don't know if they are true, but these studies point this out.
MR. SHISSLER: I think this law will enhance that problem. Again, we do not recommend people to feed; but it is inevitable that people will feed, because it is a direct, easily understood management technique.
By requiring them or making it illegal to feed until
January, you actually enhance the problem of people feeding after the deer are already on a low-protein/high fibre diet.
Then they throw alfalfa and corn out there, and you have a very high risk, if the deer are in poor condition, of killing 100
deer.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: See, I am glad I asked this question. In other words, you would not object if we weren't allowed to feed deer at all, right?
MR. SHISSLER: Well, I would object to that as well.
As I pointed out in my testimony, there are people who own property who feed wildlife year-round simply out of interest in observing them.
The way I interpret this recodification document, and the way several conservation officers interpret it, is that that is illegal during the months from September to the end of deer season, whether you hunt on your property or not, specifically for the reasons you pointed out.
Someone else may know you have a feeder and trespass on your property. My question is: is it reasonable to restrict those people on their own property feeding wildlife for observation purposes in order to make it convenient for law enforcement?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: It is a difficult one.
MR. SHISSLER: It certainly is.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You know, we are not trying to stop people from enjoying the fact that they like to feed and see game. We are not trying to stop spotlighting either.
But so many people are arrested for it. I don't think the law is clear enough on the baiting, that some people 101
could get arrested not knowing what they are really doing.
So, what we are trying to do xs just eliminate the thing so that it wouldn't happen. Okay?
We weren't out to make it easier on the law enforce ment officer. We didn't think that way. What we were think ing of is the guy who gets caught shooting over bait that didn't even know bait was there or leaving your camp and going toward bait and you don't know what the regulation really says.
I read it several times. It was very unclear to me, if I had feed around, if I left my camp and went in different directions, but a bear happened to come back into that area and you shot it coming back in on a trail, and you could be arrested for it, because they actually claim you are shooting over bait.
What we did, I think, as a committee was try to eliminate the problem entirely so that the people wouldn't be arrested for that.
MR. SHISSLER: I can understand that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Maybe we didn't go about it right, but that was our intent.
MR. SHISSLER: And I appreciate that, and I think it is a good effort. But I would point out that there is very
strong anti-gun lobbying in this country, and they have the exact same approach to guns used in crime. If we eliminate 102
guns, we eliminate those crimes.
I think that there are a few people that are supportive of that kind of patch-all policy.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I understand the problem, believe me. How do we attack it, and what do we do? How do you make the language clear enough to speak to — say, I am a stranger coming into an area, and I happen to walk into an area where someone has fed and I don't know it. What do I do? I mean,
I get arrested for shooting over bait.
MR. SHISSLER: And if someone is placing out bait, even if it is illegal, and you are caught in the same situ ation, won't you be just as compromised?
Again, I agree with the suggestion that a certain radius around an active feeder either be required to be posted, which would eliminate such a problem, and it would be illegal to hunt within that certain radius, and that would seem to satisfy all of those concerned.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You have a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Let me give you an example.
Our daughter had six-and-a-half acres of land, and in back of it was a vast forest. She would raise particular hell when someone would come m around the feeder. She had three feeders in back of her house.
Deer came in there; squirrels; turkeys came in there to feed regularly at these three feeders.
_ 103
She used my jeep and went and bought corn on her own and put it in the feeders.
As far as I know, there was never anyone that came in around those feeders and shot any wildlife. But I recall one year when the crust was so thick on the snow — and she
fed them from early fall through the spring — that the deer couldn't even walk on it, you know, on this stuff.
Every morning about 7:00 in the morning there was a
flock of beautiful wild turkeys down there feeding at those feeders.
Now, do you think she was wrong in doing that?
I would contribute those feeders to saving at least
some of those turkeys, I think all of them, because I have observed them myself from time to time.
Now, was she wrong in doing that?
MR. SHISSLER: Representative, I am not suggesting
that feeding is wrong. I would say there are situations when
it is appropriate. But in working with private landowners,
in spending money to improve a deer herd, the money can be better spent managing habitat as opposed to feeding. An
individual —
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: You are referring to the Game
Commission?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No.
MR. SHISSLER: No. I am suggesting — there are many 104
clubs in the state that feed deer on their properties.
Oftentimes, their money is better invested in managing the habitat as opposed to feeding.
Well regulated feeding from a good biological stand point to avoid diseases that occur with that, there are situations where that is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: She had corn in those baskets from fall to spring. Was she wrong? Was she wrong for the good of the animal, even though there may not have been any one — the ground was posted, what she had; she had the feeders within her six-and-a-half acres. Was she wrong?
MR. SHISSLER: Well, that is an ethical question. If she was doing it from a biological — if she considered the biology of the animals she was feeding to avoid completing the life cycles of a number of parasites, then it becomes an ethical question, and I am not in a position to address that. That is a question the individual would have to address.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: She just loved to have the wildlife there. At the same time, she felt that she was doing something for the wildlife, especially in mid-winter, you know, when the snows became deep, and these animals came down there and would feed out of those three feeders.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I read studies — Clarence, just to tell you, I read studies — you are saying about having 105
deer come to feeders on heavy, crusted snow. If they break through that heavy crust and they cut themselves, then they weaken themselves and they become more susceptible to death than what they are if you let them alone and don't bring them into it.
There are all kinds of things you study on this and you read on it. Who do you believe? What is the real thing?
We just do not have a good understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Well, at that particular time, those deer were not traveling. I would suppose that they stayed, you know —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: They don't have to travel very far.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: I was talking about the turkeys were coming at that time.
MR. SHISSLER: If I may just make a brief comment, it is my assumption that this law is being considered on the basis of law enforcement.
I wasn't aware of any connection with problems with avoiding biological concerns of the deer's health as a result of feeding.
Is there, in fact, some concern that feeding is detrimental to deer and that is part of the logic behind this law?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes, some of it is correct. 106
There are problems there that are involved that have created this.
Are you saying that they shouldn't feed after the hunting season? They are really doing more damage to them than what they would if they didn't feed them?
MR. SHISSLER: I am suggesting that responsible feed ing of deer needs to begin before the deer are in declining health.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: A declining state.
MR. SHISSLER: And by limiting feeding until after
January or during January, as was pointed out, after people go to their properties during hunting season, they may not get back there until the end of January or mid-January when it becomes legal. If the deer are already in declinging health at that time when they initiate their feeding programs, the possibility of harming deer is much higher than if they began that program in the fall.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. Bobby Godshall?
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: I have a comment or two on this.
What we are assuming here — I don't think anybody who puts a feeder out has ulterior motives, which I dis agreed with in committee before.
One of the things that I still can't figure out is we are putting food plots out; food plots are allowed to be 107
put out. The Game Commission can put food plots out. On private property I can put a food plot out of corn, or buck wheat, or whatever. But it is illegal for me to harvest that and put it in a feeder at that point. If I leave it in the field, it is there, under the present rule that we have here.
If I leave it in the field, the deer and so forth can come in and eat it. But if I would dare harvest it and put it in a feeder on the same land, on the same plot, it would be an illegal activity at that point.
I just don't quite understand. You know, corn is corn. If it is on the stalk or if it is in the field, you know, it is just hard for me to conceive what we are trying to accomplish here.
I think everything here is really for enforcement more than anything else.
I totally agree with you about the rights of people who don't — some of them don't hunt at all — having a right to feed game year-round if they so wish.
I think this is more encompassing than I would really care to write into law.
As far as people just walking into a feeder situation or a baited situation, most of the feeders are on private property. You are not supposed to be on there anyway with out the landowner's knowledge. 108
I am positive if he has a feeder area, that shouldn't really be too difficult to translate to any hunters that he allows to go on his property, you know, where those feeders are.
I think it is too broad-reaching the way it is drafted here.
I agree with you on your concept of starting feeding in the fall; if you are going to feed, it should be done earlier. Then you build the deer up really for over the winter, and they are better able to take that winter, what ever may come.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. SHISSLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I would just make a comment, Bob.
You have a fence on the land that you own. There are not that many people who own that much land. I will guarantee you that there are a lot more feeders out there on public lands than you can shake a stick at.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: But they would be illegal
if they are out there on public land.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: They get permission to put them out there or anything else.
Okay. We are going to take a stenographer break. We will take a short break. 109
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Texas-Blockhouse Fish and Game Club,
MR. DURRWACHTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This testimony has been approved by our Board of
Directors of Texas and Blockhouse Fish and Game Club. There fore, I will start, gentlemen, I am George Durrwachter, a past president and present member of the Board of Directors of Texas and Blockhouse Fish and Game Club and appear this morning representing our membership which consists of 85 active members and 30 life members.
We are the owners of 6,000 acres of land in Pine
Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Our club has been in continuous existence since 1912.
The following is our official statement which has been approved by the Board of Directors of Texas and Blockhouse
Fish and Game Club.
Our club was formed with the principal objective of protecting and propagating game and fish. It is the position of the Texas-Blockhouse Fish and Game Club that certain of the proposed changes in the Pennsylvania Game Law set forth in the working draft would be detrimental to this objective.
We appreciate the opportunity to give testimony on these proposed changes. Since the game laws have not been revised for nearly 4 8 years, we recognize the need for a review and revision. 110
We fully support this legislative effort; however, many of the areas of change need very careful scrutiny before their final passage.
Since our testimony has been limited to ten minutes,
I will only address those areas of the proposed recodifica tion which we feel have the greatest negative impact on our club and others like us throughout the state. It is my hope that others will address their areas of concern.
Of particular concern are two portions of the Act, specifically, Subchapter A, Acquisition and Improvements,
Section 701(a), as it applies to eminent domain, and Sub chapter A, General Provisions, Section 2305, Feeding Game or
Wildlife. My remarks and testimony will be limited to those two sections.
Subchapter A, Section 7 01, Acquisition and Improve ments, Section 701(a), invisions giving the Commission the right of eminent domain in order to acquire title and control of lands, waters, buildings, oil, gas and minerals, hunting rights, easements, rights-of-way, and other interests.
We do not believe that the Pennsylvania Game
Commission should be given this awesome power of eminent domain.
Historically, the power of eminent domain has been given to governments and its agencies only when the govern ment needs to acquire private property for public use and it Ill
will serve the best interest of the majority of the citizens.
We sportsmen do not enjoy a majority status among the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and we do not believe that the Commission should be given this awesome power.
With only five members being present to constitute a quorum, it is possible for as few as three members of your
Commission to initiate action which would appropriate private property.
It is our belief that in recent years the process of eminent domain as a vehicle to acquire land has been diminish ing rather than increasing, and it is difficult for us to comprehend that this tool which has been used to reduce con struction costs for highway construction rights-of-way, and so forth, would be considered by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission to be used to take private lands for the purpose of providing recreation to others. We cannot support this proposal.
The most important of the two provisions which I have enumerated is Subchapter A, General Provisions, Section 2305, pertaining to feeding game and wildlife wherein it states as follows in Subparagraph (a), General Rule:
"It is unlawful to place, set or lay any artificial or natural bait, hay, grain, fruit, nut, salt, chemical, mineral or other food as an enticement for game and wildlife, 112
regardless of the kind and quantity between September 1 and the end of deer season in each license year."
And in conjunction with that, Section 2309(a),
General Rule, pertaining to unlawful devices and methods:
"Except as otherwise provided in this Title, it is unlawful for any person to hunt or take or aid, abet, assist or conspire to hunt or take any game or wildlife through the use of: ... (8) Any artificial or natural bait, hay, grain, fruit, nut, salt, chemical, mineral or other food as an enticement for game or wildlife, or take advantage of any such area of food or bait prior to 30 days after the removal of such material and its residue ..."
"Upon discovery of such baited areas, whether pro secution is contemplated or not, the Commission shall cause a reasonable area surrounding the enticement to be posted against hunting or taking game or wildlife. The posters shall remain for 30 days after complete removal of the bait."
Sportsmen in the past knew the true intent of the law, which was that if you baited an area and then sat and watched the area for game to feed, you were in violation of the law.
Many cases have been prosecuted with both the hunter and the Commission knowing what was intended.
The proposed legislation states that if you place any food edible by wildlife in a place where it can be consumed 113
by an animal or a bird, other than a songbird, you are entic ing wildlife and, therefore, will be in violation of the law.
The placing of feed upon which wildlife might feed in any place would be out of the question. The throwing of just a few apples into your back yard so that you could watch the deer from your window in the cool autumn evening would be a violation of the law.
It is not unreal to envision that this regulation change could allow disgruntled people to bait areas of another person's property just prior to the season and then notify the
Commission that the landowner has done so.
The Commission could close the owner's land or the hunting club's entire hunting season when, in fact, they had not committed the act for which they were being punished.
I use these illustrations only to show that in order to combat the unlawful practices of some persons who obviously are not sportsmen, but who are killing wildlife, the
Commission will be using a sledgehammer when it would be more appropriate to use a tack hammer.
It was only a few years ago that the Game Commission was in the feeding business in a big way. Today you can travel throughout the mountains of Pennsylvania and still find old, empty turkey feeders rotting away.
The Commission has spent millions of dollars develop ing food plots; yet when you walk through these same food 114
plots in the winter when the snow is on the ground, instead of deer and turkey tracks, you see the tracks of snowmobiles and the plowed up areas where the ATV's have been spinning their wheels.
This proposal of no feeding during the period in question may look good to the summer sportsman, but who is looking out for the game when they really need it?
The inconsistency of the Commission in light of this background and of its obvious change in policy and uncertainty on issues requires us to question the appropriateness of this type of regulation change.
It is our opinion that if we are going to have better hunting or continue to have the level of hunting that we presently enjoy, we must supplement the feed that is available to our wildlife.
The body reserve of our game will be built during the period of September until January and will sustain our game during the bleak and barren months of January, February, and
March.
You cannot wait until January, or after a severe winter has set in, to build up these body reserves. Our deer herd is chased and hunted without mercy prior to and after the Commission's season have closed.
The motorcycles, ATV's, and snowmobiles, both legal and illegal in their operations, constantly keep the deer on 115
the move, and there are some of us who wonder at the number of deer that do survive a season.
Our club has had a supplemental feeding program for as many years as our club has exxsted. We do not have tree stands, nor do we go out in the morning and hunt over the feeders.
Our club hunts in the hard, old-fashioned way, with organized drives participated in by drivers and watchers. We have breakfast at 7:30 a.m. and are ready to go hunting by
8:15 a.m. or 8:30. We usually make our last drive no later than 3:00 p.m., and we are back at the clubhouse by 4:00 or
4:15.
We have tried to plant food plots, and our planting has only met over the years with marginal success. Our ground is rocky, difficult to plow, and it would be cost- prohibitive to fertilize to the proper level.
We have found over the years that the most cost- effective means of supplementing the food supply of the wild life in our area was by purchasing quantities of corn and placing it in feeding stations for not only the deer, but also the turkeys.
The ideal situation would be to depend upon natural food. The forests of North Central Pennsylvania are tall with a large capony, and thus limit the growth of much needed browse. 116
This puts a great strain on our deer herd, and we believe that their food supply must be supplemented.
The oak in our area is dying, and the beech is in question for the future. The future does not look bright for wildlife without someone helping them.
It is our opinion that the salvation of our deer and turkey population may well rest with clubs such as ours that have feeding programs on a regular annual basis.
The passage of the regulation concerning feeding could well spell the death of the large hunting clubs such as ours as we know them today.
Our club is the largest taxpayer in Pine Township,
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. We do not use the services of the township often, so that the township uses those revenues on behalf of the permanent citizens of the township.
There are no large industrial complexes which will provide the necessary tax revenue for the township should our club cease to exist or should it become state game lands either by sale to the Commission or taken under the rights of eminent domain which it requests that it be given.
Our club has always worked closely with the Game
Commission and their local enforcement officers.
Just last year we invited our local enforcement officer, Ron Stout, to look over our feeding program in light of the arrests for hunting over bait that have been made in 117
our area.
Denny Dusza, another enforcement officer, accompanied
Stout, and they met with three of the members of our Board of
Directors and myself and evaluated our hunting practices.
Both of the officers advised us that they had no problem with our hunting procedures while corn was in the feeding stations, as long as no one stood watch in sight of the feeder during an organized drive.
We adhere to that prohibition, but for all practical purposes, it appears to us that the least likely path a deer would take while being driven in an organized drive would be near a feeding station, because that area is usually in an open area due to overbrowsmg.
The proposed changes in the game regulations which I have addressed today are contrary to the objectives and philosophy on which our club was founded almost 75 years ago.
We stand ready and willing to discuss these and other issues with you and to respond to any comments or questions you might have.
The passage of these regulations would have a very detrimental effect upon the hunting future not only of our club, but as all sportsmen know it today, and that no change be made in the present baiting regulations which the sportsmen know and understand.
We thank you for this opportunity to be heard. 118
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you.
First of all, do you have other people with you?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Yes. I have four other —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Could you give their names so that the stenographer can put in the record who xs here?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Luther Heim, Richard DeWald, Paul
Seaman, and Paul Asper.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay.
MR. DURRWACHTER: Paul Asper is not a member of our hunting club, and he is not representing us in any way.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You can accept the language as it is on condemnation today, what is already in the law today?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, I am not an attorney and so forth, but it is my belief that eminent domain is a much stronger term than condemnation.
I heard earlier, but not all — I was talking to some one — some of your discussion on condemnation.
There was a property in McHenry Township called the
Larson Farm which was taken through condemnation. I can tell you one thing.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Who took it?
MR. DURRWACHTER: The Game Commission.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Do you know the circumstances?
MR. DURRWACHTER: I do not know all of the circum stances. This happened back in the 1950's. It was before Mr. 119
Duncan's time.
MR. LOVETTE: McHenry Township?
MR. DURRWACHTER: McHenry Township.
MR. LOVETTE: Lycoming County?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Lycoming County.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Well, we have no problem with putting the word "condemnation" back in there. There is no problem at all with that wording, since we have already stated the main reason and the other reason we are going to do it is just for title search clear; okay.
Do you think that would be satisfactory with your group?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, I really think that you own enough land and so forth around the state. You take an area where I am from, Brown Township, Lycoming County; 80 percent of the land is either owned by the Game Commission or DER.
Now, their tax base is, you know, almost nothing; and yet with the continued increase of these hunting pressures, bow and arrow, and throughout, people are coming up there and camping all over the area, leaving their rubbish, and these people have to pick up the expense of taking that to a land fill. They are kind of locked in.
So, from my own personal feelings, I think that it should be extremely limited. I think that if you are going to have it, it has to be reviewed by different committees, 120
not just the Game Commission; but there ought to be a series of hearings and so forth before any condemnation would be done by the Commission.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. We will be taking this under consideration. We will be discussing it in its entirety.
It has come up in almost every meeting. So, we will be dis cussing it.
I think with the language that we have discussed, you know, in just having it for that one purpose, clearing title,
I think it is probably necessary to clear those titles in cases of old titles.
It is not a fact that you are going to stop them from buying land anyhow.
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, if you put it in there, Mr.
Chairman, so that people understand it — but when you say,
"eminent domain," or "condemnation," that puts up a red flag.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: But you understand this is not a change.
MR. DURRWACHTER: Oh, I understand that you have had condemnation —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The only thing that was changed was in place of "condemnation." It really doesn't do anything else other than it sounds stronger.
We will be taking it under consideration, and we will deal with it and hope we can make it palatable to everybody. 121
Yes?
MR. LOVETTE: George, for the record, we had had an individual testify at the Milesburg hearing, a Mr. Hart. It is our understanding that he testified as a member of your group, not as an official spokesman of your group; is that correct?
MR. DURRWACHTER: He testified as an individual, yes.
MR. LOVETTE: All right. Your testimony is the testimony that is sanctioned by your membership?
MR. DURRWACHTER: That is correct. It was sanctioned by the Board of Directors and for the membership.
MR. LOVETTE: In Milesburg, whenever we had sportsmen come before the Committee, we asked them two questions, and all of the other Committee hearings.
The two questions were: what is the position of your club, organization, or membership relative to the inclusion of House Bill 388 that would do away with leg-hold traps, the use of leg-hold traps in Pennsylvania?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, I am sorry I am not a trapper and so forth. I really have no comment on that.
MR. LOVETTE: Okay. Could you go back to your member ship and ask them: do you have a position relative to it and for that position?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Jim, we have a hunting and fishing club. I know of no one in our club that is a trapper. 122
MR. LOVETTE: Okay.
MR. DURRWACHTER: So, I would prefer not to give testimony on somebody else's behalf.
MR. LOVETTE: Thank you.
The second question is: it has been proposed that the
Pennsylvania Game Commission establish an Advisory Board to be made up of members of various groups in Pennsylvania society that hunting impacts on, such as the farming community, the trapping community, the archers, so on and so forth; have you people ever mulled the idea or discussed the idea of the Game
Commission establishing an advisory group similar to the
Advisory Board that the Fish Commission has?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Again, Jim, I am unfamiliar with your proposal. It would seem to me that the intent, the way it has been drafted, to set up the Commission, that we have a commissioner from eight geographic districts, and I would hope that the intent was that we could use his ear to get our problems to you.
It would, again, depend on who made up this Advisory
Board. I think it is just another part of the bureaucracy.
I am not so sure that I can support that personally. I am only speaking from the personal side.
MR. LOVETTE: Okay. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: One question.
Mr. Durrwachter, thank you very much for your 123
testimony. I would like to ask you a question on nothing you have testified about, and that is the issue of should hunters be permitted to carry their guns in the woods after a legal taking of big game.
I have a draft proposal which I have given to you that has some language that will, in effect, prohibit the possession of a gun, a hunter carrying it in the woods, after he gets his deer. If he wants to go out and drive and help his friends out or if he just leaves his gun back at camp or in his car, whatever, that is okay.
Would your organization be willing to offer —
MR. DURRWACHTER: I can only give you my own personal opinion on it. What is the intent of your regulation? Are you afraid somebody is going to shoot a second deer?
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Probably.
MR. DURRWACHTER: That is your intent?
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Yes.
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, it is my personal belief that
I have been given the right to carry and bear a firearm. I would feel that I would like to have a firearm when I am out participating in a drive in case of getting lost or injuring myself, that I could fire maybe a warning shot.
Until I have actually fired the gun and shot at a second deer or tried to attempt to kill a second deer, I haven't committed a wrong. 124
I feel that what you are doing here is just nailing another nail in the coffin of gun control. I would hate to support that type of regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: If I may, I would just like to respond to that. Present Game Commission policy restricts the possession of firearms in three instances.
Number one, during archery season, you are not allowed to have a gun.
Number two, during muzzleloader season, you are only allowed to hunt deer with a muzzleloader. You are not allowed to be carrying a rifle out there.
Number three, you are not allowed to have a gun in your vehicle when you are spotlighting deer at night.
So, there already exist three, as you want to call them, perhaps, infringements on your right to bear arms, which I think are a common sense approach to solving game law violations.
Fourthly, a restriction to bear arms is in airports.
I happen to think that that is a very wise one as well.
Just as a wise judge once noted, the right to free speech does not give an individual the unlimited right to run into a crowded movie house and scream, "Fire."
So, too, I believe, a small infringement on a sports man's right in the interest of long-term game management I don't think is something that really infringes on the right to 125
bear arms.
I do happen to think and have seen firsthand and have heard from many law enforcement personnel of a problem with individuals taking their guns out in the woods — and frankly,
I appreciate your concern about getting lost. I would just suggest that a flare gun or something else to make noise would be much more appropriate than a gun.
I myself as a hunter often hear three consecutive shots in the woods when I am hunting. I never run to see if someone is lost. I just assume that they are shooting at a deer.
I don't think that a gun is probably the best thing if you are trying to call attention if you are lost in the woods. A gun is not the best instrument to call attention to your problem.
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, you are privileged to your own opinion. I also firmly believe that everybody knows that you fire three shots in the air late at night or whenever, that somebody in our area realizes someone is lost.
There are also wildcats in our area. There have been coyotes and so forth. Should you fall and break a leg, you might also need some protection. So, why would you take the privilege away from somebody because a few abuse the privilege?
Secondly, just because you have those laws already on the books doesn't necessarily make them right. There are many 126
people that could go out and spotlight and well have a gun in their car with no intention whatsoever of shooting a deer.
You would almost have to be drunk or retarded in order to do that, simply because as the law is presently written, if you were caught with that, well, you are going to lose your gun, you are going to lose your car and everything there that is in it. Now, I think that is a pretty stiff penalty.
I would say, you know, until the person commits the crime — I can teach you to rob banks; but until you actually rob one, you haven't committed a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Would you be willing then to support language that wouldn't prohibit the possession of a gun, but would rather restrict it to a gun that is not normally used to kill deer?
MR. DURRWACHTER: Absolutely not. For what reason would you do that?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Let me interject. I am trying to tell you all that this is moot. Until someone challenges that court decision in Clinton County, this is all moot, you know, what we are talking about. We are just wasting our time.
Until that is challenged and overturned, you people are going to be arrested for carrying a gun in Clinton County, probably in Potter County; those counties around there, everybody is aware of that decision now. 127
I have heard from judges in Centre County; they say the same thing.
So, until that is overturned, that decision that Judge
Brown made, there is not very much anybody can do about it.
MR. DURRWACHTER: First of all, I am unfamiliar with what you are talking about. Secondly, I am not going to hunt in Clinton County. We are hunting in Lycoming.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: But your judge could look at that as a precedent that has already been set.
MR. DURRWACHTER: That is possible.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Can I interject?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: If we put in here that a man can carry his gun after he has shot his game, isn't that the law?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: If we change the law.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: You have it in there now.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Will not carry a loaded firearm.
MR. DURRWACHTER: That isn't what the gentleman here asked me.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: No.
MR. DURRWACHTER: He said I couldn't carry any gun.
He said he had draft legislation that he was going to intro duce along that line. So, that changes what I thought the law 128
was going to be.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No.
MR. DURRWACHTER: I can live with what you are saying, an unloaded firearm. I think that is a fair compromise.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The Game Commission has clearly stated to us that they could live with that language, right?
MR. DUNCAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: And they could also live with my language, they said this morning, right?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: He said they could.
What we are saying George, that one court case up there just stands in the way of doing what we want to do. So, we have to try to do something with it. What we did was say,
"an unloaded firearm." By putting that in there, now we can carry that unloaded firearm in the woods.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: Regardless of the court decision.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes; but you can't without it.
So, what we tried to do was remedy a situation that exists that no one challenged.
I don't want the people to go out thinking we were — my total aim was not to restrict, but to make it so that that arrest could not continually be made on that man.
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: Isn't it true that any future decisions that are made by the courts would be based upon the 129
present law; and that if you are changing the law here, if you are saying, "unloaded guns," that it means "unloaded guns," that didn't exist in the previous law?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: That is right. That is what we thought.
I think it is a misunderstanding of what we are trying to do. I hope it is clearly understood what we are trying to do.
MR. DURRWACHTER: Mr. Chairman, I really am here with strong endorsement for a feeding program. We have 6,000 acres; however, we cannot manage 6,000 acres becase of steep slopes and rocky terrain and ground that you just have to fertilize like the devil in order to get a bushel of corn. For that reason —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Would you invite our committee up to your —
MR. DURRWACHTER: You sure may; you are invited.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We would like to come. You make it official. Go ahead and set it up. I would like to come up there.
MR. DURRWACHTER: It is official. You tell me who would like to come, and we would love to have you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I would have to get the Fish and
Game Committee, and I would have to explain to them what it is and hope that they would join me. 130
MR. DURRWACHTER: Well, what I will do, Russ, is see that you have a letter sent to you inviting you, and you tell us.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Your feeding program — just one thing I am going to tell you. We will take a look at it. We are going to have to take a look at it, because it is one of the points that has really been brought out by everybody.
We thought we were keeping people from being arrested, a lot of us that wanted to see that during that period of time.
We did not think we were interfering with the feeding of game at the time when they most needed it. Maybe we were wrong.
That is why it is a proposal that you have got in front of you, so we can rehash everything that is brought out in these committee meetings.
With that, I thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE GODSHALL: Do we have time for one question?
I think one of the members of your group from Lock
Haven spoke to me earlier about his own feeding operations on his own farm. I think for the record that he should have entered that for benefit of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Paul, just give your name.
MR. ASPER: Okay. Briefly, our discussion was this — first of all, my name is Paul Asper; I am from Lock Haven. 131
I would like you, also, Russ, to see my farm, and your committee also, and what I have done there.
I have 250 acres. It is a private wildlife refuge.
It is a 250-acre propagation area run for the Pennsylvania
Game Commission and the Pennsylvania sportsmen cost-free.
I practice all of the wildlife management practices that many times they don't: winter feeding, a year-round feeding program, predator control, habitat improvement, timber stand improvement. I allow a couple deer each year to be harvested, a couple buck.
Probably I raise between 40 and 50 turkeys each year on that farm. When the first frost hits, the mass crop comes down, the acorns; the turkeys are gone. That is why I call it a propagation area.
This year we probably had approximately 30 fawns that we grew. My deer population is pretty much stable at about
6 0 to 65 deer, is what we see on a good evening. That seems to be where it has reached the peak. From there on, it is a natural spillover.
I have a feeder right now, a 40-bushel capacity feeder.
My wife and I roll apples out there. It is filled year-round.
We have doves coming in there, probably 4 0 or 50 mourning doves, all of the different songbirds, the squirrels, the turkeys. Of course, they only hit that, you know, when the other foods aren't available, when there is deep snow or 132
a hard crust.
I don't want to lose my freedom. My wife and I enjoy that wildlife too much. We have fox; we have raccoon, opossum, skunk, red and grey fox, coyote. I just don't want to lose that freedom to do what I want to.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. I will guarantee you that we are going to — we have to take a look at it.
MR. ASPER: I would love to have you, Russ, and your committee.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You know, I thought we were doing the right thing. Maybe we are; maybe we aren't. I don't know,
We will review everything that has been said.
MR. ASPER: The problem is the law, I think. A lot of times it protects the criminal more than the citizen.
The year before last, I found out that on the border of the water company next to me there was a bear killed there.
Well, there was no shooting. So, I and a young boy who was staying with Carol and I at that time, we went over, and we looked around. There is an old back-door privy there. I got an oak stick and I put a couple nails in it. There was a plastic bag in there floating around. The bear was killed the night before on that feeder, and John Hancock couldn't make a case out of it.
It was one of your Lock Haven cops, his boy that tagged the bear. He as much as told them to go fly a kite. 133
You know, "Here is the name of my attorney." This is the problem.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Well, maybe we need to look at the importance of those laws as we have them and see if we can make them better.
MR. ASPER: Because a drunk driver kills someone out on the highway, you don't take the driving privileges from everybody.
Because these people violate the game law and shoot animals over bait, I don't want to lose my privilege. Let's catch those guys.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We have had clubs and organiza tions in the past — 2,200 members in one club — and they really support doing what we are doing.
You know, this becomes a very difficult thing, when you have clubs that size, and we have heard them time and time again testify.
Some of these problems, though, maybe they just don't have in those areas. I know the area that we live in, and I know we have some of those problems maybe more prevalent than others.
MR. ASPER: I know, Russ, it is abused. I am torn at times between what you want to do, what the Game Commission wants to do. I don't think the price is too high.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: It infringes on the rights of 134
people too far; that is what I am always afraid of, too.
What we will do is we are going to have to really hash over this feeding program and the carrying of an unloaded firearm. As I have said before, we have injected language there that I thought would suffice to take over in saying that you could carry a firearm the second day as long as it wasn't a firearm legal to take a deer with or big game. We will just have to hash these over and see what we can come up with.
Of course, every one of those things will be put before the entire Committee to be voted on.
MR. ASPER: May I say one more thing?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. ASPER: I was very much surprised at the testimony of the girl from the Grange against this feeding of wildlife, because to me it is going to increase the farmers' problems.
There is going to be an increase of crop damage.
One of the things that I don't think any of you gentlemen realize — I have three mineral or salt-lick places on my farm. Russ, you know the Coudersport Pike; every camp has a salt block. You are going to have a dramatic increase in highway kills and deer mortality, because they are going to come to the roadside berm for calcium.
Instead of 25,000 or 28,000 deer killed, you might have 35,000 or 40,000 deer killed on your highways.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Let us take a good look at it. 135
Thank you.
MR. ASPER: Thank you, gentlemen. I didn't, expect to speak.
REPRESENTATIVE LETTERMAN: Steve Wentzler.
MR. WENTZLER: Mr. Chairman, Representatives, I am
Steve Wentzler of Lehigh County; I am a District Director of the Pennsylvania Trappers Association.
With me today is Mr. Gary Walter of Perry County; and right behind me is my personal mentor in a great many things,
Mr. Vince Megargel, our state vice-president, of Monroe
County.
We are here this morning — this afternoon by now — to represent the official views of the Pennsylvania Trappers
Association.
Part of our charter is that we are chartered as a non profit organization of Pennsylvania trappers, fur hunters, and buyers dedicated to the conservation of fur-bearing animals and the promotion of proper fur laws.
We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and express our concerns and offer comment as part of the recodification process, and we invite your comments and questions.
With only two real exceptions, our comments will per tain to the fur-taking regulations found in Subchapter D, pages 91 and 93, of the recodification workings. 136
You should now be in possession of our official position paper.
The one part we would like to comment on does not appear in Subchapter D and involves license fee to fur buyers, as we do represent the more than 300 licensed fur buyers in the State of Pennsylvania.
If I may read: the License Fee Increase for Fur Buyers and Non-resident Fur Buyers — we oppose this high of an increase, which represents a 300 percent increase. We favor a fee of $50 for resident fur buyers and a $150 charge to non resident fur buyers.
These proposed amounts would represent a 100 percent increase and would be more in line with today's weak economy.
Any attempt to place an exorbitant fee on non-resident fur buyers, which would in turn discourage them from doing business with trappers and other resident fur buyers in
Pennsylvania, as one hand often washes the other across state lines, the PTA does not feel that this would be in our best interest or that of our member buyers.
In Subchapter D, we wish to comment on the matter of trap tags. We do not support the idea of having the middle initial included on the metal trap tag at this time.
Hundreds of thousands of trap tags are currently in use without the middle initial being present. Nonetheless, the trap owner's first and last name and complete mailing 137
address are present on that tag, and the trap is readily identifiable as being his.
We do not see where applying a middle initial on the trap tag would increase enforcement or prosecution of trap law violations over the present system.
Also, trappers would incur the needless expense of replacing all of their present trap tags with little benefit to anyone except for the one or two people in Pennsylvania and
Ohio who are in the business of selling trap tags.
We appreciate the Game Commission's and the
Legislature's position on this. We would ask that if this must be, that it be perhaps over a five-year time period.
Within a five-year time span many trappers order fresh trap tags, change addresses and have to order a whole new slug; and that would not create the financial burden that such a sudden change would.
A very big bone of contention for us is the 24-hour trap visitation period. We strongly oppose this change.
Instead we recommend the change to read that traps must be checked each calendar day.
It is not feasible to always be able or capable to check every trap within one 24-hour period.
To be within the letter of the law in this, gentlemen, we would have to be checking our traps in less than a 24-hour period. 138
While the ethical trapper, which is the very vast majority of people, I would hope to say, in our association, is out there checking his traps the very first thing every morning, in many cases before daylight, this creates quite a dilemma; in that if we are to hold to the letter of the law, we must be out there in considerably less time than that 24 hours.
There is an exposed bait parcel in the recodification which pertains to baiting a trap with meat or animal products if the bait is visible from the air.
We are opposed to this proposed law, because as written it is very vague and does not define animal products which may or may not be used.
Many lures, baits, and even fox urine are animal pro ducts or made from animal by-products.
We understand the intent of the law here. We would hope to have opportunity to submit wording to you in the very least to accomplish what you and we both wish to accomplish in a clear manner.
Deadfalls; we oppose the current proposal limiting deadfalls, making them totally illegal. Instead we recommend that the deadfall be placed in the authority of the Game
Commission, similar to the snare at the present time, thus providing the Pennsylvania Game Commission with the option to permit this type of trapping in the future if need should 139
arise.
One of the last items in Subchapter D which concerns us is use of cage or box traps for underwater use. At issue here is the use of traps such as this for muskrat trapping.
These traps serve a purpose when trapping ponds and waterways where either wild or domestic ducks and geese frequent. Such small cage traps prevent the accidental catch of these migratory birds or domestic fowl and still permit the trapping of muskrats.
I think it is very legitimate, as stated here, that probably only 1 percent of all traps used are of this nature, posing no great threat to existing muskrat populations.
We propose that underwater cage traps be considered an important wildlife management tool and oppose the recom mendation that it be outlawed.
Lastly — and this was overlooked in our official draft here — there is the matter of small size body-gripping traps on dry land.
On page 92, lines 17 and 18 — I am sorry; lines 20 and 21 and 22, to use or set a body-gripping trap of any description outside an established water forest, waterway, marsh, pond, or dam, at issue here is the use of small body- gripping traps, six-and-a-half inches across or less.
We feel that these traps can be set responsibly and used in a very responsible, humane manner for the harvest of 140
animals such as muskrats outside the water forest, mink on dry land, and even raccoon without posing a hazard to domestic animals in particular, and certainly no hazard to anything else.
That then is our official position. The one thing we would like to comment on in addition to that is the matter of carrying firearms after the taking of a big game animal.
I am sure we can get to that in due course of time, but we would be pleased to entertain any questions or comments that you might have.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I don't think we have any.
I just can tell you that we are going to look to the five-year period and the calendar day. We will look at those two very closely. This was brought up at our other meetings.
So, we will be looking at that.
Thank you very much.
MR. WENTZLER: On this matter of the carrying of fire arms after the taking of a deer, for example, we might ask that you at least give recognition to the fact that a dry land fox and raccoon trapper has legitimate need for, particularly, a .22-caliber firearm. In that deer season, if he should take a deer early in the season, he has very legitimate reason to have a firearm with him checking his traps subsequent to taking that deer.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Then that language I proposed 141
would suit you, of being able to carry a firearm —
MR. WENTZLER: Being able to carry a firearm —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — not legal for the taking of big game?
MR. WENTZLER: — not legal for the taking of deer.
And if you wish to limit that further, we might sug gest to you that the individual have a current fur-taker's license, as we now for the first time in the Commonwealth's history have a separate fur-taker's license.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Fine. Thank you very much.
Richard Weaver, National Wild Turkey Federation,
Pennsylvania Chapter.
We are not catching up, but we are getting closer.
MR. WEAVER: Someone once told me that getting actively involved politically as a citizen, a taxpayer, would change my life. Based on the way the schedule is run ning, in the course of this day I will be unemployed and divorced.
My name is Richard Weaver. I am currently the
Public Relations Chairman representing the Pennsylvania State
Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation.
The last full meeting of our Board of Directors was in August. At such time, we did not have access to the text of the recodification. For that reason, a lot of the issues within there we did not take any formal action on. 142
However, I can assure this committee and Mr. Chairman that through correspondence following our November meeting you will probably be hearing more from us in writing on some of the other issues.
What I have done, under advisement of my state chapter, was to just touch on a couple of issues that are important to us in this recodification.
There are a lot of things in there that we are very pleased to see. We thank those that are responsible for taking on that momumental task of doing this recodification.
So, I will briefly go through my written testimony here and then entertain any questions you may have at the end.
Mr. Chairman and honorable committee members, the
Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey
Federation wishes to thank this committee for the opportunity to study this proposed working draft recodification of the
Pennsylvania Game Law and to appear before you to express our concerns and offer recommendations and suggestions for con sideration before adopting this recodification into law.
The Pennsylvania State Chapter, through its very active legislative committee, prides itself on staying on top of and responding to all pending legislation and its potential effects on the environment, the natural resources, and the sportsmen of Pennsylvania, whether that response be in opposi tion to or in support of such legislation. 143
In the case of this very valuable, and long overdue, recodification of the game law, the Pennsylvania State Chapter strongly supports the efforts of all those responsible for seeing the need to bring the game laws of this state into the 1980's.
Much of the new language and many of the proposed changes within the pages of this modern text deserve closer evaluation and direct discussion regarding their potential effects on the wildlife of Pennsylvania.
I realize, however, that the privilege to appear before this committee today must come with certain under standable restrictions, the most obvious of which is time.
In light of this fact, I will, on behalf of the
Pennsylvania State Chapter, restrict my testimony to those issues and changes which we feel need to be addressed con sidering their value to our organization and to all sportsmen of Pennsylvania who are truly committed to conservation and the preservation of the tradition of turkey hunting.
We strongly endorse the law which prohibits any hazardous, radioactive, or toxic waste facilities on Commission lands.
We further support the addition to the game law which would prohibit the wanton waste of wildlife, requiring a reasonable effort be made to retrieve game which is killed or wounded. 144
It is regrettable that what should exist as an act of conscience must be included in this recodification. It is, however, commendable that its author chose to do so.
The Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Wild
Turkey Federation understands the message which this new law sends and will continue to emphasize the need for ethics education in its service to the resource.
We support the long overdue increases in most penal ties for those found guilty of violating the game law. For those of us who absolutely detest this unforgivable conduct which occurs far too often throughout the state, the increases are still insufficient.
However, in light of the inadequate penalties now being imposed, we feel the new figures represent a more realistic application of justice.
One of the most satisfying, and much deserved, changes in this recodification in the minds of the Pennsylvania State
Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation and the thousands of other dedicated turkey hunters in the state is the reclassification of the wild turkey to the status of "big game."
With the adoption of this reclassification there comes a justifiable fear among turkey hunters. That fear is the risk that the Pennsylvania Game Commission, at a time of their determination, may require, by law, the mandatory requirement 145
under Section 2524 that would require the wearing of fluorescent orange material while hunting wild turkeys in
Pennsylvania.
Because of the lack of sufficient research and study regarding this issue, the Pennsylvania State Chapter cannot support any action by the Game Commission to attempt to reduce the number of turkey hunting related mishaps by requiring all hunters going afield to wear even a portion of the minimum required for deer, bear, or woodchuck hunting under the present law.
To force this bandaid approach to safer hunting upon the turkey hunters of this state can only further delay the development of a much more effective method of making turkey hunting safer — education.
To date, the only effort made by the Game Commission to provide the sportsmen of Pennsylvania with a scientific study of the effects of fluorescent orange on the sport of turkey hunting was the Penn State study in which the
Pennsylvania State Chapter participated.
This amateurish attempt to provide sound scientific data fell well short of reaching minimal acceptable standards expected from such a study.
The only thing learned from this haphazard, un scientific project is that we, the Pennsylvania State Chapter, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and you, the House Game 146
and Fisheries Committee, must not ignore the value of hunter safety education in reducing turkey hunting accidents; and insist that before any funds are expended on future studies to determine the role of fluorescent orange in the sport of turkey hunting, such research be conducted by creditable, professional wildlife biologists using proven scientific methods.
Until such time as a study becomes available to justify the use of fluorescent orange while turkey hunting, the Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey
Federation requests the following change be considered and made law under this new recodification.
Since the present language of the proposed recodifica tion of the game laws of Pennsylvania does not specifically exempt the turkey hunters of this state from being required to wear fluorescent orange during any open season, and whereas to this date the Pennsylvania Game Commission has not suf ficiently researched the effects of daylight fluorescent orange on the sport of turkey hunting and made available to the sportsmen of Pennsylvania any scientific data resulting from such a study, the Pennsylvania State Chapter of the
National Wild Turkey Federation requests that under Chapter 25,
Section 2524, lines 15 through 18, be changed to include, "and any open season established for the hunting of wild turkey."
The Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Wild 147
Turkey Federation will continue to make hunter safety education of present and future turkey hunters one of our top priorities,
We stand ready to offer our support and participation in any studies regarding this important issue.
As I stated in the beginning of this testimony, there are many changes within the recodification which should be given a closer look. We trust that this committee will re examine all the changes before committing them to law.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Very good. Thank you very much.
Does anyone have any questions?
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: I just have one question.
I have noticed in the last year or so the camouflage orange material that some hunters seem to be using. Do you have any experience with that or any feelings about it?
MR. WEAVER: I haven't personally used it, and no one that I am associated with that I know of has used it to do any turkey hunting.
That type of covering and blending of the fluorescent orange camouflage pattern was used in this Penn State study in a cap. Again, because the results coming out of that study were so bad, I don't know that any positive or negative influence of that material has been determined.
No other studies, to my knowledge, to this date using it have been done.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: So, it is all a guess at 148
this point?
MR. WEAVER: Right.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I appreciate your comments. As
I have been saying, we are going to have to study it. Let's make sure it is done when we get the reports on it. For some reason we are not getting those kinds of reports in doing this type of research.
I have sort of had this as a fault for quite a few years.
By the way, I forgot to introduce Bruce Smith. We are very glad to have Bruce with us today.
Bruce, do you have a question?
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Yes, one quick question.
I guess the bottom line on why you oppose fluorescent is that you believe the turkeys might be able to see fluorescent?
MR. WEAVER: Right. We are concerned that it will have a direct effect on hunters' success ratios and in some way take the sport of turkey hunting traditionally as it is known and have a tremendous impact on it.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Following up on that, is there a state or national study to reflect whether or not this is, indeed, a fact, that turkeys can recognize and see fluorescent?
MR. WEAVER: Presently, the only study completed — and I am not aware of any that are in the process right now — 149
is one that was done in Virginia.
If you were to use it as the final word, their results were that it did drastically reduce hunters' success ratios.
That is one study.
It is a good study, compared to what we have been able to see so far anywhere else.
As the organization, we are probably guilty of being almost too conservative. One study doesn't satisfy us pro or con.
But at this time, to answer your question, that is the only study that we are aware of that has been completed providing any sound information.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Thank you.
Thank you, Russell.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay; thank you.
Jack Fidler, Pennsylvania Dog Owners Protective
Association.
MR. LOVETTE: We have received a position from the
Pennsylvania State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey
Federation relative to House Bill 388 just it by itself.
Have you people taken a position relative to the inclusion of House Bill 388 into the game law?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Fur trappers.
MR. WEAVER: You are referring to the banning of —
MR. LOVETTE: The Murphy Bill. 150
MR. WEAVER: The Pennsylvania State Chapter has formally been opposed to the banning of the leg-hold trap.
MR. LOVETTE: What about the inclusion of that into this recodification? Are you in favor of including it in the recodification or not?
MR. WEAVER: Including it —
MR. LOVETTE: The banning of leg-hold traps, basically,
MR. WEAVER: No.
MR. LOVETTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay; thank you very much.
MR. WEAVER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Jack Fidler, Pennsylvania
Dog Owners Protective Association.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay, sir.
MR. FIDLER: Okay. Mr. Chairman and other respected members of the Game and Fisheries Committee, my name is Jack
Fidler. I am an officer of the Pennsylvania Dog Owners
Protective Association. We welcome this opportunity to make our views known on the recodification or proposed changes in the game law.
Section 2384, Declaring Dogs a Public Nuisance, (a),
Small Game Violations: we feel these provisions are very harsh and extreme.
In our opinion, there is an animal that roams the 151
fields and woods for 24 hours each day for 365 days each year and has a far greater impact on small game and bird popula tions than dogs.
The Game Commission and Department of Agriculture have been looking the other way for far too long concerning the roamings of the ordinary house cat.
We feel that this section is very discriminating against dogs; and until corrected, we cannot accept such harsh legislation.
There are times when a dog slips his collar, escapes his enclosure, and may wander off the premises in search of rabbits or other small game. As provided in this section, the dog in question may be shot by any number of people, but we feel that there has to be a better way.
The method of apprehension and prosecution for adequate compensation seems much more fair and equitable.
Section 2384, Declaring Dogs a Public Nuisance, (b),
Big Game Violations: dogs chasing deer has been a very controversial subject for many years, both within and outside the Game Commission.
A typical reaction from a northern tier county game warden stated that, "Any dog given the chance will chase and kill deer."
We love these all-encompassing statements. Our assessment in one word, "ridiculous." 152
Another statement by a Game Commission biologist states that, "Depredations by dogs have a minimal effect on the deer herd of Pennsylvania."
Incidentally, both of these statements were taken from the "Pennsylvania Game News."
This, the biologist's statement, we feel, is a more accurate assessment of the situation.
Every year we are bombarded with figures of dog- related deer kills of 500, 600, and more. We have gone on record before and we would like to do so once again. We question the validity of these figures and prefer to have no statistics rather than statistics obtained by questionable methods.
We feel that the methods used to obtain these figures are unsatisfactory; therefore, the statistics themsleves are flawed.
In our opinion, only a small percentage of dog- related deer kills are actually observed or confirmed by witnesses or proven evidence.
We feel that a large percentage of reported dog- related deer kills are actually unrecovered deer wounded by hunters either during bow and arrow, rifle, or muzzleloader seasons, which span close to two months of deer hunting.
Also in this category are deer that are hit by vehicles with injuries enabling them to stray from the scene 153
of the accident.
These wounded deer become sitting ducks for anything that comes along and in most cases succumb later anyway. A healthy deer can hold its own against any danger out there in the wilds.
In the State of Texas, a similar problem was en countered, and I am happy to report that their government at least took a more realistic approach to the situation than we have in Pennsylvania.
Instead of passing overly restrictive and unfair legislation based on unfounded hysteria, they ran a scientific study through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on chasing and hunting deer with dogs.
This radio-telemetric study, dubbed "Operation Bow-Wow," was done in San Jacinto, Polk, and Tyler Counties. The results as provided by Randy Cessna of Box 272, Hardin, Texas,
ZIP Code 77561, were as follows:
One, no deer were run down or caught by dogs. Even after 25 or 30 chases, all deer returned to their home range.
Two, all does harvested in January were bred with the exception of only one. Evidently, the chasing by dogs did not affect the breeding cycle of the does.
Three, blood samples, taken from deer that were being chased by hounds when killed, were tested at Texas A&M
University. The results revealed that dogs do no biological 154
harm to deer herds during a chase. There was no stress evident in the blood samples, proving that the deer were in control of the situation.
Being a member of the agricultural community, I told a neighbor about these proposed changes and was further enlightened by his statements. He thought for a minute, then said, "Would you relay a little message for me?" I agreed, and he then said, "Anyone who shoots any of my dogs merely for supposedly following on the track of a deer will have a lot less tracks to follow the next year, I assure you."
This farmer has from 3 0 to 40 deer in his fields competing with his dairy cattle for feed every night. His farm, incidentally, adjoins a large tract of state game lands.
If necessary, his name will be furnished upon request.
Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot in our haste to draw our guns.
We have no objection to the destruction of a dog that has actually pulled a deer down or is in the process of doing so, but to merely shoot a dog for simply following on the track is outrageous.
Since we have assisted in numerous court cases throughout the state for quite a few years, we find that the average juror takes a dim view of the unjustified shooting of dogs, proven by recent monetary awards.
Our policy has been and will continue to be to make 155
the unjustified shooting of dogs without sufficient evidence an expensive hobby.
Section 2385, Destruction of Dogs Declared a Public
Nuisance, (b), Reports After Killing Dog: we feel it should be compulsory for any person who kills a licensed or properly identified dog to notify the owner and a Commission officer within 24 hours after the killing of that dog.
Section 2385, Destruction of Dogs Declared a Public
Nuisance: we are opposed to the waiver of 18-PA-CS and 5511 and also to the waiver of 4 2-PA-CS-Ch 85.
In our opinion, any dog owner of the State of
Pennsylvania, be it a pet owner, hunting dog owner, farm dog owner, or working dog owner, should have the peace of mind of knowing that his dog has been disposed of in an ethical and humane manner. We, therefore, recommend that these provisions remain as is with no exceptions.
We purport ourselves to be a highly civilized society fast approaching the year 2000. Let's not go back to the club and spear.
Since I'm sure there are dog owners on the Game and
Fisheries Committee, I'm asking you, "Do you want to waive your dog's right to be taken in a humane manner?" I certainly don't.
We feel that House Bill 717, with a little refinement, would have been adequate for the Commission and the general 156
public. We see no justifiable need for a complete overhaul with such loose and unfair measures that will cause more problems than it will solve.
Mr. Chairman, I have a little something here that I would like to read, if I may. Due to the time constraint, I didn't add it with the other remarks. I would like to do so now, if I may.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Go ahead.
MR. FIDLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add some personal comments regarding the general rule regarding dogs being declared a public nuisance.
Having worked with individuals, organizations, and trial lawyers regarding the shooting of dogs for various offenses, there is a certain degree of doubt if a properly identified dog, proper license and address name plate, can be legally shot by merely designating it a public nuisance.
There is a definite conflict here. Section 6 01 of the Dog Law of 1982 states, "All dogs are hereby declared to be personal property, therefore being subject to theft, damages, et cetera." That is damages for and against said dog.
Since to our knowlege there never has been a legal determination made which one has preference or supersedes the other, we would lean to the one in Section 601, which offers a more controlled approach to the problem. 157
If proven in court that the said offender was, indeed, negligent and not making a reasonable effort to confine or control his dog, I would say legally declaring it a public nuisance and destroying it would be proper.
On the other hand, I feel that it would be a violation of my rights as an individual legitimate dog owner; I feel the original intent of this clause of declaring dogs a public nuisance, of 717 of the Game Law, was to legally have the right to destroy an unattended, unlicensed, unidentified dog, which also would be an exception to the rule.
The way this new law is written, it would make it the rule to declare dogs a public nuisance and destroy them.
I feel the time and circumstances are drawing nigh when the courts will be asked to give a legal ruling on this dilemma. The legitimate license-buying dog owner deserves to know where he stands.
Gentlemen, I thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much, sir.
I just read this again. Just following your comments,
I was reading over it. I will have, I think I can say, many changes —
MR. FIDLER: I am sure.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — to suggest.
I just really realized what we were saying here.
I would like to ask you one question. Where any 158
person could kill a dog, would you accept Game Commission personnel?
MR. FIDLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: What I need from you, really, is some acceptable language. I see the changes that are needed, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would send us some changes that you would like to see, the actual language, so that we know what avenue you are coming from and to be able to work with it.
I certainly agree with you on many, many things you said. I wish I had the nerve to do what I should do, but I don't, and that is to license cats and make people take con trol of them. I don't have the nerve to do that, being a legislator who would probably not return next year if I did.
So, I will choose to stay here, possibly.
I can tell you right now that I feel very, very strong about this, and I have always felt this strong.
I think you have brought to bear a lot of good points that have not come up before in any of the hearings.
Yes, Clarence?
REPRESENTATIVE DIETZ: In your opinion — well, let's say, isn't it true that dogs have a natural instinct, most dogs, to hunt, and if a dog runs a deer or any wildlife, it is because he was left loose and unattended? Why then wouldn't the fines possibly be heavier? 159
You would think that if the fines were heavier, the owners of the dogs would restrict them more, keep them under control more.
You know, why kill the dog?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I think what Clarence is saying is that a lot of these dogs are just left to roam. So, the legitimate dog owner that has a dog that slips a collar or takes him out for hunting and he doesn't return with him that day is in jeopardy, the same way as a dog that someone just lets roam.
MR. FIDLER: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a bill in the Game and Fisheries Committee in the Senate, and we were trying to address this problem.
Our theory is that a hound, he uses a different method of hunting, specifically his nose. You know yourself, if you don't look where you are going, you can't run too fast.
It is a dog that puts his head up in the air; he is the dog that is a threat to the deer.
In other words, what is happening, in our opinion, is that all of the dogs are being painted with the same brush, which we don't feel should be the case.
I agree with you —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I know if they have their nose up in the air and the eyes up in the air what they are doing.
MR. FIDLER: They can run. 160
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Is there a bill in the Senate that is acceptable to you? Do you know what the number of it is?
MR. FIDLER: It is Senate Bill 236. There is some language in there that we are very much in favor of. It does take exception to hounds.
Now, the Game Commission takes a different view. I just got their "Legislative Bulletin" the other week, and I had seen that they can't distinguish a hound from another dog; there seems to be some question there.
We feel that these are valuable dogs. They are hard to replace. We feel that they should not be treated as just an ordinary mongrel or mutt that is left running out there.
I want to make one other point. There are two cases in litigation in the courts of Pennsylvania right now. We started in this years ago. The Game Commission was aware of it. They were involved in some.
We have two in court right now that we are asking a sum of $10,000 for. We are upping the ante because they are harder to replace and we feel that the people who are doing some of the shooting are unjustified.
In regards to shooting, at the Game Commission meeting last January, I made it very clear that the Game Commission was giving the poacher an opportunity to go out there with a gun on Sundays whenever he felt; and if you saw him and you 161
asked him, "What are you doing," he is looking for dogs chasing deer or wild dogs. He has a perfectly legal right to be there.
You cannot say, "No, you aren't looking for dogs.
You are picking off grouse," or something like that. It gives them a perfectly legal right to be there.
What we would like to see is Game Commission personnel specifically being responsible for shooting the dog. We don't feel the average hunter is knowledgeable enough to say when a dog is endangering the life of deer. If he has a deer down, okay.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: He might be knowledgeable enough, but would he use discretion?
MR. FIDLER: Okay; if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a little example of what happened last
February up in Columbia County.
These fox hunters were having a five-hour fox chase, a grey fox; they saw it numerous times. All of a sudden, they hear a couple of shots. They had five dogs in there.
A local farmer, he saw two deer going out of the edge of the woods. What does he do? He gets his high-power rifle and he shoots some of the dogs, after a five-hour fox chase. This should not be.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I understand. We will be taking a hard look at that. 162
MR. FIDLER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: If you have any specific language —
MR. FIDLER: We have some specific language.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — I would appreciate having it sent to my office.
MR. FIDLER: We will make it available to you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Do you have my address and everything?
MR. FIDLER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
No questions, right? Do you have one to ask?
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: Yes.
A point of information, in your statement you have no objection to dispatching a dog that has actually pulled down or is attempting to pull down.
MR. FIDLER: That is right.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: But you think it is wrong to shoot a dog for tracking a deer?
MR. FIDLER: Very much so.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: What do you think the intent of the dog is when he tracks the deer? Are you indicating that all dogs that run deer, if they catch up to them, will not attempt to kill the deer or pull it down?
MR. FIDLER: A hound — are you familiar with dogs? 163
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: Beagles.
MR. FIDLER: Beagles, okay. Do you think any of your beagles would attempt to kill a deer?
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: Would they?
MR. FIDLER: Would they?
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: I have had one in my life time that did take off on a deer, and I dispatched him myself.
MR. FIDLER: If he would catch it, I would say the nature of a hound is not necessarily to kill; it is to chase.
He was bred to chase, for a keen scent. I would say in the majority of cases I would doubt very much if he could catch up with it.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: But if he did?
MR. FIDLER: It is a very good question.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: It is a game scent, just like a rabbit is. If my beagle catches up to a rabbit, I have a suspicion that he —
MR. FIDLER: Okay; but a rabbit is yea big, and a deer is exceptionally bigger.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: I am talking about the attempt, if he does catch up to the deer; will he attempt to pull it down and try and kill it?
MR. FIDLER: The point is: can a small dog — say, a terrier or something — can he actually kill a deer? No, I don't think he can. 164
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Well, let's say he was run, Ed, by a group of hounds —
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: Several together.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — where they keep him going until he is down.
MR. FIDLER: Okay. I would like to answer that ques tion. I am a Director of the Pennsylvania State Fox Hunters
Association. I was down there yesterday. They turned out 225 dogs at one time.
Now, I am not so sure that there weren't a couple of deer in the area. Sometimes the pack splits up. But to my knowledge — and they have anywhere from 20 to 25 to 30 judges out there in likely spots where the animals go through.
To my knowledge, there has never been a deer caught down there, which would tell you something for the breed.
They are bred in order to trail, to track a trail.
They are not bred to kill things.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: See, I have worked with beagles for a long time. Beagles, of course, are a rabbit dog.
MR. FIDLER: Naturally.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: But in many, many cases, I have seen good beagles, not my own, but cracker}ack dogs, if there was a lack of rabbits in an area would drive a game scent, including a deer. I have seen them run a squirrel. 165
You know, that is what they are bred for.
MR. FIDLER: Well, I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: He is saying that he doesn't like to see them killed because they have got their noses to the ground tracking.
MR. FIDLER: The point is — I am a fox hunter; I have been hunting 50 years. I spend a lot of time in the months of
December, January, and February in the mountains. This is supposedly the critical time for the deer.
Now, a dog — I have been out there 50 years. I have never seen a dog pull down a deer in that particular time.
At one of our club meetings, we polled the members in attendance at that particular time, and we had a total of over
800 hunting years, and none of the members had ever seen a dog pull a deer down.
I would say 800 years — if this would be an everyday occurrence or be happening quite often, I would say surely within 8 00 years somebody would have seen a dog pull a deer down.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay. That will be it.
MR. FIDLER: Is that all?
(Pause.)
MR. FIDLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Joseph Nichols, Consulting
Engineer for Firearms Industry. 166
Joe is going to read — we will not have his testimony; he is going to send it in. He is going to read what he has, and then he will send his written testimony to us Monday or
Tuesday.
MR. NICHOLS: Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to testify on this recodification legislation.
My name is Joe Nichols; I am an engineer. I work for the Procter and Gamble Paper Products Company. In addition,
I have my own consulting engineering company in the firearms industry. We specialize in the accessories area of the fire arms industry, and I get many opportunities to evaluate new products and existing products and components.
I am here today to make a few general comments on the recodification and also some particular comments on the section of the recodification that covers electronic sights.
I have brought with me today a conventional sight and a few electronic sights. I would like to take some time and pass those around to the committee members so you can get a better idea of what we are talking about.
First of all, in general, I received —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Do you have them with you, Joe?
MR. NICHOLS: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Do you have them with you?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I do. 167
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Could we look at them while you are doing this?
MR. NICHOLS: Sure.
(Pause.)
MR. NICHOLS: What we have here is a typical electronic sight you will find in the industry. This one is made by
Aim Point. Other members are Bushnell and Tasco. A lot of people are putting out these sights these days.
This is a conventional sight. I thought I would bring one of these so you could pass it around and see the dif ference.
What an electronic sight is is basically a little battery-operated sight. It looks like this. It has an on/off knob, an intensity knob, or a potentiometer in this area.
There is a little light cell down in here, a diode; it sends a little light up to a lens in the forward part. It is adjusted in the same manner as a conventional scope, in this area and in this area.
As I go down through my testimony here, you will see some of the safety features. I want you to think about those as you pass this around.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You might tell them that this does not project a light onto the animal or the target.
MR. NICHOLS: Yes. There is no pro3ectron. I will turn it on. There is no light projection. You can look in it; 168
it won't hurt your eyes.
This is a just a conventional 3-by-9, if you want to do a little comparison.
The first comment that I would like to make on the recodification legislation is that I received this several weeks ago, read down through it, and it is a very understand able piece of legislation. I was really impressed with the readability. I didn't need a lawyer or a 20-year game warden veteran to tell me what the different segments in the law meant; very understandable, contemporary English. That is a big step forward.
The section that covers the electronic sights, the items you are looking at right now, what this clarification language has done in the recodification is drawn a clear distinction between the sporting sights and the military sights, allowing the use of the sporting electronic sight because it doesn't emanate any rays, no particle rays.
There are many safety features around the electronic sight. One of the most marked safety features around it is — most of the hunters we have in the woods in Pennsylvania are not really avid shooters. They will bring their gun out a week or two before the hunting season and get in the woods there, and they are not really up there.
This sight here gives them a slight advantage, in that the red dot is a little bit easier to handle on a moving 169
target. For people who are not accustomed to firing guns or who don't spend a lot of time at the range prior to the season, they are going to be a little more in control in their shooting with this type of sight.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Fast.
MR. NICHOLS: Yes, a lot faster.
Does anybody have any questions? Has everybody had a chance to look at this sight?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Would the cross hairs be any advantage there?
MR. NICHOLS: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Would the cross hairs be any advantage?
MR. NICHOLS: No particular advantage I can see, no.
There are electronic sights on the market with cross hairs.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The thing that impresses me is how fast I can change from somebody up here and stop dead center on someone's nose down here. It is just, boom, like that.
MR. NICHOLS: The man wearing corrective lenses, glasses, will also notice that there is no real focus problem.
There is no lens in there.
We have got a lot of people out on the ranges using these sights, in particular, senior citizens whose eyes have gone to a level where they can no longer be competitive in 170
such things as handgun shooting and things of this nature, and they are back on the ranges, and they are having a lot of fun. They can shoot again, and they are not ashamed of their scores.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Go ahead while they are looking.
We don't like to interrupt, but this is new; it is good.
MR. NICHOLS: Take your time.
On the recodification, going back to some of the general comments, the clarity with which the document is put together, the areas that it is addressing, I believe, are areas that have been problem areas in the sporting industry or in the sporting business as well as being in the sport itself.
The areas that we had all of the trouble with, I see, are being well addressed. They would be the areas around attempting to kill a second large game animal. I can see you have got that well under control. The fluoroscent orange areas are being addressed. It is apparent to me that this is going to result in a very good, understandable piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have a lot more. If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Does anybody have any questions?
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: In other words, this one is illegal under present law? 171
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes, it has been. It is not in other states. It has been accepted xn how many other states?
MR. NICHOLS: We are the only state that I know of.
Mr. Krug from the NRA did a survey on that, and the only state that really has any regulations against it is Pennsylvania.
MR. LOVETTE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: I think it should be brought forth that the sight itself is not the problem of the law. Under Section
704(e), it is a fact that this device is assisted with a battery. That is the problem under the old law.
If the sight did not have a battery, it would be within the parameters of existing law. Because it has a battery, it does have a problem.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Joe, is that sight lit now?
Would you give him one of those? It is just the red light all that comes out? Isn't there a light within the entire cylinder?
MR. NICHOLS: No. It is a little diode.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: There is a little red dot.
MR. NICHOLS: Yes, a little red diode.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Can you turn that off someplace?
MR. NICHOLS: Sure. There is an on/off switch right on the right-hand side of the sight. 172
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay.
MR. NICHOLS: You can also adjust the intensity, according to the sensitivity of redness in your eye. Every body's sensitivity to that spectrum is different.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Does the recodification legalize this sight?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: It legalizes that, but it restricts — we have very specific language that restricts any sight that throws a particle beam, an x-ray, a laser, anything that throws any type of a beam outside of that sight.
The sights which will be legal under recodification will be those that contain light within a scope to assist the hunter.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I don't know about you, but I am getting to the point where I am not sure I want to hunt with a scope anymore. I think I am better off with open sights than I am with a scope because of the difficulty I have with my glasses now. You know, this could be a big help to me, for one; and I am sure you won't need help, Bruce.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Unfortunately, I have your same problem.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I think once you hit about that
45-year age, you start to deteriorate in what you can do as 173
far as shooting. Of course, that doesn't impress anybody, you yourself or anybody else. So, this could be a big help.
MR. NICHOLS: It is. It will bring a lot of the older shooters back to the ranges. It is very good for the industry.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Very good. I saw that once, but
I wasn't that impressed with it. I guess I didn't have time or take time to look at it as well as I should have.
MR. NICHOLS: One closing remark, I can see the amount of work that you fellows put into this legislation, and I would as a resident of Pennsylvania and a sportsman like to sincerely thank you, a very fine piece of legislation.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
Bruce, do you have —
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: One last question. The approximate cost.
MR. NICHOLS: I don't know. What is the approximate cost? Approximately $160, $165?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: $165?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: $165?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Well, there would be a mounting change, wouldn't there? That mounting does not fit the same mounting as the other scope, right? 174
MR. NICHOLS: The mounts on the base of this are standard Weaver dovetail mounts, and it fits a pretty wide variety of standard dovetails.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Let's say, if you had your other scope already mounted, would you be able to take the regular scope off and mount that one on?
MR. NICHOLS: In some cases, yes, you can mount this on. If your regular scope is attached to the gun by means of a standard Weaver type dovetail base, you can do that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Just slide that one in?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes. But the other thing is that the people that manufacture this sight provide a complete range of good quality, economic lens.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Your settings are the same and everything is in front there?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Your vertical and horizontal?
MR. NICHOLS: Yes. Let me take these and show you.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Manufactured in this country?
MR. NICHOLS: No. They are manufactured in Sweden.
(Pause.)
MR. NICHOLS: Okay; can you see that, Mr. Chairman?
Can you see that?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. NICHOLS: The same type adjustments. 175
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Are you geared up for the sale of these?
MR. NICHOLS: Am I?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: The companies, are they geard up —
MR. NICHOLS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — to have them available?
MR. NICHOLS: These have been on the market since about 198 0. I guess the Aim Point people were the first to introduce it, and then there was a flurry of them after that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Very good.
MR. NICHOLS: They are readily available.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Karl Brown, Pennsylvania Farmers'
Association.
You will notice we missed lunch.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You may start.
MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Karl Brown. I am the Director of Local Affairs for the
Pennsylvania Farmers' Association.
PFA represents 23,000-plus farm family members in 54 counties farmers' associations from across the Commonwealth.
On behalf of the Association and our members, I would 176
like to thank the House Game and Fisheries Committee for the opportunxty to express our views relative to the recodifica tion of Pennsylvania's game laws.
I would first like to commend the Committee for their outstanding efforts, hard work, and dedication to bring to fruition this draft of the recodification of Pennsylvania's game code.
Your cooperation and communications with our association, the Game Commission, and with all groups interested in this recodification are greatly appreciated.
Today I would like to discuss several issues pertain ing to the recodification; however, time restrictions do not allow me to do so.
In considering this, I've attached additional written comments and a copy of the Pennsylvania Farmers' Association's policies pertinent to the subject at hand.
I would like to discuss ten specific concerns that
PFA has relative to the recodification of the game law. They are as follows:
Number one, Section 901, Powers and Duties of
Enforcement Officer: while we note that, with one exception, the powers prescribed for game law enforcement officers in
Section 901 of recodification are the same as those presently provided in the game code, we feel that the statutory language presently contained in the game code and restated in 177
recodification can encourage arbitrariness and abuse in the exercise of such powers by the enforcement officers and should be amended.
Clauses (6) through (8) of recodification of this section would give enforcement officers the authority to stop and search without warrant any means of transportation and to search without warrant any container, bag, clothing, cabin, tent, camp, or trailer for game law violation by merely showing official identification and stating the purpose of the search.
Nothing is contained m these clauses which prohibits arbitrary searches or requires that enforcement officer to have any reasonable basis for conducting his search.
It is questionable whether the courts of the Common wealth would uphold game code convictions that are based on searches which the game enforcement officer had no reasonable basis to initiate.
Still, our General Assembly has statutorily mandated in its enactment of the fish code that waterways patrolmen only have the authority to stop and search persons and items where probable cause exists that a violation has occurred.
To statutorily preserve the rights of individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable intrusions by game enforce ment officers and to have statutory consistency with the fish code, we recommend that Clauses (6) through (8) of Section 901 178
of recodification be amended to require all searches be based on probable cause.
We would additionally recommend that Clause (2) of
Section 901 of recodification be amended to require a game enforcement officer to have a reasonable suspicion of game code violation for authority to make knowing intrusions on private land.
Two, Sections 2121 through 2126, Destruction for
Agricultural Protection: crop damage is a continuous concern of the farming community throughout the Commonwealth.
Many times the public forgets that farmers make avail able a substantial part of Pennsylvania's available hunting and recreational areas.
In addition, studies by Penn State indicate that
Pennsylvania's farmers suffer losses of between $16 million and $3 0 million in crop damage annually due to the Common wealth's deer heard alone. This figure does not include damage due to bear, raccoons, or other animals.
All too often farmers who shoot deer for crop damage are unjustifiably accused by sportsmen and non-farming neighbors of doing something illegal or for depleting the herd. In reality, they are simply protecting their property and the investment they have in their crops.
A review of case law involving Section 724 of the
Pennsylvania Game Law clearly indicates that the courts 179
historically have supported the constitutional rights of the farmer to protect his property from deer damage.
In this light, we feel four changes need to be made in the above referenced sections.
a. We ask the Committee to amend the definition of
"person" as it is found in Subsection 2121(c) on page 62 to include those farmers who have retired and continue to reside on the farm, but do not continue to assist with the cultiva tion of the land.
This provision was allowed under the language of recently enacted Senate Bills 1153 and 1154, but was omitted under the recodification of the game law. We ask that it be reinstated.
b. Number 6 of Subsection 2126(a) which states, "It is unlawful for any person while acting under the provisions of this subchapter to refuse to answer, without evasion, upon request of any representative of the Commission, any pertinent question pertaining to the killing or wounding of any game or wildlife," and the section goes on, and we say that this section should be totally removed.
We feel this is an invasion of the private property of the farmer. The intrusion of the game officer on a farmer's private property for the investigation of deer damage complaint is all too often a volatile situation, to say the least.
This new provision, which carries a penalty which is a 180
summary offense of the fourth degree, $200, for each animal involved, could be arbitrarily used as punishment by a Game
Commission officer in the event of a confrontation which is often a one-on-one situation and which too often finds the farmer on the short end of the stick. For these reasons we ask that it be removed.
c. Subsection 2125, Surrender of Carcass to the
Commission Officer: clarification of this section is needed to better define alternative disposal agreements.
d. Subsections.2126(A)(8) and (B)(1), Establish a
Penalty for Failing to Remove the Entrails of a Deer Shot for
Crop Damage: the Game Commission has given recognition to case law declaring unconstitutional the imposition of penal ties for failure to remove the entrails of a deer killed for crop damage.
I would ask you to insert at that point, "See Appendix
C."
The amendments to the game law in 1974 removed penal ties for failure to remove the entrails, in accordance with the court's ruling.
The fact that the requirement remains in the section is simply to encourage farmers to remove the entrails in order that the carcass can be utilized.
We ask that no penalty be established for failure to remove entrails for the above reason. 181
e. Subsection 2122, Report to Commission Officer: this section should be amended to specifically allow for oral or written reports to be submitted to the Commission. The current language is ambiguous in this respect.
The third comment, Subsection 2161, Commonwealth
Actions for Damages to Game or Wildlife: we recommend (c) of this subsection be rewritten as follows to better ensure farmers the right to use normal and approved farming methods and not be held liable for destruction of wildlife habitat or for the inadvertent killing of game or wildlife which may result.
The language we suggest would be: (c), Exemptions — the Commission shall not have the authority to bring any civil action under this section for any killing, injury, or destruc tion of game, wildlife, or habitat resulting from practices conducted within state and federal regulations or regulatory guidelines or from activities relating to farming, mining, forestry, recreation, real estate development, or other land uses which are not in violation of federal or state laws or regulations issued pursuant to such laws.
Four, Subsection 2102: we ask that part (a) of this subsection be rewritten to include the initial phrase,
"Subject to the provisions of this Act," the Commission shall promulgate, and the subsection goes on from there.
Once again, our concern centers around the destruction 182
of habitat and a farmer's liability for normal farming prac tices as related to destruction of habitat.
Five, Subsection 2722: in order to manage the state's deer population more effectively, ecologically defined manage ment units are necessary to direct hunting pressure to specific areas of high deer densities and relieve extensive hunting pressure in areas of low deer numbers.
To facilitate this shift from county-wide management units to ecologically defined deer management units, Section
2722(b) may need to be revised.
The following language is suggested: antlerless deer licenses shall be issued by the Country Treasurer or some person acting on behalf of the County Treasurer within the county and/or deer management unit in which the licenses are valid.
This change would be consistent with your proposed definition of a management unit and would facilitate their use as a management tool.
We ask that no restrictions be left in recodification which would deter the Commission to establish management units for deer.
Six, Subsection 23 05, Feeding Game or Wildlife: an exemption should be provided in this section. Language similar to the exemption provided in Subsection 2302(c) should be used to exempt normal farming and timber operations. 183
Seven, Subsection 322: we recommend that the Committee amend this section to include a statement of principle or objectives for the Commission.
We suggest that a summary of the Commission's own deer policy, as presented on page 98 of the 1979 edition of the game laws, be included to the effect that: in order to administer and enforce this title, the Commission shall ensure that wildlife populations in the state are managed on a sus tained yield basis to ensure the maximum overall opportunities consistent with other land uses.
The key point is that it is important to formally recognize the need to maintain wildlife populations in balance with other land uses.
For example, while large deer populations are desir able to maximize hunting opportunities, deer numbers should not be permitted to rise so high that they interfere with the farmers' ability to grow agricultural crops or foresters to regenerate new stands of trees.
Number eight, Subsection 2945, Fox Chasing: we sup port the Committee's decision to include provisions requiring fox chasers to first secure written permission from the owner or lessee of the property over which the hunting groups will travel.
It is difficult to stop and detain those individuals who trespass on private property when they are on horseback. 184
We commend you for including this provision.
Number nine, we recommend that the recodification of the game laws include language mandating the formation of a
"Game Commission Advisory Board." This board should consist of no more than 18 members appointed by the Governor from lists submitted by various sportsmen's, farming, and forestry organizations.
The board should provide input and informal review on season and bag limits, budgets, and other functions of the
Commission.
Our final comment is that we oppose any attempt to amend the contents of House Bill 388 or any other similar bill or language which would prohibit trapping or the posses sion of steel leg-hold traps in Pennsylvania.
Trapping is necessary to harvest surplus wildlife populations that would otherwise be lost to starvation or cause damage to farm crops and structures. Trapping is an essential tool and a critical part of sound wildlife manage ment in the Commonwealth.
I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify today. In closing, I bring your attention to Appendix A, which addresses seven additional issues pertinent to the recodification, and Appendix B, which lists PFA policies relative to Pennsylvania hunting laws.
If I may add one or two more comments, I bring your 185
attention m Appendix B to page 5, Hunting Season, number 6, in which PFA opposes any attempts to establish hunting on
Sundays.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay; thank you.
Does anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I want you to read something.
Would you forward this?
(Document handed to Mr. Brown.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: That is for your information.
We will be looking at it. You read that decision and you will see where it all comes from.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay.
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You are welcome.
Al Myers, Pennsylvanians for Responsible Use of
Animals.
I would like to make one announcement before you start. Noah Wenger from the Senate is here.
Glad to have you, Senator.
SENATOR WENGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I wish more would attend.
MR. MYERS: Good afternoon. My name is Al Myers. I am here today to speak to you on behalf of the Pennsylvanians 186
for the Responsible Use of Animals, or PRUA as I shall refer to it in my testimony today.
I will not be commenting on specifics of the recodi fication proposal, but my purpose is to introduce you to PRUA and make a few comments regarding wildlife resources manage ment practices.
PRUA is a group of ten organizations representing individually or collectively the agricultural production and processing industries, biomedical research, veterinarians, hunters, trappers, and professional wildlife managers.
You have a brochure, along with my testimony, that would list the membership and the organizational goals of the
PRUA.
Our members all have one common concern and that is the continued, responsible use of animals in our society.
Now, PRUA was formed to provide a forum for the con sideration of humane treatment in utilization of animals for food, clothing and apparel production, laboratory use, bio medical research and education, and for scientific wildlife management.
Our goal is to provide information to the public, media, elected officials, and those responsible for the care of animals to further a better understanding of the proper use and treatment of animals so that decisions can be made at all levels in an informed manner. 187
The organizations work together on animal welfare issues to communicate to audiences the members' essential concern for the well-being of the animals used in society today.
As you all well know, the animal rights movement has the intention of causing serious disruption to animal agri culture, wildlife management, biomedical research, and many more segments of society as we know them today.
Given the opportunity, they could severely impact rights to earn a living, to eat a diet of their choosing, or recreate in the responsible manner that we choose.
A large number of animal rights organizations with strong funding capabilities and large memberships have emerged, and the list continues to grow day by day. They have staged demonstrations and rallies to promote the animal rights move ment while disrupting the activities of other organizations.
A typical example is the disruption caused at Penn
State's Annual Rabbit Conference, where people dressed as rabbits and distributed animal rights brochures while dis rupting the activities of the conference.
Other examples are as follows: a, filed a precedent- setting suit against a major veal producer in Massachusetts to stop them from producing or marketing veal; b, broken into the
University of Pennsylvania's Head Trauma Research Lab and stole and/or destroyed research work; and, c, have successfully 188
banned trapping in the State of New Jersey.
It is this last item, the banning of trapping, which brings PRUA here to testify today. The scientific wildlife management practiced in Pennsylvania has resulted in an abundance of wildlife in the Commonwealth.
The tools used by professional wildlife biologists to control wildlife are hunting and trapping. All prolific species of wildlife have the capacity to overpopulate their habitat, resulting in undesirable consequences such as crop damage, beaver flooding of roads and fields, muskrats burrow ing into pond banks, and destruction of ponds.
Overpopulation leads to a marked increase in starva tion due to shortages of natural foods and an increase in the disease reservoir present in wildlife populations.
The present rabies epidemic centered in raccoons is an example of the serious health threat that exists when wildlife populations are not sufficiently controlled and their numbers are out of balance with the carrying capacity of their habitat.
PRUA supports the wildlife resources management prac tices in the Commonwealth and recommends that wildlife continues to be controlled and managed.
We urge that the citizens of the Commonwealth continue to be permitted to harvest surplus wildlife populations that would otherwise be lost due to starvation and other things. 189
Harvesting methods should be conducted under regula tions that are biologically sound and based on factual data.
PRUA opposes any attempts to amend House Bill 388 or any similar bill or language in the recodification of the
Pennsylvania Game Code which would prohibit trapping, posses sion of traps, or possession of an animal or pelt caught in a trap.
The banning of the steel leg-hold trap in Pennsylvania would place undue hardship on, and threaten the health, safety, and welfare of farmers, foresters, trappers, and, in the long run, the general public of this Commonwealth.
For these reasons, we ask the Committee to oppose any attempts to ban trapping in this recodification of the game laws of Pennsylvania.
I thank you for the opportunity to present the testimony today.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much for your statements.
Does anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay; thank you.
Troy Stump, ZooAmerica.
MR. STUMP: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Troy Stump. I am the Director of ZooAmerica, Hersheypark. 190
I would like to introduce my colleague. This is Dr.
Wilbur Amand, who is the Director of the Philadelphia
Zoological Garden. He will be assisting me in the testimony we provide today.
ZooAmerica is a zoological and botanical garden specializing in plants and animals native to North America.
Since opening in 1978, ZooAmerica has been a quality educa tional resource for the community, by providing formal tours to over 5,000 students each year, special evening events, and participating in joint outreach programs with such organiza tions as the Dauphin County Conservation District and the
William Penn Museum.
Accreditation is the highest label of quality given by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums.
From here on out I will refer to them as AAZPA. The accreditation is for meeting established standards of staff ing, financial responsibility, ethics, and animal care.
Accompanying our testimony is a booklet published by the AAZPA outlining the criteria for accreditation.
ZooAmerica at Hersheypark, along with the Philadelphia
Zoological Garden, the Erie Zoo, and the Pittsburgh Aviary are the only institutions within Pennsylvania to receive accreditation.
We at ZooAmerica are pleased to have an opportunity to comment on the recodification of the game laws. 191
It is obvious from the draft we have received that this committee and its staff have spent considerable time and made great effort in updating and making current a law that has not substantially been rewritten in nearly 50 years.
Our comments will be limited to Chapter 29 dealing with special licenses and permits. Generally speaking, pri vate Pennsylvania zoos were brought within the purview of the current law by Act Number 60 of 1982 which amended Article IV.
Specifically, Section 417 requires menageries — we would prefer to call them zoological gardens — to obtain a permit upon the payment of a fee, with certain exceptions.
Former Executive Director Glenn L. Bowers, in corres pondence dated May 14, 1982, has said, "The Pennsylvania Game
Commission's main concern and the intent of Section 417 of the game law (Permits for Menageries) is to insure that captive animals and birds are properly cared for and the public is adequately protected."
We agree with this statement. In endeavoring to com ply with it, however, this committee should be aware that it may not necessarily ensure proper care and protection of wildlife and the public, but will, instead, increase dramatically the involvement of state government into the operations of private zoos.
This balancing of interests previously led to the passage of Act Number 64 in 1983 which amended the law to 192
exempt from the permit and fee requirements, in Section 417, and elsewhere, private zoos which are open to the public and which are accredited by the AAZPA.
We will not review in depth the reasoning and analysis which led to this amendment which we supported and which this committee adopted.
A copy of correspondence setting forth the basis for our position is attached.
Suffice it to say, this committee and its staff were impressed with the requirements for accreditation by AAZPA.
The Committee should be congratulated for its past and current efforts in ensuring that captive wildlife properly is cared for by continuing the AAZPA exemption in Subchapter D of Chapter 29 of the proposed recodification.
Thus, with respect to this subchapter, the Committee has, indeed, endeavored to comport with the goals of AAZPA.
That association strives constantly to raise professional standards and influence the development of high-quality zoological parks and aquariums.
Over the past two years, since the passage of Act
Number 60, we at ZooAmerica have found the current law to be very workable and acceptable.
In our discussions with Dr. Wilbur Amand, Chairman of
AAZPA Legislation Committee and Director of the Philadelphia
Zoological Garden, and Mr. James Rhea, Director of the Erie 193
Zoo, we have stressed that legislation pertaining to zoos should be based on quality standards, as contained in the
AAZPA accreditation program, and not merely on the facilities' source of funding. Both Dr. Amand and Mr. Rhea support this statement.
The changes in the law contained in Subchapter B of
Chapter 29 do present two concerns to us which we would like to share with the Committee.
One deals with the permit and fee for endangered or threatened species, and the second deals with the permit and fee for wildlife propagation.
Under the existing law, ZooAmerica and other public and private zoos obtain a permit, pursuant to Section 418.2, entitled, "Endangered and Rare Species." Section 402 of the law, however, does not provide for any fee to obtain that permit.
Section 2924 of the recodification appears to be the counterpart of current Section 418.2. But Section 2904 pro vides that the fee for obtaining this permit will be $300 for a species native to the Commonwealth and free with a non- native species upon the issuance of a joint permit with the federal agency and upon endorsement by the director.
Thus, each time we take and care for a bird or animal native to Pennsylvania and classified as endangered or threatened, we will be required to pay a fee in the amount of 194
$300. This requirement, we note, also applies to public zoos whether or not they are accredited.
First of all, with respect to the non-native permit, those endangered or threatened species already require a federal permit. It seems somewhat redundant simply to require the signature of the Pennsylvania director on the federal per mit, with no contervailing benefit to the safety or care of the bird or animal.
Because, to our knowledge, there is no cooperative mechanism available for efficiently implementing this require ment and because it seems not to serve any purpose, we suggest elimination of the non-native permit.
Secondly, with respect to the native permit, we assume this covers species not otherwise covered by federal legisla tion. To ensure safety and care, some permit perhaps is warranted.
We feel, however, that going from no fee to $300 is quite an increase. This requirement may discourage us from attempting to implement propagation research or breeding pro grams for these species.
By discouraging our display of these species, any educational impact that could be generated on behalf of habitat conservation relative to those endangered species is also discouraged.
With respect to the wildlife propagation permit, 195
existing Section 402 of the law provides a fee in the amount of $15. That fee, however, is in the name of the establish ment or facility and one fee permits annual propagation of many birds or animals.
Frankly, we never have been certain whether we were required by current law to have this permit. Because of the small fee, however, we have obtained it.
Section 2930 of the recodification continues to require the obtaining of propagation permits. We continue to question the necessity for obtaining this permit.
What a zoo, public or private, accredited or not, would be allowed to do under this permit that it could not do under all the other permits is unclear.
In any event, Section 2 904 would now set the fee at
$25 for one species and $10 for each additional species. This does not appear to be a facility or establishment type permit and greatly would increase the fees which we would be required to pay in connection with propagation.
Also, as noted previously, this requirement applies to all public and private zoos, with no exemptions for accreditation.
A propagating permit is required for species presently found in a wild state in Pennsylvania. For our facility, this represents a large portion of our collection. The increase in permit fees would soon add up to a considerable sum. 196
We believe that the purpose of a propagation permit is to allow for controlled marketing by commercial enterprises engaged in the hunting or farming of wild or captive bred species for sale or market purposes.
AAZPA accredited facilities are not involved in breed ing for this reason. With AAZPA1s ethical code and position on the disposition of captive bred species as a basis, it seems appropriate to suggest an exemption for accredited institutions.
This committee previously has recognized the import ance of accreditation by AAZPA as a means of ensuring the proper care of birds and animals; and now under the recodifi cation effort, Subchapter D of Chapter 29 continues the AAZPA exemption for dealers, possessors and menageries, again zoos.
We are confident that the Committee intended to create and perpetuate this exemption because of its appreciation for the activity of AAZPA and the understanding that this ensures high-caliber care together with high professional standards.
For the same reason, we request that the Committee apply this exemption to the Subchapter B classes of permits, at least as they relate to endangered or threatened species and propagating permits.
That is, we request that an amendment specifically exempt a public or private zoological park or garden which is open to the public and which is accredited by the American 197
Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to testify.
At this time, I would like to turn the microphone over to Dr. Amand for his comments.
DR. AMAND: Thank you, Troy.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would just like to underscore at least two of the points which Mr.
Stump alluded to; and that is, Section 2924 with respect to endangered or threatened species, permits, and particularly those that deal with the non-native endangered or threatened species.
I think as is pointed out, these animals are regulated fairly well with the USDI's fish and wildlife program. If there is to be a need for almost double permitting, if you will, or countersignatures, this could greatly delay the some times urgent movement of highly endangered species among the zoos in interstate or international movement.
So, we would, again, like to request that you consider what regulations already exist on these sorts of animals within the state as it deals with zoos and/or aquariums, I might add, because there are some aquariums that may appear within the state that are going to be dealing with endangered or threatened birds and/or other animals, that some considera tion be given to exemption of those public and/or private zoos and/or aquariums that are accredited by the AAZPA. 198
Further, I am quite concerned about the propagation permits. It would seem that those individuals who would have the best ability or those institutions in which the ability to propagate would be at its peak are being penalized for the desire to do that.
In today's climate where the endangerment of many of our species is enhancing, is becoming greater and greater, I wouldn't think we would want to put out any impediments in the way of meeting our obligations to propagate some of these species.
It is not clear what the purpose of these fees would be and how they would be used if they were implemented. Per haps there could be some clarification of that.
Finally, I would just comment, again, that I think we need to look at both public and/or private institutions and not separate them out as zoological parks that are accredited versus any other institution of like kind that is not accredited, but which is given the same sanction because it is receiving some federal grant or municipal grant.
I think that those ought to be separated, because I don't think that the latter is necessarily in the best interest of conservation.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and present these statements. I will provide a printed docu ment of these statements and others as well as a copy of the 199
accreditation booklet for zoos and aquariums that is under written by the AAZPA.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
I will be setting up a meeting in my office — I invite any legislator who wants to attend — with the Game
Commission, and we will discuss these fees prior to doing anything more with this recodification on your part. Will that be satisfactory?
MR. STUMP: If you would, at the same time, would you also discuss the purpose behind the propagation permit? We found it confusing, in that it seems that the propagation permit and possession permits are redundant in some ways, that if you already have a possession permit, that would mean that the Game Commission should already know you have the animals, and if those animals were to breed, do you get another possession permit, or does your propagation permit take care of that? That doesn't seem to be a very clear point within the legislation at this point.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Harry?
MR. NOLF: That possession permit only pertains to those animals named in that particular section: the wolves, the lions, the exotic wildlife. That possession permit —
MR. STUMP: That is correct; but it names in there bears, which also fall under the same definition under game, 200
and it does not specifically mention any species of bears.
There are many species of bears.
MR. NOLF: Okay; fine. It needs clarification.
MR. STUMP: That is correct. That is what we are ask ing for.
MR. NOLF: There was never any intention to put you people in the propagation permit.
MR. STUMP: In that case, it may be best to exempt us or accredited facilities from it, if that would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We will have that meeting, and we will be able to get down to the bottom line of all of this.
Okay?
MR. STUMP: Okay. We appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I would have one question to ask you gentlemen. You are the experts in this field.
We have been asked to approve the sale of hybrid wolves without permit restrictions in the State of Pennsylvania.
What, in your opinion, should we do? Do you think they should be allowed to be sold or not?
MR. STUMP: Dr. Amand, would you comment on that?
DR. AMAND: No, I don't think they should be allowed to be sold. I think because they are bred once, a wolf is bred once, with whatever domestic animal you might want to name, whether it be a German shepherd or a husky, does not immediately make them a domestic animal and make them less 201
dangerous.
There certainly are enough dangers with domestic animals. To have the inherent behavior of a wild wolf heavily represented in that first-generation offspring is a tremendous threat not only to a person or persons that are immediately around them, but any other people that they might come in contact with, not to infer that any action on the part of the animal is intentional; it is strictly a behavioral response — that is, it is going to get somebody in trouble and get somebody hurt — and it usually will result in the animal being penalized for it.
So, no, I don't think they should be allowed to be sold indiscriminately and that they should be controlled very heavily.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you.
Jim?
MR. LOVETTE: Yes. Doctor, could you please for the record state your credentials? We have had individuals come in that are dentists and one gentleman with a degree in education and one gentleman with a degree in philosophy.
What are your credentials and your position?
DR. AMAND: My credentials are that I am a veterinarian trained at the University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary
Medicine. I practice in the field of zoo animal medicine. I am an Adjunct Professor of Zoological Medicine at the 202
University of Pennsylvania and also Director of the
Philadelphia Zoological Garden.
MR. LOVETTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much. We will notify you when we have this meeting set up. Hopefully, we can give you a couple weeks anyhow; but it will be very close, because we do hope to have this document on its way in
November for the august body over on the other side to start to perform on it.
MR. STUMP: We certainly appreciate your listening to our comments today. If there is any assistance that we can offer, we would be glad to do that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We hope we have covered every thing. We certainly have had our ups and downs in this whole field. So, we hope that we have covered it as thoroughly as possible; I think we have.
We will give those few points more consideration and clarify them.
Thank you very much.
MR. STUMP: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Cathy Liss for Animal Protective
Legislation.
Lou Hoffman was scheduled from the "Pennsylvania
Sportsman Magazine," but she did not appear.
As you people will notice, I have picked up rapidly. 203
I am only 15 minutes behind now.
You may start.
MS. LISS: Okay. I think mine will run a little bit short. So, that will help you catch up a little bit.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to allow me to testify on the recodification of the Pennsylvania Game Law.
On behalf of the Society for Animal Protective
Legislation, I urge this distinguished committee to incorpor ate the provisions of House Bill 388 into the new Pennsylvania
Game Law, particularly inclusion of a ban on all types of steel jaw traps in Subchapter D, Fur-taking Regulations,
Section 2361(8).
Steel jaw traps are cruel, non-selective, and unnecessary. Injuries result from the force of the jaws of the trap closing on the animal's appendage, the tightness of the hold, the length of time the animal is held, and from the animal's struggle to free itself.
Injuries include abrasions, cuts to the skin and damage to soft tissue, superficial nerves, arteries, and tendons. The interference with circulation causes gangrene.
The animal may even chew off its foot to escape this barbaric device.
I have a show-and-tell with me, if you would look up briefly. This is just one of many samples we have where an animal has done just that. 204
Broken bones and broken teeth as the animal fights the trap are common. Particularly, fox will chew at the metal on a trap and gnaw away at their teeth, and they will do that right down to the jawbone in their attempts to get out.
A Northern Michigan University study showed that two out of three coyotes radio-tagged after being caught in steel
]aw traps were found dead of their injuries and starvation.
In one case, the front foot had been chewed off after release. In another case, the foot was badly torn and chewed exposing broken bones. Yet these coyotes had appeared to be able to be released. I have the citation there.
The main point here, also, is that the animals at the time of release may look as though they are all right.
Followup shows something else.
The Raptor Research and Rehabilitation program reports,
"There is only limited potential for mitigating the effects of trapping injuries to raptors because of the irreversible soft tissue damage usually associated with such injuries, which results in the loss of the extremity ... Of the raptors received for leg injuries involving only soft tissue damage and which survived long enough for assessment of the severity of the injury, 85 percent had irreparable damage that would result in loss of the foot.
"Unfortunately, persons who are unfamiliar with the serious nature of this kind of injury would probably assume 205
that they could release these birds from the trap "without serious injury.'"
Here is a photo from that Raptor Rehabilitation
Center showing some of the feet and legs that had to be removed from birds.
The steel jaw trap's non-selective nature allows a multitude of non-target animals to be caught and injured; some of its victims include: domestic dogs — here is a
Labrador that was caught, a squirrel that was caught, a fawn that was caught, and finally a bald eagle that was caught.
Luckily, it was able to survive, but it did lose one leg.
As I was saying, rare and endangered species are caught.
Section 2307 titled, "Killing Game or Wildlife by
Mistake," would require the trapper to pay restitution, turn the animal or animals in, and give a written account of when, where, and how the accident/mistake occurred.
If trappers were to do this with each unintended animal caught, the Pennsylvania Game Commission would cer tainly have its hands full.
However, I would be surprised to hear of a single trapper reporting such an incident, though piles of discarded animals may lie about the beautiful Pennsylvania countryside.
A Canadian study on the non-selectivity of steel jaw traps "showed that on two professional tended traplines, using only leg-hold traps, 1,350 unwanted birds and mammals 206
were caught, while 561 desired furbearers were taken."
Another study in Great Britain showed a ratio between unwanted and target species of almost 3:1.
Alternative traps which are less cruel do exist.
These include box traps, cage traps, the Swedish legsnare, the Canadian legsnare, and the Ezyonem.
As part of my show-and-tell, I have here one of the folding cage traps to show how small they can get. This would be for muskrat. It can catch more than one at a time, which would be of benefit to the trapper.
I also have with me an Ezyonem trap. I will submit these for you to look at. This is probably one of the best alternatives that is available for trappers. It was developed by a trapper in New York State, Elmer Davies.
The two main barrels on it will retract into the main barrel, and a pin will fit across into the pan of the trap.
I have had this trap set off on my hand, something I wouldn't do with a steel jaw trap.
When the pin of the trap is triggered, the barrels will shoot out like this. It does not cut off circulation to the animal's limb. It allows a good amount of freedom of movement. The animal is unable to pull out of the trap.
The trap is also able to be set to different size loops. So, it would be useful for many different species of animals. That, again, should be a real plus for the trappers. 207
The cost of this is comparable to a steel jaw trap as well, only about $5. So, it just means switching to something new, which may be a little hard to do if you are used to a steel jaw trap, but it is certainly worth it for the sake of the animal.
Pets and other non-target animals can be released from these traps. A comparison between the steel jaw trap and the cable-coated legsnare showed a 26-fold reduction in injuries.
That particular study was with one of these cable- coated legsnares. This one was developed by Milan Novak up in Canada. Woodstream sells a similar legsnare.
Here he had set it off on his own dog. As you can see, the dog feels right at ease once he is in it.
In British Columbia the use of steel jaw leg-hold traps was banned for use on raccoon, weasel, wolverine, squirrel, martin, and skunk on land. The B.C. Government was satisfied that there were practical alternatives to the steel jaw trap.
Ontario has now banned land sets with steel traps for beaver, muskrat, and mink; and Quebec has warned its trappers that soon some restrictions will be imposed as well.
It is interesting to note the recent appearance on the market of the Woodstream Canadian Snare. A number of other alternatives are rapidly on their way. Two of them are 208
the Challenger and the Biomc.
With respect to the relation of trapping to rabies,
I would quote Dr. Lawrence Glickman, Chief, Section of
Epidemiology, Associate Professor, Epidemiology and Public
Health, at the University of Pennsylvania, School of
Veterinary Medicine, who states, "In places where wildlife rabies is endemic, attempts to control the disease by decimating the wildlife population have been ineffective.
"For example, trapping programs to control epizootic fox rabies in New York State in the 1940's and Virginia in the 1960*s were found to be ineffective.
"The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in
1973 that recommends abolition of long-term trapping for rabies control.
"There is no evidence that leg-hold traps will pre ferentially capture and remove rabid animals. In fact, if trapping preferentially removed the older animals who were immune to rabies, it would leave the population more sus ceptible to rabies epidemics.
"Attempts to reduce wildlife populations by trapping can be offset by the species* ability to increase its reproductive potential and thereby maintain a stable popula tion. This has been noted for coyotes and foxes."
Rabies is currently spreading in many states in view of the fact that no restrictions have been placed on the steel 209
jaw trap in any of the states now experiencing increased rabies.
The number of animals trapped in the states which have restricted or banned the leg-hold trap has not decreased since the bans went into effect.
As an example, the State of Massachusetts banned the land use of the steel jaw trap in July of 1975. Yet the number of raccoons taken increased from 5,254 in 1973 to
23,007 in 1981. The number of red foxes taken increased from
495 in 1973 to 758 in 1981.
Other states have shown similar trends when the steel jaw trap was restricted or banned. Trapping totals are pri marily a function of pelt price, and trappers have shown versatility in switching trap types and methods.
In closing my discussion of the steel jaw trap, I quote from a statement of Samuel Peacock, Jr., M.D., Associate
Professor of Neurophysiology at the Thomas Jefferson
University, School of Medicine.
"It inflicts maximal pain for it not only involves the superficial pain receptors of the skin and muscle, but also the deep receptors of tendon and bone.
"Struggling intensifies this stimulation, and the animal quickly learns this, but the pain remains and produces maximal stress for long periods of time, including at best a state of helplessness or shock, not to be confused with sleep, 210
except by the most primitive observer."
Additional sections of the proposed game law of con cern to the Society for Animal Protective Legislation include: Section 2363, which allows children under 12 years of age to trap; Section 103, which prohibits political sub divisions from instituting additional regulations in addition to the contents of the game code; Section 925, which reduces the fine, though I noted essentially all other fines were increased, for offenses involving furbearers from $200 down to $100; Section 2501, which prohibits hunting while under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, but does not include trapping specifically; Section 2361(16), which would not allow an individual to rescue a non-target animal from a steel jaw trap, even someone who is trying to rescue their own pet from the trap.
Now, if I could, I would just like to pass these forward for you to look at.
I also enclosed a sheet that lists some of the alternatives that are available to trappers and a compilation of news articles on pets that were caught in traps.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Is there anybody who hasn't seen these traps? I have seen them.
MS. LISS: If you want — I would also recommend letting it close gently on your hand to see what it feels like. 211
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Anybody else want to get trapped?
MS. LISS: I have, also, a Woodstream called the soft- catch trap, which has a thin piece of rubber attached to it, which we see as being just as dangerous and as much a problem as the steel jaw trap.
I can leave this with you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I think all of us have seen the traps. We have all had them shown to us over the last few meetings.
We still have a large problem which no one has addressed. How do you replace the traps that have already been bought by people? What do you propose to us on how we are going to pay these people for those traps?
It is like if I own a gun, and someone is going to take my gun, I think you are going to pay for it.
MS. LISS: I admit that that is a problem, and that is something that I would hope could be worked out, that in light of the seriousness of the problem, I think that there is something that could be done. The humane organizations would definitely be willing to do what they can to work out some solution.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Are you aware that we have taken a poll at almost everyplace that we have gone and that it shows about 99-to-l in favor of keeping the leg-hold trap?
MS. LISS: Is that at these hearings? 212
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes. We have taken a poll at every one of them; we have asked at every hearing.
And our mail almost indicates — I know what you are trying to do, and I admire you for your stand and everything else. I am telling you where the fight is and where the battle is, that you are in a very small number.
MS. LISS: Unfortunately — I guess the biggest problem is that the steel jaw trap is a tradition and some thing that is hard to break, however wrong it may be.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Like the whole world is; every body has to start somewhere, right?
MS. LISS: Right.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I can only say to you that we have reviewed and we have looked over it. Like I say, all indications are that it is 99-to-l in favor of maintaining
the leg-hold trap.
I cannot promise you anything in this piece of
legislation.
Does anybody have any questions?
Yes, Jim?
MR. LOVETTE: On page 3 of your testimony, you say
that you have additional sections of the proposed game law of concern to the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
including four or five things.
I admit that we apparently overlooked trapping 213
relative to hunting or trapping under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances.
I think the only applicability of that law was if an individual dispatched his animal with the .22. Under the sections of the trapping legislation, the only firearm that is legal to be used to dispatch the animal is a .22 caliber, no bigger caliber than that.
That is an oversight, and I think we can correct that.
What specifically are you skirting when you mention
Section 103, which would prohibit political subdivisions from instituting additional regulations in addition to the contents of the game law?
MS. LISS: As an example, in New Jersey, the more populated areas did ban use of the steel jaw trap, and that is because of the high incidence of pets being caught. I think that that would possibly prevent that from being a possibility.
MR. LOVETTE: In other words, you are saying that you do not like the language in Section 103. These things don't say whether you are in favor of that or you are against that.
MS. LISS: Concerns means —
MR. LOVETTE: Well, concerns —
MS. LISS: Well, okay. I guess you could take every one as being in opposition to. 214
MR. LOVETTE: Thank you.
MS. LISS: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes?
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: I am curious as to the rationale behind your comment where the fines are being reduced from $200 to $100. Is that accurate?
MR. LOVETTE: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: What is the logic behind such a move?
MR. NOLF: The 1937 game law set a price tag on each animal which made the muskrat and the lower forms of wildlife a lower penalty. Then there was an amendment put through, which the Game Commission had no comment on, which was attached to another bill, which raised these penalties from
$10 to $200 overnight. This was bringing it back more in line with what it should be, based on other animals.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: When was that amendment put through?
MR. NOLF: About three years, I think.
MR. LOVETTE: What we attempted to do in the various penalty sections was to recover the expenses of the Commission.
Currently, I think the Commission spends something in the area of $106,000 to go out and enforce the various aspects of the permits, ranging from menagerie permits to inspection of facilities, et cetera. 215
They have taken that money, but they spend about
$106,000 in doing it. So, what, in effect, has happened is that the people who buy the general hunting licenses are sub sidizing the people with the permits, and the permits are for particular specialty items. We feel that the hunting public should not be subsidizing and that those people that want those special permits or desire those special permits should be paying for the costs of the Commission relative to them.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You made one statement that I want to clarify for you. You are allowed to remove a pet.
That says you may not remove a wild animal.
MS. LISS: Okay. That would, however, still include a bird that was caught, correct?
MR. LOVETTE: A wild bird cannot be a pet.
MS. LISS: Okay, correct. In my statement I am saying that I am still opposed to it on the grounds that a bird —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: One other thing.
MS. LISS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I am sure that when most of the trappers have mentioned rabies, that they didn't mean that that is an all cure for curtailing rabies, but it is a method of taking some of the animals that might have rabies.
I am sure that every trapper realizes that that is not a cure- all for stopping rabies in the State of Pennsylvania.
MS. LISS: We are not trying to ban trapping. It was 216
felt that that would be helpful. There are other traps that we believe are available for trappers to use.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: My question was going to be directly along those lines. A lot of times, from my per spective — we have heard enough about trapping — it is difficult to tell whether some of these organizations are against trapping, for trapping, or what-have-you.
Just for the record, are you opposed to trapping?
MS. LISS: No, we are not. We are opposed to this particular trap, because we believe it is unnecessarily cruel and there are alternatives which are less cruel which are available for trappers to use.
In fact, we are almost promoters going around with these alternatives trying to get trappers to use them. We have worked with a number of trappers who are developing at the present time and have developed them. We worked with
Elmer Davies on the Ezyonem from the start because of our interest in these alternatives.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: So, essentially, you are promoting alternative methods?
MS. LISS: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Sir, I am sorry. You are going to testify, aren't you?
MR. WENTZLER: No. I have a question for her. 217
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I am sorry. We just don't want to start that practice. If we do, we will be here forever.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Is there anybody here from the Trappers Association yet?
MS. WENTZLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Okay. What is the Trappers
Association's feeling with regard to the legsnare down the road five or ten years? What comparison —
MR. WENTZLER: With regard to the power legsnare?
A power legsnare has some utilization. However, it does not discriminate amongst other things in its catch of, say, a white-tailed deer. This coated cable could very readily hold a white-tailed deer.
The colony trap, which is here, is the very thing which recodification is attempting to outlaw, and which we spoke about briefly.
The one trap brought in for demonstration is a some what oversized No. 2 coil spring. A white-tailed deer step ping on this trap would pull out on the first lunge, whereas most coated-cable legsnares either present a problem in that regard or require a breakaway coupling that an animal of, say, over 50-pound weight could break a coupling.
Then I think we would have a lot of white-tailed deer hunters finding deer in deer season with a whole array of short pieces of cable where they have successfully broken out 218
of snare cables.
So, I would think that an alternative such as this —
(demonstrating trap) — is much better.
MS. LISS: Can I make a note while he has got his hand in it? By putting all of these fingers in that trap, it doesn't hurt the way it hurts an animal's small limb going in there. That is a bad way to demonstrate it. If he wants me to put my finger in it and cover my medical bills, I think that is a better example.
Also, he pulled his hand out immediately. An animal is going to be in that trap for sometime and struggling to get out.
I purposely didn't demonstrate it because of that reason.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Going back to the snare then, conceivably, with the snare, if it was revised with a 50 or
75-pound pull or animal —
MR. WENTZLER: The one problem may be —
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: — it is conceivably feasible down the road with some revision?
MR. WENTZLER: The one problem may be with the increased presence of coyotes in the State of Pennsylvania, and we grow large coyotes in Pennsylvania, and more of them all the time; that particular animal would be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I am just trying to answer 219
the question in regards to replacing the steel trap down the road, not banning it.
MR. WENTZLER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Like she is trying to educate the sportsmen, the Trappers Association, to utilize this.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Gentlemen, listen, we are getting a little off of what we are allowed to do here in having someone else testify with the young lady. I am sorry; I am going to have to stop that.
I do want to make one thing clear. Recodification has absolutely nothing to do with outlawing anything in those traps. It is just not there.
MR. LOVETTE: It has been requested to be put in the document, but it is not in the document.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: All right. Thank you very much.
MS. LISS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: You know, I hope that the people here, like the gentleman in the back — when we are finished,
I will answer anything that I can or take anything from you that you would like to ask me and I will get you an answer.
All right?
I just want you to understand, we do have rules and we try to stick by them everyplace we go. If we didn't, we would just never get finished.
Okay; Mrs. John Hannum, Chester County Fox Hunters 220
Association.
MS. HANNUM: My name is Mrs. John B. Hannum. I am representing the Chester County Fox Hunters Association. I am here to discuss, Mr. Letterman, your proposals on the recodification of the game law.
First of all, let me clarify the word "fox hunter."
It means to us one who chases foxes and should be probably more accurately described as a fox chaser. We call ourselves fox hunters because, obviously, you have got to hunt for the fox before you can chase him.
If I use the word "fox hunter," it means fox chaser, not one who is going to kill a fox.
Now, taking your proposals as they pertain to fox hunting, first of all, number one, the proposal that the fox hunting permit for a pack be raised from $50 to $250 is a rather startling jump; but if this money goes to the Game
Commission, which has tremendous expenses in maintaining its game lands and its other activities, I feel that that is not something we should quibble about and probably is something that is very much in accord with inflation and every other raise in prices for everything else.
Going on to your proposal that every fox hunter must carry a furbearer's license, this I disagree with. I feel that it is illogical and even contrary to reason, because in order to apply for a furbearer's license, one has to pass a 221
hunter safety course.
The hunter safety course is to teach a gunner how to handle his gun, which is completely irrelevant as far as a fox hunter or a fox chaser is concerned, because he doesn't have any intent to kill a fox or kill any game.
Therefore, that doesn't, I think, even apply to a fox hunter.
His sport is as a spectator watching the wily, crafty maneuvers of a wild animal as he alludes his pursuers; and the pursuer is a well-disciplined pack of hounds whose only asset is the nose of his individual hounds, nothing to do with guns, and the fox hunter doesn't even expect to take anything away from the environment.
The Game Commission financially puts nothing out for the fox hunter. So, why should the individual fox hunter be taxed, especially since the person who has the pack is paying
$250 for the permit to hunt? As his guests, they should not be required to pay an extra sum.
I feel that this is a very logical answer to a rather illogical proposal, and if you will give that very careful thought.
The third proposal, that the fox hunter or fox chaser be required to have written permission to hunt on private property, rather bewilders me that you should propose this, because for the last three years I have been proposing this 222
very thing, that the fox trapper be required to obtain per mission to trap on private property, and I have been gunned down vehemently and consistently not only by the Chester
County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, but also by the Game
Commission.
The Game Commission guns this down on the basis of the fact that they don't want their game wardens to be made into policemen. The game warden is responsible for game management and not for watching out for a person who is going on somebody else's property without permission.
The fox hunter of any stature — the reason I ask for the trapper and not the fox hunter, a fox hunter of any stature has very good relations with his landowners and has, obviously, always had permission to hunt on it.
Also, the fox hunter, if he is beyond the area follow ing a wild animal and gets off the area where he is usually hunting and goes onto somebody * s property who he has not particularly gotten permission from, there is no way that he can do it stealthly or dishonestly, because the cry of the pack that he is hunting with announces his arrival and his departure.
If something happens while he is on that person's property that displeases the landowner, he knows exactly who he can go to and in a neighborly way resolve the problem.
So, I think that if your proposal that the fox hunter 223
have written permission, it ought not signal out one group, but it ought to specify that any sportsman, any gunner, any trapper, any fisherman ought to have written permission. I think that is fair.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Thank you very much.
I would just like to say to you, I have decided to take out that part where you need written permission.
MS. HANNUM: Oh, good.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: So, that way we will make it uniform with the trapper and everybody else.
We will take the rest of this under advisement, look to see where the problems are, what problems we might have.
Is there a problem: do we need that fee that high? I don't know. That is why it is a document, so we can work with it.
MS. HANNUM: Well, I think everybody understands that the Game Commission does a superb job, and their expenses must be tremendous.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I would like you to know that it was proposed to me to make every person fox chasing have a license.
One statement you made that I do want to clarify, the safety course that is given is not just for the use of a firearm. It is for the ethics of the use of other people's lands, material like this. That is why it was brought in here, 224
MS. HANNUM: I quite realize that. But the fox hunter probably is the biggest landowner anywhere and is very, very cognizant of problems on the land. The fox hunter is the least necessary that he take the hunter safety course —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay.
MS. HANNUM: — of anybody.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I just wanted you to know that.
You know, we will take it under advisement. We will look at it and discuss it and see what we can come up with.
We will take care of that written —
MS. HANNUM: Written permission.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: — permission.
MS. HANNUM: Yes. Again, let me say that the fur- bearer's license — the furbearer's license is because the person is taking a furbearer out of the community.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Did you ever kill one of these animals?
MS. HANNUM: Every now and then by accident. Usually, it is by accident.
There are all kinds of animals that are killed by accident: run over by cars or anything else.
We don't intend — it is not the intent of a person to have — it is the same thing almost that you would have every body who walked on a highway have a driver's license. That is almost the same. 225
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes, Jim?
MR. LOVETTE: Mrs. Hannum, when you conduct a fox chase, how many individuals and how many hounds are involved in that chase on an average?
MS. HANNUM: Usually, we hunt — well, they always count hounds in couples. We usually have probably about 20 couples.
MR. LOVETTE: So, you are talking about 4 0 dogs?
MS. HANNUM: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: How many horses and people on horseback?
MS. HANNUM: An average through the year with us —
MR. LOVETTE: I mean, on a given hunt or one hunt.
MS. HANNUM: Well, that is what I say. You average it out. For instance, on a holiday like Thanksgiving Day, there may be 200 people. But on an average, I would say, from the first of August until the end of March, we would probably have an average of about 30 to 50 people hunting with us.
MR. LOVETTE: Okay. So, you have 30 to 50 people on horseback and an average of 4 0 hounds chasing one fox.
MS. HANNUM: The fox has all the — everything is in his favor. He knows exactly where he goes. The fox hunts by scent, as well as do hounds. On a good scenting day, he will take off. On a bad scenting day, you will see him literally 226
sit down on a hill and look back and watch his pursuers.
It is almost like a game of hide-and-seek. He knows exactly where his homes are. When he gets tired of his game of hide-and-seek, he will go to ground.
The longest hunt that we have had on record at one point was five hours, and we are pretty darn sure it was the same fox. Other foxes will go to ground practically immediately.
MR. LOVETTE: The point that I was trying to make,
I think that there is a very clear distinction between an individual having an accident on a sidewalk versus the situa tion where you have 30 or 40 people on horseback and an average of 40 hounds pursuing a fox and a situation where that fox is either maimed or killed by that action. I mean,
I think it is a little bit more distinct. Your intent is basically to capture the fox.
IIS. HANNUM: No, no. You are wrong. The intent is as a spectator to enjoy the watching the crafty maneuvers of a wild animal allude his pursuers whose only asset is his nose. A foxhound is known to have very bad eyesight.
On a bad scenting day, you put hounds into a cover, a woodland or something, and they spread out and they will find the line of a fox.
The fox has all the shots. He knows where he is going, and he goes. He can do any number of things: run 227
through a herd of cattle, go up a stream. He is amazing in his crafty — as I say, crafty maneuvers.
MR. LOVETTE: Unfortunately, I cannot bring a fox in here to testify, having been pursued by 50 individuals on horses and 20 hounds, to get his side of the story.
MS. HANNUM: Well, sometime you had better come and watch a fox hunt. It xs absolutely not a cruel sport.
If, by chance, a fox should get killed, he has no anticipation, and it is over like that.
But you maim a deer, and for three days he drags around with a broken leg, or, as Miss Liss was saying, an animal in a trap, or anything like that. There you have cruelty.
The fox has everything on his side. It is a very interesting game to watch, how a well-trained pack of hounds can follow that.
So, if you are thinking along the lines of the poor fox chased by 40 big hounds, if you see a fox pull away from a pack of hounds, I don't know what the logistics of it are
— somewhere, somehow, somebody has probably got in some record book the speed of a fox as opposed to the speed of a foxhound.
I know that in a short distance a fox can outrun any canine hound. I have seen it.
MR. LOVETTE: DO you lose all of your foxes that you 228
chase? Do you find those foxes?
MS. HANNUM: Well, the object is to, what you call, account for your fox. That means putting him into his hole.
But there are many foxes who are not accounted for, who go free.
MR. LOVETTE: Or go into a hole?
MS. HANNUM: If they go to a hole, that is what is called marking the ground. Just like a coonhound will bark at a coon that goes up a tree, a foxhound will bark at a hole in the ground where the fox has gone to ground.
It is an art and a science to hunt a pack of hounds.
It is not a cruel sport.
MS. LOVETTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay; thank you very much.
MS. HANNUM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Is Lou Hoffman here yet?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: James Umbrell, AFSCME Council 89.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Okay, Jim, you may start whenever you are ready.
MR. UMBRELL: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Umbrell.
I am the Council Director of AFSCME, Council 8 9, and also negotiated with the Fish and Game Commissions' contract.
With me is District Game Protector Ray Lizzio, who is 229
the Vice-President and negotiator of AFSCME, Local 2842.
Before I get into the body of the testimony, I would like to say that there would have been more game protectors here today, except that one was recently suspended for urging people to contact their legislators regarding the negotiations on a radio broadcast in Tioga County concerning the Garcia decision.
There are just a couple of items in the game law recodification that I would like to address.
The first is that I would like to thank you, the
Committee, for giving the game protectors Title 18 powers.
We feel that the game protector will have a stronger ability to deal with violators of the game laws.
As the game protectors have many of the same dangers police face, we welcome this recognition.
That brings me to the second part of my testimony.
After granting the extended powers, we fail to understand why you then would specifically exclude them from Act 111, the
Police and Fire Collective Bargaining Act.
It is our feeling that as game protectors covered under Act 111, the sportsmen of the Commonwealth would be much better served. There would be binding arbitration instead of the possibility of strikes. The current problems we are now having with the Commission and the Governor would not happen. These problems would be solved by a neutral 230
arbitrator.
We would ask the Committee to include game protectors under the Act of June 24, 1968, P.L. 237, Number 111, or at the very least delete Section 903 under the planned recodification.
If you have any questions about this, gentlemen, I would be glad to answer them.
Thank you.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I am just trying to get this completely straight here. The only reason 903 was even entered into this code was to make it the same as the Fish
Commission Code. That is the only reason it was even entered.
We have no intention of dealing with that on a basis here. I think that is something that should be dealt with probably in other legislation.
MR. LOVETTE: I think it was under the Shafer
Administration when Acts 111 and 195 were written; isn't that correct?
MR. UMBRELL: Yes.
MR. LOVETTE: In that language in what they call organic legislation, how does it refer to your personnel?
MR. UMBRELL: Well the problem is that prior to Act
195, the Public Employee Relations Act of 1970, there was a law passed with the police and fire; and it gives all police 231
and fire or law enforcement people the right to bxnding arbitration.
We find it very, very difficult, both in fish and game, to understand why you would make a game protector a police officer per se, because he has total police powers when he has the right to arrest for speeding or whatever, but yet he doesn't have the right to collective bargaining under 111.
The Chairman suggested that maybe it should take other legislation. It seems to me that if we do that, then we are going to start dealing with Act 195; and I am not sure that anybody on the Hill is ready to start dealing with that Act.
MR. LOVETTE: The root of my question is that, as staff, when we examined Act 195, as we did Title 42, as we did Title 18, as we did a lot of the other titles, we looked at organic legislation, the impact upon the personnel.
We also looked at the fish code, because that is the only other code that we have to compare in Pennsylvania.
You have got to admit that a fish warden and a game warden are a little bit different than a police officer in his duties.
Now, he does have the power of arrest. At the same time, he does a lot of different things from what a member of the Lock Haven Police Department or the Harrisburg Police
Department does on a day-to-day basis.
We, basically, have taken this piece of legislation 232
and the format and have followed what was basically developed under debate and 195.
When we looked at the debate on record, we could not find any reference. The only reference to either game per sonnel or fish personnel was in the debate on 195 in the
Legislature.
That is why we basically wrote the bill and presented it to committee in that format.
MR. UMBRELL: Well, what you have to understand is that whenever Act 195 was passed, there were no employees unionized at that point in time.
MR. LOVETTE: I understand that.
MR. UMBRELL: It took really years of development, if you will, to determine who should fall under what Act. We contend that they are police officers in the straight sense of the word and that they, in fact, should fall under Act 111.
We think that they do as much as the police officer does in Lock Haven, plus more. For that reason, we feel very, very strongly that they should, in fact, be under Act 111.
MR. LOVETTE: During the recodification of the fish law, did the Union take a position relative to those officers?
MR. UMBRELL: Yes, we did.
MR. LOVETTE: Can you supply us with your position on that?
MR. UMBRELL: The position with the Fish Commission 233
was the same as what it is today. I don't have a copy of that testimony, but it was the same as the testimony given today, that we feel that they, in fact, are law enforcement and should fall under Act 111.
MR. LOVETTE: For the same reasons?
MR. UMBRELL: For the exact same reasons, yes.
MR. LOVETTE: Thank you.
MR. UMBRELL: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Just to set the record straight, Mr. Umbrell, Act 111 provides for final binding interest arbitration, correct —
MR. UMBRELL: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: — versus —
MR. UMBRELL: And also arbitration as far as grievances are concerned.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: We are talking about grievances and economic interests?
MR. UMBRELL: Yes, we are.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: I just wanted to make that clear.
MR. UMBRELL: Act 111 provides for interest arbitra tion, which deals with the economics of the contract, and also grievance arbitration.
Act 195 only deals with grievance arbitration, except for correctional officers, and then it deals with interest 234
arbitration.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: If I am to understand your position, the local union for the game protectors is willing to give up the right to strike in exchange for final binding interest arbitration?
MR. UMBRELL: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Okay. Secondly, you men tioned the current problems we are having with the Commission and the Governor could not happen; if you could elaborate on that a little bit.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: No; let's not. We will be educated properly. That is not pertinent to this recodifica tion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Is the issue of final binding arbitration pertinent to the issue of recodification?
You know, why the major interest? I think the gentleman's comments about getting anything in terms of a change to Act
195 is exactly on the money.
I am on the Labor Relations Committee; and you are not going to see any legislation, I believe, coming out of our committee.
So, if we are going to deal with this problem, it is going to have to be in recodification. You are right.
MR. UMBRELL: Am I supposed to answer the gentleman's question? 235
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We'll see how far you go; okay?
MR. UMBRELL: To answer, the current problem — there is a problem dealing with a decision out of Texas, and it dealt with the U.S. Supreme Court, known as the Garcia deci sion, which says that the game protectors, in fact, should be paid time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 40.
If they fall under the law enforcement aspect, under the Garcia decision, then they would come under a different overtime provision, and it would be over 43 or 45; I am not sure of the amount of hours.
The other problem that we are talking about is that we now have a gentleman on the street, and the Game Commission saw fit to put him on the street because the sportsmen in
Tioga County and surrounding areas have asked what the problems are as far as collective bargaining, and he tried to explain that in a radio broadcast, and because he did that and informed the sportsmen of that area to notify their legislators if they had any comment —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Hold it. That is the decision made by the Commission itself, not by this committee or —
MR. UMBRELL: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I am trying to clarify for you, if we had binding arbitration, we wouldn't have these kinds of dilemmas. That is my point.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Could I ask for that game warden? 236
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Yes.
MR. UMBRELL: John Snyder.
MR. LOVETTE: What we are trying to avoid, Jim, is that under the current law as well as the recodification, the
Game Commission — or the Commission, the Executive Director, has control of the day-to-day operations of the Commission.
MR. UMBRELL: They would still have that power. We are not suggesting —
MR. LOVETTE: The decision relative to what they did to that member, or personnel, is relative to the day-to-day operation of the Commission. The grievance procedure, con tractual documents, and so on, that is all their bailiwick.
MR. UMBRELL: It is more than that, because you people have sent letters out asking for comments from each one of the game protectors about recodification. That letter has gone out.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: Let me make a correction on that. I as an individual Representative sent out a letter to every District Game Protector in the state asking for their comment on my proposal solely, my idea that we ought not per mit hunters to carry a gun after they get their deer. I asked, and I had four alternatives, four ways of dealing with that issue. That is specifically what I asked the game protectors about.
MR. UMBRELL: Well, Representative, the reason I 237
brought this up was because one of the reasons the person was put on the street was because he suggested that the people should go to the legislators.
If that is their position, we are not sure whether we should respond to your request.
REPRESENTATIVE LEVDANSKY: I just want you to under stand, I was dealing specifically with the issue of the possession of a gun after you get a deer.
You are correct. Some game protectors did use this as an opportunity to tell me about their labor relations pro gram. They did elaborate a little bit further, but that really was not current to the issue I was trying to get at.
MR. LOVETTE: The official position of the National
Union was asked, you know, for comments; and we asked through your Representative on the Hill. Your comments relative to the proposed law relative to the section is germane to this hearing.
The only thing that we have a little problem with is your comments relative to the Garcia decision as it affects your negotiations. We can't get involved in that.
MR. UMBRELL: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We are trying to be very careful so that we don't get involved.
MR. UMBRELL: I understand.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: We can't say anything to it. I 238
am just trying to shut it down on that part.
As far as 903 goes and what we have to deal with there, we think it is germane, and we will look at that.
MR. UMBRELL: I appreciate that very much.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I just want to keep away from the rest of this.
MR. UMBRELL: We understand.
MR. LOVETTE: The official position we have had from one voice, which is your Representative on the Hill, as opposed to every game protector out there, because every one of them has a little different perspective.
MR. UMBRELL: You have heard the official position of this organization; that came from me.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Any other questions?
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: I want to know what the game warden was suspended for?
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: That is, again —
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: It is getting on a hairy line, but —
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Representative Carlson, you are out of line.
REPRESENTATIVE CARLSON: Okay; I will do it in private.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: I would suggest that you talk to
Director Duncan about that. 239
Okay; thank you very much.
MR. UMBRELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN LETTERMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, that is everybody that has asked to testify.
I want to thank everybody for attending. It was, I think, a very good meeting. There were a lot of good points brought up, a lot of things for us to think about.
I thank you very much for coming.
(Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the hearing was concluded.) 240
CERTI_F_I_CATE
I hereby certify, as the stenographxc reporter, that the foregoing proceedings were taken stenographically by me, and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction; and that this transcript is a true and accurate record to the best of my ability.
COMMONWEALTH REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
By: yrUrtM fi dhtmftJbU Monta E. Gentile