Vote scheduled to ban all hiking in PA. Game Lands for 130 DAYS per year

[happyslug]

12. The more I review this, the problem is proposed Section (5).

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Present (5) reads as follows:

(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to:

(5) Ride a nonmotorized vehicle, conveyance or animal from the last Saturday in September until the third Saturday in January, and before 1 p.m. from the second Saturday in April through the last Saturday in May inclusive, except on Sundays or while lawfully engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing.

The proposed change is to:

(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to

(5) Hike on foot or ride a nonmotorized vehicle, conveyance or animal from the last Saturday in September until the third Saturday in January, and from the second Saturday in April through Memorial Day inclusive, except on Sundays or while lawfully engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing.

While the change from the last Saturday in May to Memorial day is a slight extension, it is one I can live with for we are generally talking about one more day. Memorial day itself. The Additional of the phase "Hike on foot or" expands a ban on biking to include a ban on hiking. Again I would have no objection IF after the word "Sunday" the proposed wording of "or while lawfully engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing" be changed to the wording used in paragraph 23 : "unless the person is in possession of a valid hunting or furtaker license or a valid SGL permit signed by its holder".

Please note (23) is completely new, unlike (5) which is being rewritten. Proposed (23)

(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to:

(23) Ride on designated bike trails, snowmobile trails or horse trails or hike on foot on any lands or waters designated as State game lands, unless the person is in possession of a valid hunting or furtaker license or a valid SGL permit signed by its holder.

Thus I have no problem with Rule 23, it is with the rewriting of Rule 5 that I have a problem with and it can be corrected by adopting the language used in proposed paragraph 23.

The first question I would have is why the difference in language? I suspect bureaucratic inertia, i.e The Game Commission wanted to adopt rule 23 to increase revenue (While giving the appearance of providing free permits) but someone decided that rule (5) had to be changed if proposed Rule 23 was adopted so that rule 5 also applies to "Hiking" (presently only applies to biking and riding animals) but failed to change the last phase to match what was adopted in Rule 23. You can make the argument that the reason the last phase of Rule 5 was NOT changed was that the Commission sees no real difference in terminology between the two phases. On the other hand, Rule 5 REQUIRES participation in "Hunting. Trapping or Fishing" but Rule 23 requires only a possession of a "valid hunting or furtaker license or a valid SGL permit". Thus mere possession of a hunting license is all that is required by Rule 23, but actual participating in "Hunting" is required under Rule 5.

Now, the State Game Code, Title 34 defines hunting as:

"Hunt" or "hunting." Any act or furtherance of the taking or killing of any game or wildlife, or any part or product thereof, and includes, but is not limited to, chasing, tracking, calling, pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting at, including shooting at a game or wildlife facsimile, or wounding with any weapon or implement, or using any personal property, including dogs, or the property of others, of any nature, in furtherance of any of these purposes, or aiding, abetting or conspiring with another person in that purpose.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=34&div=0&chpt=1&sctn=2&subsctn=0

Thus my comment that "Scouting" would be an "act..in furtherance of any of these purposes, or aiding, abetting or conspiring with another person in that purpose." and thus "Hunting" for under the Act AND the Game Commission Regulations. I would prefer Rule (5) match rule (23) but given the above definition. "Hunting" I see no requirement that a person hunting has to have a weapon.

In the only case I can find on the Difinition of "Hunting" In Pennsylvania, a Common Pleas Case out of Greene County, the Court made the following statement:

Black's Law Dictionary defines hunting as "the act of pursuing and taking wild animals; the chase." Random House Dictionary gives some further meaning to the word, as being "to search a place thoroughly, to scour an area in pursuit of game." Thus, it is readily apparent that using an automobile to violate the provisions of this act does not have to be a use transforming it into the hunters' weapons-carrier, with their rifles bristling from the windows as it cruises along the byroads of an area, but rather, the legislative intent is violated when the car is used in such an obvious and overt manner as to make its use an integral part of the search, the scouring of the area, if you will, to seek out and locate the prey desired. The obvious and overt use of the vehicle exists here where the hunters, by their cruising along at a slower than usual rate of speed, alternately parking or stopping on the highway for the principal or primary purpose of visually locating game, coupled with their hastily parking in the highway, to facilitate the conquest of that game with their weaponry.

1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 16, *; 68 Pa. D. & C.2d 93, **, Commonwealth v. Beeren no. 216 of 1973.

Now that case involved the use of an Automobile to hunt from, which is illegal under Pennsylvania law. The Key is the Court defined Hunting as including "the scouring of the area, if you will, to seek out and locate the prey desired". Actual possession of weapons was NOT required under that decision, driving the car on a public road was sufficient to be used in the hunt.

Now Rule 6 already bans Bikes on Roads NOT open to Automobiles &quot 6) Ride a nonmotorized vehicle, conveyance or animal on roads open to foot travel only." thus Rule 5 must be viewed with rule 6, but present rule 5 does NOT including Hiking, but the proposed Rule 5 does. Given the above case, we have a strong case that Hunting includes scouting without a weapon and thus all you would need is a hunting license to go hiking at the times the Game Commission is proposed banning hiking. It is only a Common Pleas Court case but it is the best we can do given the definition of Hunting in the Game Code. Hunting includes Hiking and unless you are doing something otherwise banned under the hunting code (i.e. using a vehicle to hunt, in my opinion riding a bike is illegal if hunting for you can NOT hunt from a Vehicle, but if you park the bike that is like parking a car to hunt that is legal, but you can NOT use the bike or a car to scout for game, but it is perfectly legal to scout while hiking).