NOTE: Photos to accompany the following article are available from the Game Commission's website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) by clicking on "Release #062-07."
GAME COMMISSION OPPOSES HOUSE BILL 251
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Game Commission officials today offered testimony before the House Game and Fisheries Committee regarding the agency's opposition to House Bill 251, sponsored by Rep. Robert Godshall (R-Montgomery), which would, in essence, make it legal to hunt any game species over bait statewide.
Calvin W. DuBrock, the Game Commission's Bureau of Wildlife Management director and a certified wildlife biologist, focused his comments on the species and habitat implications of House Bill 251. Richard Palmer, Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Protection acting director, focused his testimony on the legal, ethical, enforcement and social aspects of baiting.
Following is the testimony from DuBrock and Palmer.
"As I read it, House Bill 251 has three essential features," DuBrock said. "First, it prohibits hunting in game feeding areas and within 150 yards of any game feeder. Second, it makes it legal for hunters to move through a feeding area or past a feeder driving wildlife a relatively short distance (150 yards) outside a feeding area where they can be harvested. And, third, it continues to exempt normal, accepted farming, habitat management, oil and gas drilling, mining, forest management or other legitimate commercial or industrial practices.
"House Bill 251 effectively sanctions feeding of wildlife and essentially legalizes hunting in the vicinity of placed feed everywhere in the Commonwealth.   This is the essence of baiting. Baiting and supplemental feeding have proven quite useful in enhancing wildlife taking. As a result wildlife agencies use this tool for research and have had to be very careful in allowing the use of feeding by hunters to control harvest and ultimately populations. While some states do allow baiting for various species, in Pennsylvania we have not allowed baiting for big game for decades. This is neither prudent nor acceptable to Pennsylvania hunters.
"Baiting and supplemental feeding are similar activities, but the purpose differs. Baiting, as used in the wildlife management profession, is the intentional placement of food or nutrients to manipulate the behavior of wildlife for harvest, capture or viewing. Supplemental feeding is the intentional placement of food for wildlife with the intent of providing for the welfare of wildlife. Supplemental feeding becomes baiting when the feeding area is hunted.
"Baiting, supplemental feeding and habitat management are viewed differently by the wildlife profession. Baiting and supplemental feeding traditionally are not considered by the wildlife profession as habitat or forest management practices; however, many states allow supplemental feeding because it is a popular and 'traditional' practice among landowners. The Game Commission has long questioned the propriety of this practice. Wildlife food plots planted using normal, acceptable agricultural practices are not considered baiting or supplemental feeding
"Managed food plots and agricultural crops differ from feeding and baiting in significant ways. Food plots and agricultural crops offer year-round or seasonal availability to wildlife on a 24-hour basis where they can feed at will. Wildlife also do not concentrate at densities often experienced at feeding stations. Food plots are natural and healthy, without the mold and toxins often present in feeders or bait piles, that can cause fatalities in some species of wildlife. Food plots and crops left standing for wildlife do not significantly alter the interactions of wildlife or increase habituation to people. These plantings also provide habitat benefits for other wildlife by providing openings for feeding, nesting, and brood rearing.
"This past March, The Wildlife Society (TWS), the professional society of wildlife biologists and managers, issued a position statement on Baiting and Supplemental Feeding of Game Wildlife Species. While acknowledging a certain amount of controversy about the real and perceived positive and negative impacts of baiting and supplemental feeding, and the scale at which these practices are used, based on a review of relevant research TWS encouraged wildlife management agencies to phase-out supplemental feeding - both in-house and by the public - to maintain populations compatible with habitat carrying capacity. The TWS statement labels policies allowing or promoting baiting and supplemental feeding as conveying "erroneous concepts" that such practices are suitable replacements for adequate habitat and scientific management of wildlife.
"It also is Game Commission policy to discourage feeding and instead use habitat management to attract game. Two exceptions come to mind. Baiting or supplemental feeding is used on a limited scale by the agency for research and management purposes only, for example, in waterfowl banding, bear tagging, and so forth. Also, this past year the Commission began permitting deer hunters in the southeast special regulations area to use feed/baiting on a limited basis to improve hunter success and harvest in this highly developed area where deer pose a substantial safety and damage problem for communities.
"Feeding wildlife for the purpose of harvesting is receiving much more attention today as a smaller percentage of the public participates in or even understands hunting. While many nonhunters value our hunting traditions, they want hunters to be ethical, utilize fair chase principles and ensure that populations are managed in a sustainable way. Let me briefly touch on the concerns of the wildlife management community and public associated with hunting in the vicinity of feeding areas. They are numerous: feeding locally concentrates wildlife at unnatural densities; reduces home range size, increases births and reduces natural habitat carrying capacity; increases wildlife habituation to humans and diminishes wild behavior of animals; increases contact among wildlife species and individuals in the social hierarchy of populations; and increases the likelihood of disease transmission within and among species by maintaining disease reservoirs.
