poaching testimony

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/08 14:00:16 (permalink)
There you go trying to blame me for your actions again.Actually, my first response was in answer  to your post about 4-8 year term that's located right above the cute gal photo. things went downhill after that. this horse is really dead.
#31
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/08 14:13:45 (permalink)
There you are blaming me for blaming you again
#32
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/08 15:01:54 (permalink)
Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania. Bolgiano explained that when his organization first learned of House Bill 2205, it sounded appealing as a way to help stop serious big game offenses. But, he noted there are sections of the bill that they disagree with. First, the measure may cause an increase in the number of license revocations at a time when the base number of hunters is declining. He also raised an issue over making it unlawful to use lights while hunting, if an ethical hunter is attempting to recover "his or her trophy" just after sunset. Bolgiano also raised concerns over sections in the bill dealing with mistaken kills and not properly signing a hunting license.

Slinsky claimed the bill is too long and complicated for many people and should be split into two separate measures. He said the despicable growth of commercial poaching deserves undivided attention with strong deterrents and aggressive law enforcement. Additionally, he raised concerns over those who kill wildlife in self-defense. He cited the example of black bears who occasionally wanders into residential areas, "…uncomfortably close to children and adults. I should be under no legal obligation to figure out exactly what the bear has on his mind before taking action," Slinsky said. Wildlife that is destructive to a homeowner's property is another example of why an individual should be allowed to defend themselves. He also took issue with seizures of property unrelated to poaching crimes and added, "Prosecuting individuals for felonies is not an area the Agency (Game Commission) has had a great deal of training." Slinsky said he is not soft on poaching activity and it should be curtailed, but warned that "…appropriate action should be taken without violating the principles of cruel and unusual punishment."

Chairman Staback commented that the bill is not written in stone and there are some areas where amendments could be made. He said he will get back to both men on some areas of the bill they have concerns with.

Minority Chairman Rohrer said they raised some legitimate concerns that he agreed with. "Any time we make policy we have to look at unintended consequences," he said.

Rep. Millard asked Slinsky if he could cite any examples of someone shooting an animal in self-defense or that was damaging property. Slinsky said there is a case in Clinton County where a property owner shot an elk that was damaging his trees. The man called the Game Commission to tell them about the incident and he was issued a citation. The man is now appealing the citation and will incur substantial legal fees in his defense. Slinsky said the man should not be prosecuted as a poacher as he was merely abiding by his Constitutional right to defend his property.

Rep. Haluska asked Palmer who would prosecute an individual in a case like the one cited by Slinsky. Palmer said that once it moved through the district magistrate's court, it would be handled by a district attorney or a special prosecutor appointed by a district attorney.

Rep. Hanna said there need to be protections for homeowners defending their property against wildlife damage to reduce the incidence of questionable cases. Slinsky reiterated his position that homeowners who are defending their property shouldn't be prosecuted as poachers and defending themselves shouldn't be an elaborate and expensive process.

Palmer said there are provisions in the wildlife code that protect an individual when they act in self-defense and which protect property and this bill does not amend those provisions.

Rep. Hanna asked Palmer if he supported elk deterrent legislation designed to protect property. Palmer said he isn't familiar with that legislation but is willing to work with the representative on the measure.

Chairman Staback announced the committee will meet on February 13 to hear a report on the Game Commission's annual report and on February 14 to receive the state Fish and Boat Commission's annual report. Both meetings will be in Room 205, Ryan Office Building.

Rick Morrison, PA Legislative Services
 
 
-----------------------
 
Here's my favorite part.
 
Rep. Millard asked Slinsky if he could cite any examples of someone shooting an animal in self-defense or that was damaging property. Slinsky said there is a case in Clinton County where a property owner shot an elk that was damaging his trees. The man called the Game Commission to tell them about the incident and he was issued a citation. The man is now appealing the citation and will incur substantial legal fees in his defense. Slinsky said the man should not be prosecuted as a poacher as he was merely abiding by his Constitutional right to defend his property.
 
So basically .. if Jim Slinky has a big buck eating his apples, he can shoot it.
 
 
W H A T    A     D O N U T H E A D
 
 

#33
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/08 15:09:08 (permalink)
Another one:
 
First, the measure may cause an increase in the number of license revocations at a time when the base number of hunters is declining.
 
So Slinky WANTS criminals to be able to hunt???
 
 W H A T    A     D O N U T H E A D
#34
duncsdad
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 515
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/08 19:16:11 (permalink)
The actual reason behind switching from 8 year terms for Commissioners to 4 years is that it has become increasingly difficult to get candidates to make a commitment to volunteering for 8 years and the thought was that the shorter term may open up the positions to those that want to serve, but are unwilling to do so for such a long time.
 
It took over three years to get a Fish Commissioner in District IV and there were only three candidates that applied -- one of which dropped out when he found out that it was an 8 year term.

Duncsdad

Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion
#35
DanesDad
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3087
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/08 22:54:14 (permalink)
All I know is, every time I hear of the USP doing anything, it is usually counter productive.
#36
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/11 12:43:51 (permalink)
I should be under no legal obligation to figure out exactly what the bear has on his mind before taking action," Slinsky said.
 
I gotta admit, this statement is dumber than the other ones.  Infact, I think this has got to be the dumbest statement I've ever heard.. anywhere, from anybody.  The more I read it, the dumber I get.  Just when I think Slinky is making a good point, he says that.   Wonder how many members USP gained with that statement.
#37
crappiefisher
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2971
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/11 13:19:26 (permalink)
  Watched it on t.v.
 
  Crappy
#38
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/11 13:33:00 (permalink)
Wonder if anyone put it on you tube. 
#39
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/21 08:01:32 (permalink)
I see it as a duty of sportsman to at least email your reps and senators in support of this bill.   Also let them know that USP does NOT represent PA sportman!!!  If this bill doesn't pass, it'll be because of USP.  They are the only ones!!
 
 
By Christian Berg | Of The Morning Call
February 19, 2008

Matthew Teehan is all too familiar with Pennsylvania's rampant wildlife poaching problem.

As a wildlife conservation officer for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Teehan is routinely dispatched to investigate the discovery of illegally killed deer, bears, turkeys and other wildlife.

Teehan said one of the more high-profile cases in recent memory occurred the week after the regular deer-hunting season ended in December, when a landowner discovered numerous deer carcasses in his North Whitehall field.
''We found the parts of seven deer, and on some of them, the backstraps had been removed,'' Teehan said. ''They just shot them, took the choicest [meat] and dumped them on someone else's property.''

In his Lehigh County district alone, Teehan said, the number of poaching cases runs between 25 and 30 annually -- a total that doesn't include instances of wildlife killed improperly during established hunting seasons.

Richard Palmer, director of the commission's Bureau of Wildlife Protection, said the abuses documented by Teehan are a small slice of a growing statewide problem. Over the past two years, Palmer said, the number of poaching complaints received from the public has risen 30 percent in some areas.

And in the past three years, Palmer said, just three offenses -- unlawful killing of big game, unlawful possession of wildlife and illegal use of lights while hunting -- have resulted in more than 1,000 prosecutions annually and accounted for 16 percent of all citations issued.

State Rep. Edward G. Staback, D-Lackawanna, said the disturbing upward trend in poaching prompted him last month to introduce House Bill 2205, which would dramatically increase poaching penalties and provide for the forfeiture of firearms, vehicles, boats and other property used in the commission of wildlife crimes.

Under the bill, violators who kill three or more big-game animals in a single incident -- or get caught three or more times during a 10-year period -- would face felony charges that carry up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000.

''I have absolutely no pity and compassion for someone like that,'' said Staback, an avid hunter and chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee. ''He should pay the price.''

Currently, most wildlife violations are categorized as summary offenses -- on par with crimes such as littering and running a stop sign -- and Pennsylvania poachers face the possibility of jail time only in cases that involve threatened or endangered species.

Staback's bill already has received strong endorsements from the commission, the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs and even the Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest anti-hunting organization.

''The union of such a broad coalition of interest groups is evidence of both the need to address rampant poaching in Pennsylvania and the overwhelming support for such a goal,'' said Andrew Page, director of the society's hunting campaign. ''Wildlife belongs to all people, but poachers step into Pennsylvania's backyards to exploit animals for their own personal gain or profit knowing they will most likely not be caught.''

If adopted, Palmer said, House Bill 2205 would mark the first significant increase in poaching penalties since 1987, when poaching-related fines were raised.

''[From 1986-88], we had a decrease of over 2,000 violations a year, which ended up being about a 20 percent decrease in the number of violations,'' Palmer said. ''What we're actually hoping for, if this legislation is enacted, it will serve as a significant enough deterrent that we would see an even larger decrease.''

Melody Zullinger, executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, said the lack of meaningful penalties has made poaching a revolving door, with much of the damage being done by repeat offenders. Perhaps the most notorious is Richard Stoy, a Blair County man who was convicted of 50 Game Code violations over 11 years, including 40 for killing trophy bucks.

''He never stopped -- until he got locked up for other [criminal] offenses,'' Palmer said.

Supporters of Staback's bill say the measure would not only curtail poaching committed by residents but also make Pennsylvania less attractive to wildlife abusers from neighboring states where existing penalties are much more severe.

For example, Palmer said someone who kills a black bear out of season in West Virginia is subject to 30 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, while a person who commits the same crime in Pennsylvania would receive no jail time and a fine from $500-$1,500.

''Those guys know they can run up over the border, and if they get caught they can pay a penalty and go home,'' Palmer said.
Officials say Pennsylvania's relatively low penalties also make the state attractive to commercial poachers who collect things such as deer antler velvet, black bear gall bladders and eagle feathers for sale on the black market.

''We have people…coming into Pennsylvania, poaching animals for the black market, knowing if they get caught they will pay a fine, and the fine is part of the cost of doing business,'' Staback said. ''They're liable to come back 10 or 20 times before they get caught again, and even if they do get caught again, all you're going to whack them with is a minor misdemeanor. The idea is to put the fear of God into these kind of people.''

So far, the only group to express serious reservations about Staback's bill is the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania.
During a Feb. 7 Game and Fisheries Committee hearing about the bill, Unified consultant James Slinsky said the 28-page bill is too complicated for many people to understand. Slinsky said the bill should be amended to focus penalties on commercial poaching while offering protection for those who might kill wildlife in self defense or to protect property. He also expressed concern about a portion of the bill that would allow the seizure of property used in offenses not related to poaching.

Staback said he is sensitive to Unified's concerns and plans to meet with representatives from numerous organizations in the coming weeks to evaluate the bill and craft any necessary amendments.

If all goes well, Staback said, he hopes to move the bill out of his committee in late April, clearing the way for a vote by the full House.

HIGHER PENALTIES FOR POACHING?

House Bill 2205, introduced last month by state Rep. Edward G. Staback, chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, would dramatically increase criminal penalties for many wildlife violations. The following chart highlights several changes included in the bill:

USING A SPOTLIGHT TO KILL A DEER AT NIGHT

Existing penalty: 2nd degree summary offense, $200-$300 fine.

Proposed penalty: 3rd degree misdemeanor, $1,500-$3,000 fine and up to six months in jail.

USING A SPOTLIGHT TO KILL THREE OR MORE DEER AT NIGHT

(in one episode or over a 10-year period)

Existing penalty: 2nd degree summary offense, $900-$2,400 fine.

Proposed penalty: 3rd degree felony, $10,000-$15,000 fine, plus 12-36 months in jail.

KILLING A BEAR OUT OF SEASON

Existing penalty: 1st degree summary offense, $500-$1,500 fine.

Proposed penalty: 3rd degree misdemeanor, $1,500-$3,000 fine, plus up to six months in jail.

ILLEGALLY KILLING THREE OR MORE BEARS

(over a 10-year period)

Existing penalty: 1st degree summary offense, $1,500-$4,500 fine

Proposed penalty: 3rd degree felony, $10,000-$15,000 fine, plus 12-36 months in jail

Source: House Bill 2205

cberg@mcall.com
#40
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/21 08:03:31 (permalink)
Contact the State Government:



PA House Members:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm

PA Senate Members:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senators_alpha.cfm

Not sure who your legislatures are? Try this. Simply put in your zip code or find your county.

www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/find.cfm


House Game and Fisheries Committee:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_sc.cfm#18

Senate Game Fisheries Committee:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/senators_sc.cfm#41


Pennsylvania Game Commission Email

pgccomments@state.pa.us
post edited by SilverKype - 2008/02/21 08:28:15
#41
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3032
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
  • Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/21 10:16:44 (permalink)
I am not a slinsky or usp guy but this bill does not protect those in peril from an animal such as a bear or cougar attack.......

Better too far back, than too far forward.
#42
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/21 10:35:01 (permalink)
.....and it shouldn't.
 
Are you protected now??
#43
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3032
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
  • Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/21 14:20:27 (permalink)
Not that I believe an attack is a real threat.  I have had a sow on one side of the apple tree I was standing at the base of and her 4 cubs on the other side eating the apples she was shaking loose, but in the case of one the person who does the shooting ( and is determined to have acted in self defense )should not end up with a third degree misdimeanor and prison time on top of a fine........
 
If they get caught poaching.....lock them up. Stiffer fines great......  I just think it is a poorly written bill.

Better too far back, than too far forward.
#44
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3032
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
  • Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/22 02:08:30 (permalink)
Got some clarification on this tonight from local WCO and PFSC rep.
Self defense kills are handled already in the game code and would still be investigated as such.
However there is still ambiguity as to whether or not a mistake kill (under AR for example) could be prosecuted as poaching...(not good)
If this bill passes it will allow pa to join the consortium of states that reciprocated license suspension and revocation, so that someone could no longer have a license here revoked and still go to other states and get a license.  Pa is one of 5 or 6 states not currently in this consortium.
There language in this bill which allows for permanant seizure of vehicles/weapons/property/etc. for violations.  Currently it is only held and returned after a hearing regardless of verdict.  All were in agreement that there were some 5th amemdment issues involved in this.  Below is the link to the bill if you read the entire thing, you may or may not think as I do that there are several issues that might better be addressed in seperate bills rather than being lumped in this one.
 
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2205&pn=3146

Better too far back, than too far forward.
#45
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5026
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/02/22 07:21:36 (permalink)
I know there are a couple well known poachers in my area and I wish they would string them up by the short hairs.
I like the idea about the states being reciprocal on their license revocations.

"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
 
 


#46
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/04 10:34:43 (permalink)
Christian Berg | Outdoors
March 4, 2008

If you don't think poachers are glad Pennsylvania doesn't participate in a national coalition to stop wildlife criminals, consider the case of York County resident Robert Fewster and Maryland residents James Lee Fewster Sr. and Ronald Charles Wade.

On Nov. 19, 2005 -- nine days before the opening of rifle deer season -- Wildlife Conservation Officer Guy Hansen and two of his deputies were patrolling the area around Delta, York County, when they heard gunshots and the sound of an ATV.

After determining the location of shooting, the officers responded to a residence and found an ATV, three loaded rifles and three men in hunting attire -- Robert Fewster, James Lee Fewster and Wade.
A subsequent investigation resulted in the discovery of nine baited tree stands in the woods directly behind the house and the recovery of parts from several freshly killed deer. Faced with the evidence collected at the scene and DNA analysis of deer parts collected by officers, all three men plead guilty to a litany of criminal charges in October 2006.

James Fewster, 50, of Baltimore pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements, one count of having loaded firearms on a moving vehicle and seven counts of possession of illegal deer. He was fined $5,300.

Robert Fewster, 30, of Fawn Grove pleaded guilty to one count of having loaded firearms on a moving vehicle and seven counts of possession of illegal deer. He was fined $5,100.

Wade, 57, of Halethorpe, Md., pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements, one count of having loaded firearms on a moving vehicle and one count of possession of illegal deer. He was fined $900.

Clearly, these three men aren't the most intelligent people. But they just might have been smart enough to know it's far better to commit crimes against wildlife here in Pennsylvania than it would have been just a few miles away in Maryland -- which is one of 27 members of the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, a national law enforcement coalition formed in 1989.

Simply put, anyone who commits a crime that results in the suspension of hunting, trapping or fishing privileges in one member state loses the ability to buy a license in any other member state.

So, if the Fewsters and Wade had done the same thing in Maryland, they not only would have lost their ability to hunt there, but also in such prime hunting locales as Illinois, Kansas, Georgia, Idaho, Montana and North and South Dakota.

But since the crimes were committed in Pennsylvania -- a non-member state -- the three men are free to legally hunt anywhere else in the nation.

For James Fewster and Wade, that means the ability to keep hunting in their home state. And for Robert Fewster, it means all he has to do is hop in his car and head south of the Mason-Dixon line each year to enjoy a good deer hunt.

Wider implications

On a larger level, Pennsylvania's lack of participation in the compact means convicted poachers from across the nation -- even those guilty of the most heinous crimes -- are free to come hunt here, and there's nothing the state Game Commission can do about it.

Similarly, the worst of Pennsylvania's convicted poachers -- many of whom have had their licenses revoked for decades -- are free to hop on a plane and go hunt in compact member states whenever they want, because we don't share our revocation list with other states. I have no doubt this results in Pennsylvania exporting some of our worst ''sportsmen'' across state lines.

Frankly, the fact that a history of wildlife abuse in Pennsylvania doesn't follow offenders across the border is a bit ludicrous.

If you are convicted of drunk driving here, you can't just drive over to New Jersey and buy a new driver's license. And if you are convicted of child molestation here, you can't just head down to Baltimore and start working at a day-care center.

Why should wildlife crimes be treated differently?

State Rep. Marc Gergely, D-Allegheny, intends to introduce a bill later this month that would make Pennsylvania an Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact Member, giving the Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission the ability to share their revocation lists with other states and check the names of out-of-state sportsmen against the national compact database before selling them a hunting, trapping or fishing license.

As far as I'm concerned, Gergely's bill should be put on a fast track through the General Assembly and go straight to Gov. Ed Rendell for his signature.
However, two previous attempts to join the compact failed, and Gergely's latest effort is far from a slam dunk.

Legitimate concerns

One of the legislature's most vocal opponents to joining the compact is Rep. Robert Godshall, R-Montgomery, who warns that the multi-state agreement sounds better in theory than it looks in practice.
''It's a good thing if everybody plays fair and by the book, but it doesn't always happen like that,'' Godshall said. ''I have real reservations on the compact.''

Godshall, an avid sportsmen who regularly hunts in other states, comes by those reservations honestly. Back in the 1990s, Godshall and some relatives were on a bear hunt in Idaho when a game warden showed up and saw Godshall's nephew with a pair of grouse that had apparently been shot out of season.

As Godshall explained it, neither his nephew or anyone else in the family knew anything about grouse hunting or grouse season, and that the nephew was merely carrying the birds because the outfitter had asked him to bring them to a cook in the mess tent.

''He didn't know. All he did was follow directions,'' said Godshall, adding that the warden seized his nephew's Sako .30-06 bear rifle. ''If you shoot a grouse with a .30-06, there isn't much left, and you'd need a bucket to pick up the feathers.''

To make a long story short, Godshall said his family ended up spending a considerable amount of money to hire a lawyer and fly the nephew back to Idaho in an effort to fight the charge. But, on the day of the hearing, the judge granted a continuance requested by the state wildlife agency, which would have required a second trip back to court.

In the end, Godshall said, the family decided not to make a second trip. So, his nephew was convicted in absentia and had his Idaho hunting privileges revoked. Godshall said he worries other Pennsylvania hunters would be caught up in similar misunderstandings and be unable to defend themselves because of the time and expense involved.

''If that compact had been in place, he would have lost his license in Pennsylvania for something he just totally didn't do,'' Godshall said.

Finding common ground

Now I obviously have no way of knowing what happened out in Idaho more than a decade ago. However, I will say Godshall seemed like a very reasonable man when I talked to him. He answered all my questions fully, and I have no reason to suspect he told me anything other than the truth.

Godshall also told me that despite his reservations about the compact, he shares my concern that Pennsylvania could be a poacher's paradise.

''I have no problem with getting the bad guys,'' Godshall said. ''I don't care if you take their licenses away. You can put them in jail, as far as I am concerned, and leave them there. [But] there's ways you can handle this without taking away somebody's due process.''

While I sympathize with Godshall's situation, I still think Gergely's proposal has merit.

If Godshall and other lawmakers with concerns about the compact are serious about getting tough on poachers, they should work with Gergely and other members of the House Game and Fisheries Committee to come up with a bill that is tough on criminals while safeguarding the rights of the innocent.

One possibility, for example, would be to explore the possibility of setting up a state review board that could hear appeals from Pennsylvania sportsmen convicted in other states. The board could have authority to re-instate hunting privileges or reduce the length of revocations.

The alternative -- rejecting the compact out of hand simply because it's not perfect -- is just taking the easy way out.

cberg@mcall.com
 
#47
jlh42581
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1885
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/10/13 07:56:43
  • Location: Bellefonte
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 07:14:30 (permalink)
The jail time is the kicker, I think they should be put on probation too! Ive heard some people who killed a deer illegally, got caught for it, lost their license and said "I dont care if I have a license or not, I wont stop hunting"... if youre in jail you will.
#48
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 08:36:52 (permalink)
Here's the downloads of the recent meeting.  INTERESTING, Senator Eich warned the USP to NOT side with HB 1214 (reduction of commissioner terms), because this will allow the governor to STACK commissioners in his favor.  Like I said before, those of you that FOR this bill, might as well be anti-hunters.   Last Saturday, I had the opportunity to meet Senator Eich.  He grew up as a hunter, still is.  He has his eyes on governor and eventually (a few terms away)the presidency.   You can watch him hammer the USP in the video's or someone has it written out on huntingpa.   Another, dumas testimony from the idiots at USP.
 
http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=568283&fpart=1
 
 
#49
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 09:30:56 (permalink)
So much for the fantasy that the PGC is an independent agency. The four year term could be a good or a bad thing depending on whether the sitting govenor is pro or anti hunting. In the present case it appears to be a bad thing.
#50
jlh42581
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1885
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/10/13 07:56:43
  • Location: Bellefonte
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 19:39:09 (permalink)
Jon, man I really agree with a lot of what you say but some of the things they say are MORE then valid and if you cant see it, hand me whatever you are smoking. While some stuff is WAY insane, id have to say with regards to how much of my time Ive spent in the woods and know about agriculture that they are right on a lot of valid points.

Such as... the soil is so acidic you cannot grow a hardwood forest or browse. Have you ever tried to grow a micro plot in the woods? Bring 200lbs of lime with you? If you didnt, bet it didnt grow. Them saying that the kill the deer solution without thinking about other factors is absolutely true. I havent seen jack squat in any of the areas. Take a look at black moshannon. For years you could drive those roads at night and see hundereds of deer. The woods dont look a **** bit different but the deer are gone. You dont see them on the road, you dont see them in the woods.

Dont be so blind to the views of only one way. The 8yr vs 4yr term is a BAD idea. Some of the other stuff they talk about and I agree with, some points I dont, everyone cant be 100% right or we would live under communist rule. I still think that the game commission should be elected.


#51
jlh42581
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1885
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/10/13 07:56:43
  • Location: Bellefonte
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 20:10:15 (permalink)
Mcllhinney "If your vote was one to seven on most votes, the vote is not stacked in favor of any way"

He needs to smoke some more wacky too. He's a cocky arrogant bunghole who doesnt hear anything they say. Whos he blowing for a raise.
#52
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 22:09:14 (permalink)
8 to 4 year term.  Talk about taking away from an independent agency!
 
Nothing wrong with them stating opinions and being incorrect.  Everyone does.  It's the level of absolute retardation, that half of their claims define.  What they stand for and try to represent is well beyond logic.  They do the EXACT opposite of "unify."  It USED to **** me off to see or hear them speak.  Now it's just laughable; pretty much discredits them as a whole.  They're getting what they derserve.
 
As for no deer in low areas of centre county, well..  That attitude sure has produced some older deer lately in central PA.   Sure is nice.  The low lying areas in centre county have plenty of deer.  They are just an older animal and are on private property before the sun rises and don't enter public property until the sun goes down.  I've watched it.  I think you know where I am talking about.
 
Hope you don't start blaming the fish commission for the days you don't catch any fish.
#53
jlh42581
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1885
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/10/13 07:56:43
  • Location: Bellefonte
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/12 22:49:03 (permalink)
I never said i dont see or shoot deer in the low lying areas, which is why i pointed out black moshannon.
#54
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/14 11:57:58 (permalink)
hmm..
 
USP writing articles on C.A.S.H.  -- Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting.
 
 
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/alerts-pga-9sep03.html
 
That's lovely.
 
 
#55
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/14 13:36:50 (permalink)
Looks more like one of Slinskys old articles they took out of a newspaper and put on their website. Not sure why though. Doesn't appear to help their cause much. Date on it is 2003.
#56
Deerslayir
Avid Angler
  • Total Posts : 175
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/07/10 22:34:12
  • Status: offline
RE: poaching testimony 2008/03/14 14:41:43 (permalink)
Everybody knows who the poachers are in the area they hunt except the game wardens how can that be? The game wardens want the easy fine of an everyday joe improperly displaying his orange. Its really sad,that the locals can actually scare a law enforcement officer. The details on these buck pools arent just the biggest buck killed, its the most as well over a certain size.
#57
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to: