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.