Fines

Probably around $150. Were both guys carrying lead?

Did he check to see if the gosse was shot with lead ???
If he did the fine could be more if it had lead pellets it ??????

Unfortunately everyone is responsible for everyone in the hunting party... most will only fine the guy with the lead shot, some will fine everyone.  Just like if they catch you at your vehicle and you're switching from goose to doves for the day and you have a case of lead and a case of steel in the vehicle... they'll say you were using lead for the geese.  The possession alone is enough to fine you... which sucks because how many guys go out hunting geese in the morning then switch to doves at noon without going home first?

I'd try to appeal it in hopes that someone doesn't show up

Last I looked our prisons have many people in them that were just quilty of being with someone when they broke a law...

You can't control what other people do

True you have to control yourself and not allow yourself to get caught in a situation where you "buddy" is breaking the law...

I'm sure they both knew there was lead shot there and I believe any sportman's worth anything knows that type shot is and has been illegal for awhile now....... to go ahead and use it is knowingly breaking the law... it's that simple... no lead shot means just that = no lead shot...

Don't have anyhthing against those involved , but it just makes me mad when people try to defend someone that breaks the laws..

it's always funny to me that when someone breaks a game law it turns to it's the WCO's fault... or it's a bad law... and they did nothing wrong...

Show me the law that states all in the party get fined if only one is in possession then I will agree. Is there past presedence set for this already? I'd be appealing if I had my non-toxic shot and the other guy didn't.

I've "heard" of a couple WCO's & deputy dogs taking liberties with vehicle searches. Like, "This one time, my buddy's cousin got pinched for having lead in his vehicle for a dove hunt after a goose hunt." But nothing firsthand. Sure doesn't seem like it would stand up in court.

Here's how the regs read:

NONTOXIC SHOT must be used while hunting ducks, geese and/or coots in Pennsylvania; the possession of lead shot while hunting ducks, geese and/or coots is unlawful

"possession of lead shot WHILE HUNTING" seems pretty clear though. Unless you're road hunting for waterfowl, it seems like you should be good. I have lead shot in my vehicle almost all the time while waterfowl hunting, because I'll often do some small game or dove hunting afterward. Never been checked though. I keep them in separate, clearly marked containers.

The man not carrying lead did not break the law..
Where's RSB, ask him if he'd write that ticket.....

mika, you mean they did not put a magnet to the shell, hard to believe that they didn't..would never hold up in court...should have taken it straight to magistrate to appeal..where does it say it has to have markings on shells,?????? ...please get that on here doc...

These are direct quote from the PA Code....

§ 141.23. Nontoxic shot.
It is unlawful to hunt for or take migratory waterfowl in this Commonwealth while possessing or using lead shot or shotshells loaded with shot of a composition or alloy and of a cartridge length not approved by the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or an authorized representative under 50 CFR 20.134 (relating to nontoxic shot). It is unlawful to hunt for or take migratory waterfowl in this Commonwealth using nontoxic shot larger than Size ‘‘T.’’





Source

The provisions of this § 141.23 adopted June 19, 1987, effective July 1, 1987, 17 Pa.B. 2464; amended April 28, 1989, effective April 29, 1989, 19 Pa.B. 1842; amended November 4, 1994, effective November 5, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 5561; amended September 6, 1996, effective September 7, 1996, 26 Pa.B. 4339. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (202785) to (202786).


§ 141.22. Small game.
(a) Permitted devices. It is lawful to hunt small game, except woodchucks with the following devices:

(1) A manually operated rifle or handgun. The firearm must be .23 caliber or less, that projects single-projectile ammunition.

(2) A manually operated or semiautomatic centerfire shotgun or muzzleloading shotgun. The firearm must be 10 gauge or less, that projects multiple-projectile shotgun ammunition not larger than #4 lead, #2 steel, or #4 of any other composition or alloy of nontoxic shot approved by the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or an authorized representative under 50 CFR 20.134 (relating to nontoxic shot).

(3) A muzzleloading rifle or handgun. The firearm must be .40 caliber or less, that projects single-projectile ammunition.

(4) A bow and arrow.

(5) A crossbow and bolt.

(6) A raptor. The raptor must be lawfully possessed under a falconry permit pursuant to section 2925 of the act (relating to falconry permits).

(b) Prohibitions. It is unlawful to:

(1) Use or possess single-projectile ammunition larger than .23 caliber or multiple-projectile shotgun ammunition larger than #4 lead, #2 steel, or #4 of any other composition or alloy of nontoxic shot approved by the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or an authorized representative under 50 CFR 20.134 (relating to nontoxic shot), except as authorized under section 2525 of the act (relating to possession of firearm for protection of self or others).




NOWHERE in these sections do I see a requirement for marking, it is the WCO's Responsibility to PROVE that you are carrying illegal ammunition and without a magnet or cut open shell he has not done that. Simply lazy field work by the WCO.

Additionally the way the regulation reads, it says "It is unlawful to hunt for or take migratory waterfowl in this Commonwealth while possessing or using lead shot"

Now according to section 1 of the follwing from Title 34, having lead shot in the vehicle would not be considered hunting, but if you had taken geese and were on your way to hunt doves, posession of lead shot in the vehicle while you had waterfowl, might be punishible, the way I read it.

Chapter 23. Hunting and Furtaking


Subchapter A. General Provisions

Sec. 2301. Amended June 28, 2004, Act No. 2003-48.

Sec. 2301. Prima facie evidence of hunting.

(a) General rule. - For the purpose of this title, any one of the following acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of hunting:

(1) Possession of any firearm, bow and arrow, raptor, trap or other device of any description usable for the purpose of hunting or taking game or wildlife.

(2) Possession of the carcass or any part or parts of any game or wildlife.

(3) Pursuing game or wildlife in any manner prohibited by this title or commission regulation.

RSB, can you clear up the confusion about whether or not you would be considered to be in possession of lead shot "WHILE HUNTING" if it is in your vehicle while you are waterfowl hunting?

ORIGINAL: rsquared

RSB, can you clear up the confusion about whether or not you would be considered to be in possession of lead shot "WHILE HUNTING" if it is in your vehicle while you are waterfowl hunting?

 
The officer would normally have to prove that the ammunition had been outside the vehicle and carried or possessed in the field to obtain a conviction. Ammunition in the vehicle typically would not constitute a violation unless it had been in the field while hunting.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

The first thing I would like to say is THANK YOU to Mr. Bodenhorn for coming on our board and offering his knowledge. I think all too often many hunters (including myself) are at fault for our lack of knowledge of the game laws.

I must say it can not be easy to follow this board and some of the PGC bashing that occurs (that includes myself as well).

But, I do truly appreciate an honest interpretation of the law. We do not always get those in some of the areas I hunt.

I would like to get a clarificaton on the marking of shells. Must shells be marked, or in other words when Mikastorm was fined without the shell being cut open; is that a legit fine? It seems to me that it would not hold up if challenged. But, that is only my interpretation of what I have read in the code.

ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr

The first thing I would like to say is THANK YOU to Mr. Bodenhorn for coming on our board and offering his knowledge. I think all too often many hunters (including myself) are at fault for our lack of knowledge of the game laws.

I must say it can not be easy to follow this board and some of the PGC bashing that occurs (that includes myself as well).

But, I do truly appreciate an honest interpretation of the law. We do not always get those in some of the areas I hunt.

I would like to get a clarificaton on the marking of shells. Must shells be marked, or in other words when Mikastorm was fined without the shell being cut open; is that a legit fine? It seems to me that it would not hold up if challenged. But, that is only my interpretation of what I have read in the code.

 
First of all thank you for the encouragement and you are certainly welcome. I will try to provide answers when I have the time but I sometimes just can’t keep up with the volume of posts.
 
There is nothing I am aware of that requires the shells being stamped with the shot information but to be honest with you I have almost no waterfowl hunting in my district so I am not as up on some of the federal laws involving waterfowl as the WCOs that work waterfowl areas all the time. When I get the time I will research it a little and see what I can find.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn