HARRISBURG - (06/12/07, 9:00 a.m., 205 Ryan Office Building)
The House Game and Fisheries Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 251.
 
HB 251 Godshall - (PN 283) 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 included Chairman Edward Staback (D-Lackawanna) and Representatives Robert Godshall (R-Montgomery), Mark Keller (R-Franklin), Gordon Denlinger (R-Lancaster), Rob Kauffman (R-Cumberland), Michael McGeehan (D-Philadelphia), Gary Haluska (D-Cambria), Harry Readshaw (D-Allegheny), Dan Moul (R-Adams), Garth Everett (R-Lycoming), David Millard (R-Columbia), Dan Surra (D-Elk), Scott Perry (R-York), Marc Gergely (D-Allegheny) and Keith Gillespie (R-York).
 
Melody Zullinger, Executive Director for the PA Federation of Sportsmen Clubs, testified that House Bill 251 sanctions and legalizes broad scale baiting and goes against everything that sportsmen represent with regard to the sport and principle of ethical and fair chase hunting. She worried that because the bill would apply to all game species, it would have an immediate impact on harvest results and ultimately result in the Game Commission issuing fewer tags, permits and/or shorter hunting seasons.
 
Zullinger emphasized that surveys have shown that 71% of hunters do no support the use of food for hunting and the general public has an even higher rate of nonsupport. She stated that a difference cannot be defined between supplemental feeding for health and supplemental feeding for baiting simply by placing a 150-yard perimeter around the food for hunting purposes. Zullinger instead suggested that a better solution would be eliminating all feeding during big game seasons. She added that if there is concern about infringing on rights of property owner who do not hunt, then a section could be added to allow this as long as no one will be hunting on the property and feeders are placed at least 150 yards inside the property lines. She stressed that they would much rather have an all out ban on supplemental feeding 30 days before the start of a big game season until the end of the season.
 
Chairman Staback asked Zullinger how controversial she thought the idea of a total ban on supplemental feeding be in PA. Zullinger speculated it would be controversial but more so with non-hunters. Asked if the Federation has a position on a total ban on supplemental feeding, Zullinger stated they do not but stated her belief that the Federation would support a ban on supplemental feeding during hunting season.
 
Rep. Marc Gergely (D-Allegheny) asked if it would be baiting if an archery hunter went into the woods and shook an apple tree so that some apples fell on the ground. Zullinger stressed that she is not a wildlife conservation officer (WCO) but in her personal opinion it would not be baiting. Gergely stated that some have been convicted of such actions in the past and the real issue is the enforcement aspect. Rep. Gergely asked how to determine what constitutes baiting. Zullinger offered that in her opinion naturally occurring food sources would not be baiting unless they were carried into an area and placed there. Rep. Gergely stressed that he thinks this discussion needs to continue and he has a big problem with how WCOs are enforcing the law.
 
Rep. Haluska expressed surprise that sportsmen are against supplemental feeding when he understands that many sportsmen clubs use supplemental feeding on their grounds. He asked how the clubs feel about a total ban on supplemental feeding. Zullinger stated the question of a total ban has never been asked but clubs have told her they stop feeding 30 days prior to the hunting season. Rep. Haluska informed the Committee that he has drafted legislation to take corn off the list of material considered to be baiting. He said he will be circulating a memo for co-sponsors later today.
 
Rep. Moul asked if it is baiting if a farmer disposes of apples on his property and a neighbor on adjacent private property is hunting deer. Zullinger said that this needs to be worked out in the overall discussion of what constitutes baiting. Asked if this should be up to the discretion of the WCO, Zullinger reiterated that this is why all baiting should be made illegal. This prompted an immediate reply from Rep. Moul, who said that perhaps this is true in a perfect world but people will still feed deer. He stated the bill refers to a perimeter around a feeding station that a hunter would have to be outside of. Zullinger wondered what difference it makes if there is a 150-yard perimeter rule and the hunter still does not know that a feeder was there is the first place. She said this is why hunters have a right to appeal any citation given to them by a WCO.
 
Rep. Godshall opined that supplemental feeding is a long standing tradition in PA that was started by the Game Commission. He explained that when the Commission later decided to try and end this practice, biologists came to the Capitol and testified that the worst thing you can do is to put deer that have gone without sufficient food during the winter on a high protein diet after the hunting season is over. He stressed that since hunting over bait was allowed in the southeast, nobody has stated this is unethical and there has been no outcry for it to stop. He then asked how the Federation could predict that a decrease in the number of bear licenses would result from hunting in a baited area. Zullinger explained that the Game Commission wrote an article stating that if the bear harvest rate was to increase to a level that they deemed unsustainable after hunters were allowed to hunt in a baited area, then the number of bear licenses would have to be decreased. Rep. Godshall retorted that feeders have been out in the woods for years and that there is no science behind such a claim by the Commission. He declared it to be a scare tactic.
 
Rep. Everett recalled how in previous testimony the Commission had explained that if a farmer dumped apples on his farm without the intention of luring in animals for hunting purposes, there would be no violation. He asked how anyone can make a determination of intent. He wondered how food plots could be allowed but if you put out the same food as supplemental feed it is not allowed. Zullinger stressed she is not an attorney and so cannot speak to the determination of intent but reminded the Committee that intent has to be proven under any aspect of the law. Rep. Everett replied that most hunters are not attorneys and they do not know what they can do. Zullinger stated that the easiest thing would be to not put feed out. She reiterated that the Federation believes that if you hunt over feed you are hunting over bait.
 
Rep. Surra said the Federation's testimony shows that something needs to be done. He asked how many states allow supplemental feeding. Zullinger acknowledged she does not know the exact number. Rep. Surra stressed the problem is with law enforcement. He asked if it would be baiting if someone planted a field of corn and let is stand for supplemental feed. Zullinger reminded the Committee again that she is not a WCO but she does not personally think that would be baiting. Asked if that same person put the corn cobs on the ground, if that would be baiting, Zullinger stated she believes it would. Rep. Surra expressed frustration that the current language is too vague to be enforced in a way that sportsmen can understand. He wondered if the answer is an outright ban on supplemental feeding. He asked if it is now the case that a person is guilty until proven innocent. Zullinger stated she does not believe this is the case and that the question of intent has to be proven.
 
Rep. Gillespie asked how many members the Federation represents. Zullinger replied approximately 97,000.
 
Dr. Charles Bolgiano, Director at Large for the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, testified that the current statute has to be amended to define boundaries that are clearly understood by the sporting community before they enter into a feeding or baited area. He stressed that except in Special Regulation Areas, the Unified's position is that hunting over bait violates fair chase and should remain illegal. He expressed concern, however, that the current law is vague and provides for the advancement of PGC policies, which are not law. Bolgiano added that they are against prohibiting all feeding of deer and turkeys during winter months except in the event of a CWD outbreak.
 
Jim Slinsky, Outdoor Columnist, then spoke, saying that abuse of discretion by WCOs is not a surprise to him and that House Bill 251 makes a great deal of sense in that it establishes legal distances from known baited areas. He quickly added that the repetitive core problem, however, is the abuse of discretion by state agencies. Slinsky speculated that the legislature will be forced in the future to pass legislation to establish limitations of discretion for state agencies.
 
Chairman Staback asked what the two testifiers thought about banning supplemental feeding during hunting season. Slinsky stressed the issue is really overzealous law enforcement. He explained that in some areas of the country, hunting over a baited area is considered sporting because of the types of terrain and habitat found there. He lamented that while in PA this is not the case, supplemental feeding has increased because of the low deer densities. He said the problem is that the Game Commission is being managed from the bottom up.
 
Bolgiano commented that feeding wildlife establishes a special bond between people and wildlife when there is not enough food present. He challenged anyone against this to try and find a legislator willing to introduce legislation to oppose feeding wildlife. Slinsky interjected that the feeding of song birds during the winter would be akin to supplemental feeding.
 
Chairman Staback asked if the gentlemen believe that the hunting public would support a ban on supplemental feeding during the hunting season. Slinsky stated that supplemental feeding would have to be better defined. He also offered that he does not believe the non-hunting public would care. He closed stating that sportsmen do not want to legalize hunting over bait, however.
 
Chairman Staback stated that of all the contacts he has received on this issue, none have been about the abuse of discretion issue just raised. He asked how it would be explained that this bill is not about legalizing baiting but about combating abusive of discretion. Slinsky said the issue would have to be written about and explained to the people. He added that the Game Commission owes the legislature and the people far more policy statements.
 
Rep. Godshall said Game Commission personnel have to know what is legal or illegal and if they don't then the public could not know either.
 
Rep. Everett lamented that what has been spun about House Bill 251 is that it is a baiting bill which is incorrect. He stressed its purpose is to define the difference between supplemental feeding and baiting.
 
Rep. Surra asked what the difference is between standing corn and cobs or corn lying on the ground. Bolgiano explained that the later is an artificial means of increasing the food supply on the ground.
 
Wes Waldron, President of the United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, testified that while baiting has played a part in hunting in PA , it was most noticeably in times when hunting was for subsistence. He stressed that they believe that approval of House Bill 251 will only increase the complexity of this issue and fail to serve the majority of hunters. Waldron explained that while the rules of fair chase in these situations come into play with hunters there is also the concern of the non-hunting public's perception of baiting violating the premise of fair chase. He also questioned supplemental feeding during the winter months saying that any proof of actual effectiveness is lacking other than to heavily concentrate game in feeding/baiting areas. He suggested that the elimination of any supplemental feeding from 30 days prior to, and until the end of, any big game hunting season is the solution.
 
Chairman Staback wondered if Waldron thought banning supplemental feeding during the hunting season would be controversial. Waldron said while he cannot speak for the non-hunting public, he recently asked 67 hunters if they would be opposed to hunting over bait. He reported that 64 opposed it, 2 supported it and 1 didn't care. Of these hunters, four of the five that belonged to sportsmen clubs that use supplemental feeders said they would support eliminating supplemental feeding completely during the hunting season, added Waldron. Asked if his organization plans on doing a larger poll of its members, Waldron said they will and should have the results in a couple of months.
 
Rep. Everett asked if Waldron personally sees a difference between food plots and supplemental feeding. Waldron replied he views planting things like high quality grasses to be different from supplemental feeding because they offer good nutrition without resulting in heavy concentrations of wildlife like feeders do.
 
Rep. Surra raised the issue of WCO discretion and asked for Waldron to comment. Waldron stated that in order to address the issue at hand the simplest course of action is to ban feeding 30 days prior to the game season.
 
Rep. Godshall stressed the intent of the bill is to be fair without legitimizing baiting. He stressed supplemental feeding is necessary to help animals through the winter. Waldron replied that in his view, and in the view of many conservationists, any time you create an artificial food source for wildlife, you alter the natural progression of things. He continued, stating that if supplemental feeding had not been started in the state then perhaps we would not now be facing issues of needing to reduce the size of the state herd. Rep. Godshall recalled how he has picked up starving deer that were too weak to walk and tried to feed them so that they would survive the winter. He stressed it is more humane to feed the deer and he will do everything he can to make sure they will survive the winter.
 
Andrew Page, Campaign Manager for the Human Society of the United States, urged the Committee to oppose House Bill 251. He stated that when groups such as the Game Commission, PA Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs and the Human Society, that are often diametrically opposed are in agreement on this issue, the Committee can be assured there is something wrong with the bill. He said baiting tips the scale in favor of the hunter and is not viewed favorably by the general public. Page closed saying that baiting should be kept illegal and supplemental feeding should be phased out.
 
Chairman Staback asked of the other states with strong hunting traditions like PA, how many allow baiting. Page replied that 20-25 allow baiting for deer. Asked if the Human Society will play a role if the Game Commission banned supplemental feeding, Page stated deer populations in the state are too high, and they can help to educate the public about the need to end supplemental feeding.
 
Rep. Godshall retorted that if the perception is too high, then how many deer can be seen when traveling through the "big woods" in PA. He asked where the statistic that 71% of hunters oppose baiting came from. Page replied it came from a survey conducted by the Game Commission. Asked if his organization is against hunting, Page replied they are against hunting for sport and trophy hunting.
 
The Chairman closed the meeting saying the Committee will take the next several weeks to disseminate the information it has gathered before making a final decision.
 
Repport prepared for PFSC by Eric A. Failing, PA Legislative Services