"Additionally, feeding can lead to increased habitat and property damage in the vicinity of baiting areas/feeding sites; increased predation; and increased inter- and intra-specific competition among wildlife. Some people are affected, too. Feeding can affect the feelings of ownership of wildlife and the desire to protect or exploit 'their' wildlife; and it can lead to the diversion of limited public agency resources to address the effects of wildlife responses to baiting and feeding.
"Let me wrap up my remarks by focusing on three of these feeding-related wildlife management concerns. If our veterinarian were here, he certainly would focus on the disease risk issues, and they are very real, but I'd like to talk about the effects on animal interactions and behavior and how this might affect hunters and hunting in the Commonwealth. Feeding definitely has a big influence on animal behavior. Dominance behavior at feeders can result in aggressive behavior, and even death for some animals! This bear cub was attacked and killed at a feeding station by an adult male bear.
"Feeding also has an influence on animal movements. Feeding stations are replete with discernible, well-worn trails as depicted in this photograph. In an extreme situation you can have a virtual caldron of feeding activity and an extensive pattern of trails. The photo on the right is actually from a Wisconsin site, but similar situations exist in the northern parts of Pennsylvania.
"When thinking about feeding sites and animal movements, distance is important. House Bill 251 specifies 150 yards as the distance a hunter must be from a feeder or feeding area to legally harvest game. But 150 yards is not biologically meaningful, especially for mobile animals with large home ranges such as deer and bear. Animals quickly become habituated to feeding areas and spend a disproportionate amount of time in the vicinity of feeders. The 'zone of influence' of feeders can be substantial.
"Based on our deer movements studies, an antlered deer has a home range of about 800 acres during the fall hunting seasons. With a home range this size, a deer could move up to 1,100 yards or nearly 2/3 of a mile to a feeding site. We regularly observed deer move distances greater than 150 yards to bait sites employed in deer capture.
"This photo is from an actual investigation conducted by Game Commission officers involving a complaint of baiting. The zone of influence of each feeding/bait site based on our experience with deer movements is nearly 800 acres. Given the juxtaposition of feeding sites on the ground, deer and other wildlife were being impacted over several square miles, or about 30,000 acres. With bears we would expect the zone of influence to be substantially larger given their larger home ranges.
"Feeding, especially feeding on this scale, can influence hunter success and changes in harvest could yield dramatic changes in hunting seasons, bag limits and opportunity in order to manage wildlife on a sustainable basis.
"To illustrate how dramatic the impact might be, let's take a look at Pennsylvania bear hunting. Pennsylvania licenses approximately 140,000 bear hunters each year. There are no limits on bear license sales, that is, all hunters can participate who chose to purchase the special license. Annual bear hunter success averages between 2 and 3 percent. Annual harvest averages about 3,000 bears or 20 percent of the bear population. Harvests greater than 25 percent are not sustainable. If bear hunter success were to improve to 5 percent success, we could permit only 70,000 hunters to participate to constrain the harvest within sustainable limits. If success were to improve to 10 percent success we could permit only 35,000 bear hunters. States allowing bear baiting often achieve even higher success rates, some approach 50 percent!
"Finally, it should be noted that baiting is not popular with Pennsylvania hunters. In response to a question on the 2006 Game Take survey, hunters stated their opposition to legalized baiting for big game hunting throughout the Commonwealth. Seventy-one percent or nearly 3 out of 4 hunters indicated they were opposed to allowing baiting statewide for big game and 1 out of 2 were strongly opposed. These results were tabulated from 9,740 hunter responses and have a sampling error rate of plus or minus 1 percent."
Richard Palmer, Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Protection acting director, opened his testimony by reviewing the state law that prohibits the use of bait. Title 34 (Game and Wildlife Code) states:
Section 2308. Unlawful devices and methods.
(a) General rule.-Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for any person to hunt or aid, abet, assist or conspire to hunt 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, regardless of kind and quantity, or take advantage of any such area or food or bait prior to 30 days after the removal of such material and its residue. Nothing contained in this section shall pertain to normal or accepted farming, habitat management practices, oil and gas drilling, mining, forest management activities or other legitimate commercial or industrial practices. Upon discovery of such baited areas, whether prosecution is contemplated or not, the commission may cause a reasonable area surrounding the enticement to be posted against hunting or taking of game or wildlife. The posters shall remain for 30 days after the complete removal of the bait.
"The primary elements of the offense are that wildlife is being enticed by bait or food, and hunters are taking advantage of the area that is baited to hunt wildlife," Palmer said. "Driving through a baited area is hunting as defined in Section 102 of the Game and Wildlife Code and is taking advantage of the enticement of wildlife to the baited area. House Bill 251 would allow hunters to drive the area of 150 yards around a bait/feed site thereby taking advantage of the enticement of wildlife to the baited area.
"Pennsylvania has a long-standing hunting ethic that baiting violates the principles of fair chase, an ethic important enough to be codified by statute. The baiting of game birds was first prohibited in 1869, even prior to the establishment of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. In 1897, two years after the establishment of the Game Commission, hunting deer through the use of salt licks (bait) was prohibited. Baiting violates the principles of fair chase that have been part of Pennsylvania's hunting heritage for over 100 years. We believe this ethic is still held by most Pennsylvania hunters today as evidenced by the results of the 2006 Game Take Survey, and the increased complaints received about baiting from the public. There has been a steady increase in baiting prosecutions for the last three years with 339 prosecutions being initiated in fiscal year 2005-06.
"A 2004 public opinion survey on fish and wildlife management issues conducted by Responsive Management indicated that 85 percent of Pennsylvanians approve of legal hunting. We believe this is in part because of the perception that hunting conforms with the principles of fair chase. House Bill 251 essentially legalizes baiting and may affect public perception of the fair chase element of hunting and ultimately public approval of hunting.
"As an example, other states allow mechanical, timed feeders to release bait at specific times to entice animals to a specific area. Eventually the animals become habituated to the sound of the feeders and specific times the bait is being distributed. This allows the hunter to entice animals to the area to be hunted at specific times convenient to them. Some companies have capitalized on this habituation by producing "calls" that simulate the sound of the mechanical feeders and entice deer to the sound. We believe Pennsylvania citizens, non-hunters or hunters, would perceive this activity as violating the principles of fair chase. Currently in Pennsylvania electronic calls are unlawful to use for deer, but if baiting is legalized there may be a logical progression of interest in increasing the efficiency of that activity through the use of mechanical feeders and electronic calls simulating the sound of those feeders.
"Pennsylvania's law prohibiting baiting is not unique; it mirrors federal law in 50 CFR 20.21 - Hunting methods, prohibition of bait relating to waterfowl and migratory birds. There is no distance specified in this federal statute and state law cannot supercede federal law. House Bill 251 would create an inconsistency with federal law regarding baiting.
"The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has provided clear interpretation of the statute in Commonwealth v. Sellinger (2000). The court ruled that a reasonable hunter standard applied and not strict liability, requiring evidence that the hunter knew or reasonably should have known bait was present, that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, that the extent of the baited area is defined only by the capacity of bait anywhere within it to act as an effective lure for the particular hunter charged, and that an arbitrary spatial limitation would fail to protect those animals attracted to bait in areas outside any arbitrary limitation that may be set. This case sets the precedent of interpretation for lower courts to follow.
"The court quoted an unpublished Superior Court opinion that expressed a consistent view. This quote is also found in federal case law relating to challenges to the federal baiting statute based partially upon the lack of a specific distance being specified by statute. U.S. v Chandler (1985) - 'It would have been impossible for the legislature to delineate a specific area within which baiting in general could be limited. Animal habits and geography in the myriad of possible situations represent variables that defy reduction to a legislative formula.'
"It should be noted that Commonwealth v. Sellinger (2000), involved hunters driving through an area that was baited, an activity that would be legalized by House Bill 251. The courts have clearly identified that these statutes require a fact-specific analysis of each case. We believe that the courts are the appropriate governmental entity to make this analysis, and that they have not had any difficulty in interpreting the statute and analyzing cases. Game Commission officers have used appropriate discretion in enforcing the statute as evidenced by a successful prosecution rate of 93 percent for 315 cases initiated in fiscal year 2004-05, and 97 percent for 339 cases initiated in fiscal year 2005-06.
"There are also a number of social issues that must be considered when evaluating the implications of HB 251. Many Pennsylvania hunters rely on public land as their primary hunting location. House Bill 251 may result in reduced hunter success on public lands as wildlife populations are drawn to adjoining private properties with large-scale feeding/baiting operations. This raises the question: Should a public resource be allowed to be drawn off public lands open to public hunting onto private property to be hunted solely by those limited few who have access to this private land?"

I know the following summary of the first hearing is LONG.. but I hope each of you will take the time to read it.

NOTE that many of the same Reps. who oppose the deer plan also show ther dis-like for the PGC (in general) in their responses to this issue....

I just wonder if any of them belong to the clubs talked about .. MY GUESS.... YES !!!

I know of one member of the committee that has an agenda with the PGC and in part it is due to "his" club getting citations.. but I am not sure if was this incident of another one...
---------------------------

HARRISBURG - (05/24/07, 9:00 a.m., Hearing Room 1, North Office Building)
The House Game and Fisheries Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 251
HB 251 Godshall - Amends Title 34 (Game) prohibiting hunting in and around game feeders and game feeding areas by adding a subsection to unlawful devices and methods of hunting, to include hunting any game or wildlife within 150 yards of any game feeder or feeding areas where any natural hay, grass, browse, grain, fruit, nut, salt, chemical, mineral, other food or any combination is used for feeding purposes. There is an exception for areas designated by special regulations where baiting is already allowed.
Members in attendance were Chairman Edward Staback (D-Lackawanna), Minority Chairman Samuel Rohrer (R-Berks) and Representatives John Hornaman (D-Erie), Garth Everertt (R-Lycoming), Deberah Kula (D-Fayette), Todd Rock (R-Franklin), Harry Readshaw (D-Allegheny), Gary Haluska (D-Cambria), Neal Goodman (D-Schuylkill), Dan Moul (R-Adams), Dan Surra (D-Elk), Keith Gillespie (R-York), Rob Kauffman (R-Cumberland), Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster), Scott Perry (R-York), David Millard (R-Columbia), Christopher Sainato (D-Lawrence), Mark Keller (R-Perry) and Gordon Denlinger (R-Lancaster).
Chairman Staback began the meeting saying that Rep. Denlinger has introduced a similar bill, House Bill 818, which differs only in terms of the yardage requirements.
Rep. Robert Godshall, the prime sponsor of the legislation, spoke first stating his bill will define a much-needed specific distance from game feeders so that hunters will know whether they are hunting legally and would put the onus of proof of a violation upon the Game Commission. He stressed that currently problems revolve around wildlife conservation officers (WCOs) having too much leeway in deciding who is cited for hunting violations around feeders. He then related a story of how a 16 year old was arrested for hunting too close to a feeder yet the arresting WCO, when asked how far away someone needs to be from a feeder, would only reply that the decision was up to him to decide. Rep. Godshall closed by saying it is time for hunters to know if they are breaking the law or not.
Chairman Staback agreed that the way the PA Game Commission enforces baiting laws can not continue. He then asked if there is more of a concern about one species over another. Rep. Godshall stated this is not the case. Asked about reactions from constituents on this issue, Rep. Godshall replied that this issue has built up resentment against the Commission over the years.
Rep. Gillespie wondered how the 150 yard standard in the bill was established. Rep. Godshall acknowledged that he just picked a number he thought was reasonable. He stressed he is not wedded to this number, however.
Rep. Kula said that as a former district judge, she thinks a law like this would be of great benefit in the sense that it could cut down the number of these cases coming before the court.
Rep. Rock expressed agreement with the concept of the bill but worried about who would decide what constituted 150 yards. He asked if the WCO would "step it off". Rep. Godshall replied that under the bill it is up to the Commission to prove a violation occurred. Questioned on whether this would apply to private property, Rep. Godshall said it does and reminded the Committee that people cannot place feeders on public game lands. Rep. Rock asked what happens under the current law. Rep. Godshall replied that in the Southeast, there is unlimited feeding but in the rest of the state, feeders have to be removed 30 days prior to the hunting season.
Rep. Everertt reminded the Committee that the existing statute is located in one of the testimony packets as exhibit A.
Rep. Goodman said "so you're not promoting hunting over bait but saying that situations can arise where hunters find themselves in these areas." Rep. Godshall agreed. Rep. Goodman lamented that there has been some "spin" against this bill saying it is trying to allow hunting over bait which is a concept that is not palatable for some in the non-hunting community. He then related a case where an individual purchased several seven acre parcels of land for hunting but ended up being prohibited from doing so when a non-hunting neighbor in an adjacent lot put up a year round feeder. He stressed it is these types of situations that make support of this bill necessary.
Rep. Moul asked if it would be helpful to amend the bill to require notification of the feeders to be posted in a 150 yard diameter and prohibiting someone from setting up a feeder within 150 yards of a property line. Rep. Godshall stated that most large clubs already post feeder proximity warnings so members do not run afoul of the law. He worried that the legislature may run into problems restricting people from setting up feeders on their property.
Tom Marshall, Attorney for the Concerned Sportsmen of PA, testified next stressing what is driving this issue is the vagueness of the current statute. He related how one judge has outright called for a distance to be established. He explained how many clubs have a long standing history of supplemental feeding programs and that until recent times this was not a problem until reasonableness on the part of the WCOs disappeared. Saying that supplemental feeding is akin to habitat management, Marshall argued that it is not illegal to feed wildlife during the hunting season and that the law has always been interpreted to mean that a hunter in a "stand" hunting in view of a feeder would be considered baiting and therefore violate the rule of fair chase. Marshall continued, explaining that many large clubs that have 1,000 to 8,000 acres use a drive style of hunting where the animals are driven past a hunter. He then cited cases where the Commission arrested multiple hunters at such clubs.
Chairman Staback asked if Marshall could respond to charges that supplemental feeding draws animals from other areas that otherwise would not be there. Marshall replied, arguing the Commission would like to outlaw feeding during hunting season which is not a law they can make. He stressed this could only be done by the legislature. He related how animals travel in search of food and cover within their home range and that he is offended by charges that private clubs are stealing game from public lands. He questioned how one can justify the legal hunting of animals in a corn field but not over corn placed in a feeder.
Rep. Haluska stated that when the Commission is in court, they are an independent agency and therefore the Attorney General is forced to spend hundreds of hours defending them. He speculated that the Commission does not mind being in court because it does not impact their budget. Rep. Haluska said he has hunted over bait in other states and he does not think it is a big deal. He analogized it to using bait to catch fish. He concluded by saying he would be supportive of totally eliminating baiting laws.
Rep. Readshaw said he finds this issue ridiculous because he doesn't see the difference between a feeder and a field of standing corn. He expressed agreement with Rep. Haluska that baiting laws should be abolished. Rep. Godshall added the Game Commission encourages food plots and he agreed there is very little difference between these and feeders.
Rep. Everett asked if the 150 yard safety zone related to the proximity of the animal from the feeder and not the hunter from the feeder. Marshall agreed this is the case. Rep. Everett next asked Marshall of the result of his cross examination of WCOs during the Frozen Run case described in his testimony. Marshall related how he received different answers from all of the WCOs when asked the appropriate distance a hunter should be from a feeder. Asked if this bill relates only to supplemental feeding and not attractants placed just during hunting season, Marshall said the bill relates to supplemental feeders.
Rep. Gillespie agreed that more clarity is needed on this issue but said he has heard arguments that baiting will hold game in an area and worried about the perception from the general pubic concerning hunting over bait and violations of the concept of fair chase. Asked how close hunters were to a feeder when arrested in one of Marshall's cases, Marshall replied that most were about 100 yards out and that while one was 70 yards out, that individual was not prosecuted. He continued, stating that because they were participating in a driven hunt, they couldn't even see the feeder because they were facing the other direction.
Rep. Moul asked if the WCOs who arrested the hunters and who setup on the property under the cover of darkness were trespassing. Marshall explained that WCOs have broad authority if they suspect there is wrong doing on a property. He related how prior to the raid, they conducted a fly over of the property to identify feeding stations. Marshall asked, if the WCOs had concerns over the feeding stations, why didn't they come to the club and voice their concerns in advance. He answered his own question saying the Game Commission has told him they are not in the business of warning.
Rep. Gillespie asked how much it cost defendants in the Frozen Run and Black Wolf cases. Marshall related that not taking into account the hours put in by the officers of the clubs, the Frozen Run case cost $40,000 and the Black Wolf case (which has not yet gone to trial) has already cost $20,000. He explained these costs are so high because with the standards so vague, such cases become a battle of the experts.
Bryan Shissler, Wildlife Biologist for Natural Resource Consultants, testified the issue at hand is the need to provide a clear standard in such a way that the average landowner and hunter can understand the law defining when feeding wildlife becomes baiting. He related how in one circumstance a WCO in Southeastern PA closed down a section of a controlled hunt because of a bird feeding station on a nonparticipating adjacent home site. Shissler argued the Commission's position of removing the feeder 30 days prior to the season would exclude over half of the calendar year for clubs and property owners who hunt both small and large game and cut off supplemental nutrition during the most critical points during the year. He then refuted numerous statements from the Commission on the issue arguing points such as:
„h There is no evidence of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in the state therefore concerns over concentrating deer populations around feeders are unfounded
„h A well-managed supplemental feeding program does increase the nutrition carrying capacity of habitat and improves animal conditions.
„h There is nothing natural about food plots and therefore they are not any different than supplemental feeding
„h Deer will not leave their home range to take advantage of supplemental food
„h There is no documented evidence that supplemental feeding programs are harming deer
Chairman Staback asked if Shissler's opinion of supplemental feeding could change if CWD was discovered in PA. Shissler replied that in West Virginia they have adopted the practice of closing feeding stations in controlled areas where the disease has been discovered. He stressed the real challenge in PA would be to stop non-hunters from feeding deer in their back yards. Asked if he would only shut down areas where CWD was discovered, Shissler agreed, saying that is what happens in other states.
Rep. Everett then asked where the pictures provided in the Game Commission's testimony packet originated from. Shissler replied that there are about 41 states that allow supplemental feeding and about half of these allow hunting over bait. He then stated that he understands that some of the pictures included in the Game Commission's packet were taken out of state but said he can not speculate on the motive of the Commission in including them in their packet of material.
Cal DuBrock, Director of the Bureau of Wildlife Management for the PA Game Commission, and Rich Palmer, Director of the Bureau of Wildlife Protection for the PA Game Commission testified next. DuBrock explained that baiting is the intentional placement of food for the harvest of animals while supplemental feeding is for the benefit of wildlife. He stressed this is not considered acceptable habitat management practice by wildlife professionals. DuBrock further stated that food plots, however, differ in significant ways such as the fact that they do not result in high concentrations of wildlife nor do they possess the mold or toxins that can be found in feeders. According to DuBrock, feeders can result in aggressive behavior in animals and are a big influence on animal movements. Stating that 150 yards is not biologically meaningful for big game, DuBrock informed the Committee that antlered dear can travel more than 1,100 yards to a feeding site. He also cautioned that harvesting over food could also impact the number of hunters in PA. As an example, he cited that 140,000 bear hunters in PA annually harvest approximately 3,000 bears or 20% of the state's population. He cautioned that if the success rate climbed to 5%, they would only be able to issue 70,000 permits to keep the harvest rates below 25%. This amount or more would be considered unsustainable, he added. DuBrock closed citing a recent 2006 survey of hunters showing that 76% oppose baiting for big game and 50% are strongly opposed to the idea.
Palmer argued that baiting is a violation of fair chase and the long standing hunting ethic in PA. Stating that they have seen an increase in baiting complaints over the last three years, Palmer worried that this bill will legalize baiting and negatively impact the public's perception of hunting in the state. He explained how some automatic feeders are based on timers that the deer get use to both in terms of timing and the sound of the feeder activating. As a result, Palmer said, some companies have developed calls to simulate the mechanical sound of feeders going off. Palmer further explained PA law prohibits baiting and a change to the contrary could conflict with federal law. Palmer then cited courts cases that held that the current law is not unconstitutionally vague. He closed by discussing the impact that such a practice could have in drawing animals from public lands to private lands and the increased baiting prosecutions that have been occurring.
Chairman Staback asked for examples of inter and intra species conflict that could occur at feeders. DuBrock explained that such areas could attract animals like bear, deer and elk and some of these animals will drive off others. He reference a photograph of a bear cub killed at a feeding station by another bear.
Asked to touch on concerns over disease issues, DuBrock said that fortunately CWD has not been found in the state but if it were to happen, feeding would be prohibited in the impacted area. The Chairman then asked if the Commission has the authority to stop feeding in areas. DuBrock confirmed this is the case and is part of their response plan for CWD.
Chairman Staback next asked Palmer to discuss the practice of long range hunting in relation to the bill. Palmer explained that long range hunting has increased dramatically especially given the fact that some high powered rifles can now shoot accurately at up to one mile. He explained that such an individual could shoot an animal 151 yards from a feeder from a very long way off.
Minority Chairman Rohrer wondered if feeders could be positioned so as to have a negligible impact on public grounds. Palmer stated in his opinion a food plot has natural habitat value for other wildlife in the area as well and do not concentrate animals together like feeders do. The Minority Chairman then asked if there is a situation where supplementary feeding is O.K. in areas where such things a corn crops cannot be sustained. Palmer replied that the Commission's land management staff is available to assist any private landowner in developing food plots. DuBrock added that food plots are viewed as a more acceptable way of altering the carrying capacity of the land because they are more natural for animals.
Rep. Surra said he has 15 acres of land. He wondered if he would be prohibited from hunting on this land if he has a bird feeder on his property. Palmer stressed this is exactly why WCOs need discretion so they could state that such a situation would not be baiting. Rep. Surra replied that he is concerned from a consistency standpoint about how WCOs across the state would decide such an issue. Rep. Surra next wondered how other states have gotten around this issue if PA cannot supersede federal law in terms of baiting. Palmer clarified that federal law prohibits baiting for migratory birds.
Rep. Surra then asked if it would be considered normal agricultural practice to plant 25 acres of corn and let it stand. Palmer replied it may not be considered a normal agricultural practice but it would be a normal habitat practice. This led the Representative to ask if it would be considered baiting if this same corn was harvested and spread on the ground. Palmer replied it would. Rep. Surra inquired asked if there are more citations and litigation occurring on this issue in the Northcentral area or if it is a statewide problem. Palmer said that he would have to look at all of the cases in order to answer the question.
Rep. Surra stressed that the Commission is typically criticized for focusing too much on law enforcement and that from the testimony they have heard today he wondered why the WCOs would not just have told the parties to empty their feeders rather than waiting to arrest them. He worried about all of the time and effort spent on arresting people rather than simply letting them know not to do something wrong. Palmer explained the Commission does not have a hard policy on whether WCOs have to notify someone and oftentimes there is no indication of who the landowner is. He quickly added that the point about notification is well taken, however.
Asked how he felt when previous testifiers explained how WCOs had hidden until after a hunt occurred and then came out and arrested the hunters, Palmer said he is disappointed that the portrayal was so slanted and lamented that if a WCO waits until an animal is killed they are criticized and if they don't wait there is no violation of the statute to act upon. He stressed that most WCOs are doing a good job.
Rep. Denlinger expressed concern over a portion of the Commission's testimony where it was said that courts are the appropriate entities to decide such cases. He asked if there is any concern about judges who may be anti-hunting deciding such cases and setting precedent. Palmer replied that he is not aware of any cases where an anti-hunting judge has written such a legal opinion. He explained that there are a variety of factors involved in such cases and that what may be appropriate for one species may not be appropriate for another. He stressed that he meant that such cases are appropriate for a court from a fact specific analysis standpoint.
Rep. Denlinger asked how much it costs the Commission to prosecute such cases. Palmer stated that Attorney General does represent the Commission in lawsuits brought against them but when the Commission brings criminal prosecutions, the first level of prosecution is handled by the WCOs themselves and not by an attorney. He promised to try to get a figure on prosecution costs for the Committee.
Rep. Haluska expressed concern that the Commission is antagonizing the very people they are meant to serve. He said without hunters there would be no need for a game commission. Palmer acknowledged that as a legislator he is sure they receive this kind of anecdotal information but through the Commission's complaint tracking system it is known that of the 168,000 enforcement contacts last year, 9,000 warnings were issued and 7,500 citations were given. He stressed their complaint ratio is less than 1%. DuBrock added that he hopes Rep. Haluska misspoke when he said "without hunters there would be no game commission" because they are not the PA Hunting Commission and that while they are proud of PA's hunting heritage they have been give a broad mission to protect birds, mammals and their habitat. Rep. Haluska clarified that his comments were directed at the fact that the Commission receives most of their funds from hunters. DuBrock conceded that while this is true, without these funds they would have to come back to the legislature to ask for more funds to carry out their mission.
Rep. Keller asked if the 359 baiting complaints last year increased or decreased and in what areas did they occur. He also wondered if last year's number was considered high or low and for what type of animal. Palmer stated there were 339 prosecutions last year and prosecutions are increasing from year to year as complaints continue to rise. He informed the Committee that WCOs generally do not find these areas by themselves. Asked for more of a breakdown on these numbers, Palmer stated that baiting ranks in probably the top 15 prosecution categories and promised to get more exact numbers for the Committee.
Rep. Goodman wondered why baiting is allowed in the Southeast if it violates the state's long standing fair chase principles. Palmer explained it is allowed in five counties in the Southeast as part of a program to control the deer population. He continued, stating that hunters are being used as a part of this process and there was never any intent to expand this to other areas of the state.
Rep. Goodman agreed with Rep. Surra that the Game Commission only appears to be interested in enforcement and that cases discussed by prior testifiers could have been avoided through communication. He stressed that hunting over bait is not "cheating" and that he is concerned when there are clubs in the state trying to keep hunting going and they are punished by the Commission. Rep. Goodman further lamented that while other groups try to work to make bills better, the Commission just says no to bills. He said he wants to know from the Commission how this bill can be made better because the issue of baiting is not going away.
Rep. Millard said he would like to know how many citations issued by the Commission go to trial, what their success rate is, where they are issued, if some WCOs are issuing more than others and how many involved out of state hunters that simply paid the fine. He asked if were to gather damaged fruit from his fruit trees and dump them in a pile on his property and then allows a hunter to hunt on his property, would that be a baiting violation. Palmer replied that the composting of such agricultural products is a normal agricultural process. Asked if a WCO would come to the same conclusion, Palmer said he thinks they would.
Rep. Everett asked if a 1,100 yard radius is needed around a feeder. Palmer replied this is not necessarily the case which is why WCOs need to be able to exercise discretion. Asked how he can tell his constituents where it is safe for them to hunt, Palmer said the Commission would be happy to come out and look at somebody's feeding program. This prompted an immediate response from the Representative who said that was not the case in the Northcentral area where WCOs have refused to come out. He said instead they come in like SWAT teams. Rep. Everett then asked what criteria WCOs will use in these cases. Palmer replied that criteria would have to be studied but if a hard line would have to be made it would be the home range of the animal. Rep. Everett asked if it is true that there is no problem with leaving a planted field unharvested but that if the food is put on the ground it would be a violation. Palmer confirmed again this would be the case and explained that there is a difference between artificial and natural habitat techniques.
Rep. Perry expressed concern over the predatory practices of WCOs. He stressed they should err on the side of the people. He next wondered where the money from citations goes and asked for the Commission's stance on the bill. Palmer replied that his point is well taken and the Commission will need to be more proactive. He added there are currently 50 standard operating procedures in place for WCOs. Rep. Perry asked if there is data on whether feeders or food plots are better. DuBrock stated there are numerous scientific reports on the issue that they will provide to the Committee.
Rep. Moul said that given the tone of the meeting it should be clear the Committee is taking this bill seriously. He asked what the yardage figure should be in the bill. DuBrock replied that this will vary by species. Rep. Moul again stated he needs a number. DuBrock replied that they have seen an impact to deer 1,100 yards away from feeders and that it could be three times this for bears. He added that this can all vary by the topography of the land and natural food sources in the area. After again being pushed for a number, DuBrock stressed that further discussions would be necessary and that ultimately whether a number is given or not is up to the Commission's director. He reminded the Committee that they included the figure of 1,100 yards in their testimony. Rep. Moul replied that this seems unrealistic.
Rep. Moul reiterated the case where WCOs hid and only arrested men after the hunt occurred. He stressed they should have gone to the club owners first and communicated their concerns. Palmer reiterated that until hunting occurs there is no violation. He added that a WCO can go to the owners in such a case but if they are told it is just supplemental feeding and no hunting is occurring, nothing can be done. Rep. Moul analogized the situation to a person with a car that is no longer legal to drive who has a neighbor who is a police officer. He said it wouldn't seem right for that police office, rather than telling his neighbor his car is not legal to drive, to arrest him as soon as he leaves his house. Palmer analogized it saying that it is legal to drink and it is legal to drive but not to drink and drive at the same time. Likewise, he said it is legal to have supplemental feeding and legal to hunt but not to do both together in the same area.
Chairman Staback asked for the Commission's reaction to one judge who asked for the legislature to clarify the existing law. Palmer confessed he does not have a lot of details on that particular case except that the judge in question specifically stated he wasn't setting precedent. He reiterated how an Appellate Court stated that in these cases there are too many variables for a specific legislative formula to be utilized.
Chairman Staback said that he believes they will need to get together to find a reasonable solution.
Rep. Godshall said he has hunted over bait in Ohio and said that animals do not always come out over the bait. He stressed that some of the feeders in question have been in place for decades and that in his area of the state where people can hunt over bait there has been no outcry about unethical behavior. Rep. Godshall concluded, saying that something needs to be put in black and white so that people know if they are breaking the law or not.
He asked how Deputy WCOs are trained. Palmer said they go through an initial training and then one year of on the job training and regular trainings after that. Rep. Godshall says he hears a lot of complaints about the Deputy WCOs and it seems like the WCOs always back them up.
Minority Chairman Rohrer said if the current law is of a nature where subjective application makes citizens break the law then it needs to change. He added that if baiting can be done elsewhere then these are guidelines and need to be clarified or perhaps the levels of the offense needs to be changed. He stressed if it is a law it needs to be applied the same everywhere.
Rep. Everett invited all interested parties to his area to see the type of land that it being discussed. He speculated that perhaps the issue needs to be addressed differently for different WMUs. Rep. Everett explained that this impacts not just the hunters in his area but those all over the state that travel there and the lives of the people living there since their economy is so dependent upon the hunting and fishing industry.
Chairman Staback stated there will be a second hearing on this topic on June 12 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 205 of the Ryan Office Building.
Report provided by PLS - Eric A. Failing
There will be a House Game & Fisheries Committee meeting on June 6th to consider SB 589 and HB 1116.

Did you read this remark ??

Quote :

Rep. Haluska said he has hunted over bait in other states and he does not think it is a big deal. He analogized it to using bait to catch fish.

And he wants some say in wildlife management ??

UN-REAL !!