NRA-ILA on HB 97 - Poaching Penalties

[Dredly]

I have difficulty in believing that the PGC arrests 1,000+ poachers / year and wish I could find more information this, I also wish I could find my source from a few years ago that showed way less unless the 1000+ is actual charges filed (1 chare / animal) in which case the 1000+ would be accurate as its not unusual to have 20 - 30+ animals when they get busted.

I'd also be interested to know how many of those 1000+ are legal hunters who shot a deer after "legal shooting times", didn't tag it according to the rules, killed 2 animals with a single shot, out of season harvests (buck during the wrong season, to many ducks shot,... etc)

What I find even harder to understand is the discrepancies in the PGC's reporting... for example this is from another article:

In the Game Commission's license year that ended in June 2007, more than 16,000 violations were encountered by wildlife conservation officers, resulting in 7,123 successful prosecutions. (Often, violators of minor infractions get off with warnings). Almost 43 percent of total violations related to unlawful taking of wildlife, such as hunting out of season, exceeding bag limits and “jack lighting,” a practice that originated with pioneers who cruised riverbanks for deer at night with pitch pine torches on the bows of their canoes.

Call me skeptical but...

[bluetick]

In the Game Commission's license year that ended in June 2007, more than 16,000 violations were encountered by wildlife conservation officers, resulting in 7,123 successful prosecutions. (Often, violators of minor infractions get off with warnings). Almost 43 percent of prosecuted offenses related to unlawful taking of wildlife, such as hunting out of season, exceeding bag limits and "jack lighting," a practice that originated with pioneers who cruised riverbanks for deer at night with pitch pine torches on the bows of their canoes. Then, the motive was to gather food. Today it often is greed, an obsession with antlers or a warped sense of status, Palmer said.

Comes from the article in January 2008. One month prior to the official testimony of the GC in front of the House G&F Committee I posted a link for above. Article link:


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08013/848850-358.stm

You can also go and look at the statistics in the Annual Report on the GC site. Under reports and Minutes (link on the left side of the screen in blue). There are several years of stats provided.


I'd also be interested to know how many of those 1000+ are legal hunters who shot a deer after "legal shooting times", didn't tag it according to the rules, killed 2 animals with a single shot, out of season harvests (buck during the wrong season, to many ducks shot,... etc)



The NRA had issues with the out of time kills.prosecutions as well. If you go back to page one, and read my post of the Staback letter, you will see the answer. basically, going back a decade, there have been no prosecutions for the five or fifteen minute under or over legal shooting times.

Killing two animals with one shot is a mistake kill. There is currently a $25 penalty attached to this. The new amendment will eliminate this penalty - as long as the hunter reports the kill within 24 hours (phone or email contact - an increase of 12 hours over the current provisions of the law). Failure to report a mistake kill is something else. namely poaching.

An out of season harvest is just that. An illegal kill. Now if a hunter in the early muzz season kills a buck and follows the rules as set forth above (call within the time frame, and surrender the deer or other animal) there is no fine.


However, an out of season kill, say a deer in spring turkey season, that is poaching. Noother way to put it.

And yes, the GC has charged several for this offense just this spring. Same as hunting turkys before the season began. No mistake kill here, that is poaching.

[Dredly]

my question is if they have 43% of 7123 reports, thats 3062... and in their other testimony they said 1000+... that makes no sense. If you are selling the point that poaching is rampant and we need tougher penalties why would you say 1000+ and not 3000+?

[bluetick]

my question is if they have 43% of 7123 reports, thats 3062... and in their other testimony they said 1000+... that makes no sense. If you are selling the point that poaching is rampant and we need tougher penalties why would you say 1000+ and not 3000+?


I have no idea. I do know that on average over the last ten years, poaching prosecutions range between 900 and 1000 a year. This is the figure the sponsor of HB 97 is using, and the NRA state rep has noted in newspaper articles. I feel both sides would have vetted this information thoroughly.

I would take the testimony of the GC and Staback's figures as more accurate than a newspaper article.


If I had a better explanation I would post it. However, that would be conjecture on my part. I like verifiable information that I can link to. In this case, I do not know where the information is, or if it is available.


As for poaching being rampant, I think it is. To many headless deer seen dumpeed in the areas I hunt. To many reports of the same activity in the press. Add the articles of charges and court outcomes provided by the GC and the press at large.

For others, the degree of poaching incidents is a personal assessment. Some feel like me, others don't.

[Dredly]

my question is if they have 43% of 7123 reports, thats 3062... and in their other testimony they said 1000+... that makes no sense. If you are selling the point that poaching is rampant and we need tougher penalties why would you say 1000+ and not 3000+?


I have no idea. I do know that on average over the last ten years, poaching prosecutions range between 900 and 1000 a year. This is the figure the sponsor of HB 97 is using, and the NRA state rep has noted in newspaper articles. I feel both sides would have vetted this information thoroughly.

I would take the testimony of the GC and Staback's figures as more accurate than a newspaper article.


If I had a better explanation I would post it. However, that would be conjecture on my part. I like verifiable information that I can link to. In this case, I do not know where the information is, or if it is available.


As for poaching being rampant, I think it is. To many headless deer seen dumpeed in the areas I hunt. To many reports of the same activity in the press. Add the articles of charges and court outcomes provided by the GC and the press at large.

For others, the degree of poaching incidents is a personal assessment. Some feel like me, others don't.

Nope I'm in complete agreement over the seriousness of poaching. what I find suspect though is the lack of solid information coming out of the PGC and the complete lack of serious legal enforcement.

Why do poachers rarely get the most serious penalty? Why is the data released so vague? Either you poached or you didn't. Its not like there is a grey area in there. they should be giving exact numbers.

I just have a lot of difficulty in beliving what comes out of them when the numbers are so vague every year when the information should be easily trackable and I also can't comprehend how poachers aren't getting hit with at least the maximum fine.

[bluetick]

I also can't comprehend how poachers aren't getting hit with at least the maximum fine.



Fines are on a sliding scale currently. Many judges do not take the offense seriously - thus low fines.

[WhiteFeather]

The house vote was 194 to 1 to send HB 97 back to GAME AND FISHERIES Committee on June 24 09 to re work the language.

I hope the final bill includes a definition of what a poacher is and will list charges on their record that reflect a poaching conviction so it easier to identify repeat offenders for the District Attorneys to prosecute them criminally the next time.

Sadly DA's routinely plea bargain away firearm violations for repeat violent criminals that actual hurt people, so without some added definitions in HB97 they probably won’t take these career poachers seriously as the criminals they are.

With the added penalty in HB 97 other parts of the game code should be further defined to deal with real criminal INTENT to poach animals and just a person wacking an offending rabbit, woodchuck or ground squirrel eating their garden or someone just humanely putting down a dear hit by car is treating the same as killing game outside of season as a poacher with intent to illegally take game.

These two acts are not for the same reasons but the game laws as written doesn't see the differance.

[1iarrowking]

no wonder i havent got a buck in 2 years, i go frustrated and sold my winchester model 70, i gave up hunting and just go to the ranges now ,,, its all cuz of these idiot poachers think its ok to kill animals whenever they please ,hope they all get caught...

While I agree that poaching is a serious crime and needs to be punished, I think there needs to be degrees of guilt and punishment. This one size fits all scenario is wrong. The biggest reason the deer population is down is not poaching. It is due to two weeks of brown and down season with firearms and all the DAMP tags that the game commission gives out. I know damn well how the DAMP tags get abused. I have a wealthy land owner a mile away. He owns about 130 acres and has about 30 acres in food plots for game. He sucks in a lot of deer to his property and then has all his buddies come in and shoot them on DAMP tags that he gets from the commission. It's perfectly legal. He's not baiting them. He's just providing good deer habitat and then killing them because they're there.

[bluetick]

The following are the amendments submitted last Monday minutes before the filing deadline. (More on House Rules at the end of this post)

The amendments were rules out of order by the Speaker of the house in concurrence of the Rules of the House.

These are the proposed amendments. Please pay attention to the language used. The use of the word "May" is very liberal in it's use. Basically making this bill little more than ink on paper.

They also seek to remove increased penalties for assaulting a Game WCO. Killing a cat in PA is a felony (second occurrence). The language in the current version of HB 97 mirrors the current law for Fish WCO's. Other LE in PA has the same protections.

It was these amendments and the furor over them mot being included in the discussion - along with some misinformation to several sportsmen's clubs in PA by "some" that cause the bill to be referred back to committee.

The amendments were not properly filed by long term house members. The outcome of that failure to follow long term rules was a foregone conclusion.


The amendments (again not properly filed):


1. A2049 KRIEGER: Remove the phrase “or act of omission” from page 2, line 25 in the definition of “violation.”

2. A2050 ELLIS: Remove all references to Sections 904 and 905 in the bill. Effectively provide for the status quo on offenses against WCO’s.

3. A2051 PYLE: Reworks penalties on page 4, line 16, through page 5, line 10 to remove one felony grade and rework the fines to a more reasonable level. Amend to provide the following

Grade: Fine: Imprisonment:



Felony (new) Up to $25K Up to 5 years



Misdemeanor of the $2.5K - $10K Up to 18 months

First Degree



Misdemeanor of the Second $1.5K - $5K Up to 12 months

Degree



Misdemeanor of the Third $750 - $2.5K Up to 6 months

Degree



Summary of the First Degree $600 - $1.5K Up to 3 months





Summary of the Second $400 - $800 Up to 1 month

Degree



Summary of the Third Degree $250 - $500





Summary of the Fourth Degree $150 - $300





Summary of the Fifth Degree $100 - $200





Summary of the Sixth Degree $75





Summary of the Seventh $50

Degree



Summary of the Eighth Degree $25



** Amend references to Felony offenses in the bill to reflect an ungraded felony offense as provided here.

4. A2052 EVERETT: Codifies the authority of the court to order restitution for illegally taken game (allows the court to order “up to” the amount provided in recent PGC regulations.

** Use language in Amendment A01293, page 3, line 28, through page 4, line 13.

5. A2054 PYLE: Combination of #3 and #4 above.

6. A2055 KRIEGER: Require that witness reporting was instrumental in securing a successful conviction before they can ask for the additional $500 fine to pay snitches.

Amend page 6, line 25, by inserting after “species”

“and a witness report was instrumental in securing a successful conviction.”

7. A2056 KRIEGER: Limits amount of jail time for failure to pay fines and costs to 6 months (existing law is 3 months, the bill has 24 months). This is similar to the court’s authority to imprison for civil contempt (e.g. for failure to pay child support as ordered).

Amend page 7, line16, by striking “24” and inserting:

6

8. A2057 PYLE: Allows “adjudication alternative program,” under 42 Pa.C.S. § 1520 to be applied as an adjudication alternative for Game violations and repeals inconsistent provisions of Title 42.

Amend page 7, line 19, by placing brackets around “shall not” and inserting

May

** Add language to repeal inconsistent provision in 42 Pa.C.S. §1520.

9. A2058 PYLE: Amend page 9, lines 8 and 15 to strike the ten year “look-back” to determine second and subsequent offenses and replaces it with a five (5) year look-back. Existing law = 2 years.

10. A2059 PYLE: Reworks the T/E penalties under 2167. Max penalty = M-1 for second or subsequent offenses and allows (instead of mandates) suspension of hunting privileges as prescribed in the bill.

(d) Penalties.—(1) Except as otherwise provided in (2), a violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(2) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a ten-year period or during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years

11. A2060 PYLE: Rework T/E offenses under 2167 with a five year look-back.

(d) Penalties.—(1) Except as otherwise provided in (2), a violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(2) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a five-year period or during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years

12. A2061 PYLE: Rework spotlighting offenses in Section 2310 to step-down offense of 2nd or subsequent offense in a 10 year period with big game and moves license suspension to a “may” instead of a “shall suspend,” and break apart penalties to ensure that firearms rights aren’t accidentally denied.

Amend page 15, line 8, through page 16, line 10, by striking all of said lines and inserting:

(2) A violation of subsection (a)(2) or (3) relating to threatened or endangered species shall be graded as follows:

(i) A first offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(ii) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a ten-year period or during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years.

(3) A violation of subsection (a)(2) or (3) relating to big game animals shall be graded as follows:

(i) A first offense or a second offense during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the third degree and may in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of five years

(ii) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a ten-year period or a third or fourth violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and may result in the forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(iii) A fifth or subsequent violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a felony, and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years.

(4) A violation of subsection (a)(2) or (3) relating to any other game or wildlife is a summary offense of the first degree and may result in the forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of three years.



13. A2062 PYLE: Same as #12, but with a five year look-back instead of a 10.

14. A2063 PYLE: Amends § 2312 to decreases max penalty to M-1 on T/E; reworks penalties to drop back from the felony offense for second and subsequent offenses in 10 years for Big Game; changes “shall” lose privilege to hunt to “may.” .

Amend page 17, line 11, through page 18, line 8, by striking all of said lines and inserting:



(1) Threatened or endangered species shall be graded as follows:

(i) A first offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(ii) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a ten-year period or during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree, and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years.

(2) Big game animals shall be graded as follows:

(i) A first offense or a second offense during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the third degree and may in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of five years. .

(ii) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a ten-year period or a third or fourth violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree and may result in the forfeiture of the privilege to hunt of take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(iii) A fifth or subsequent violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a felony, and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years.

(3) Any other game or wildlife is a summary offense of the first degree and results in the forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take game or wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of three years.



15. A2064 PYLE: Same as #14 plus decreases the look-back from 10 to 5 years.

16. A2065 KRIEGER: Amend § 2314 (page 18, line 26) to change “results” to “may result” on license suspensions.

17. A2066 KRIEGER: Same as #16, but change look-back from ten to five years.

18. A2067 KRIEGER: Amend § 2321 to break offenses apart to ensure against erroneous denials of firearm rights; steps down from felony offense for 2x Big Game in 10 years; changes “shall” to “may” on license suspensions.

Amend page 20, line 28, through page 23, line 9, by striking all of said lines and inserting:

(1)(i) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), a violation of this section or a second violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the third degree and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of five years.

(ii) A second or subsequent violation of this section within a ten-year period or a third or fourth violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a misdemeanor of the first degree and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of ten years.

(iii) A fifth or subsequent violation of this section during the same criminal episode is a felony and may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this Commonwealth for a period of 15 years.

(2) A violation of this section where the species taken, injured, killed, possessed or transported is a white-tailed deer or a wild turkey is a summary offense of the first degree and shall result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt or take wildlife anywhere within this commonwealth for a period of three years.



19. A2068 KRIEGER: Same as #16 plus decreases the look-back from 10 to 5 years.

20. A2070 PYLE: Omnibus amendment for all of the above with a 10 year look-back.

21. A2071 PYLE: Omnibus amendment with a 5 year look-back.



Background on amendments per house rules and the above amendments


House rules specified that all amendments must be entered by 2:00 on Monday.

The Republicans dropped the amendments off at the Legislative Reference Bureau(LRB) at 1:45. Before an amendment is officially entered, it must be processed by the LRB. Because the Rs dropped off 21 amendments that essentially re-wrote the bill, the LRB did not finish processing the amendments until approximately 2:30.

Thus the Speaker's office ruled the amendments as out of order and said they would not be considered.

There is a theory that the Republicans intentionally did not give the LRB enough time to process the amendments because they wanted to be able to cry foul and use that argument to slow down the bill. Reportedly, after the amendments were ruled out of order, one of the staffers working with them started gloating and said that "everything has worked out perfectly." All they needed was someone naive enough to buy into their argument that the bill should be opposed until the amendments were considered.

A series of emails between the PFSC and various legislators, and the NRA state rep seem to bear out the strategy. The claim that all amendments had been stripped from the bill were made several times. The end result as the PFSC notified the House members minutes before final consideration stating that they had concerns about the bill. Those concerns were the stripped amendments.

In fact, those mysterious amendments had never been part of the bill. They were ruled out of order by the speaker based on established house rules.

[WhiteFeather]

I believe all the amendment listed in bluetick post have be incorporated into one amendment and is / going to be submitted to be added to HB 97.

This bill even with these amendments won't solve the problem of career poaching, in fact it may actually lead to an increase of more poaching activity in PA.....


With the same Cause & Effect of enacting more gun control laws has, of Not aggressively prosecuting criminals fully under existing laws leads to.


In lots of these cases of repeat poachers, there are numerous title 18 firearm law violations that seem to go un noticed and un prosecuted that would make these poachers prohibited from ever owning firearms along with lots of real hard jail time for title 18 crimes.


The solution to not fully using all of the existing laws to go after the bad guys?

Yet lets enact another law, that says we are going to get tough on poachers, yet we don't define in the law what a poacher is and more important is NOT, so guess what? that mean that everything killed out of season can be construed to mean poaching, putting a wounded deer down along the highway of its misery, shooting a groundhog - rabbit - ground squirel eating your garden, raccoon in your trash -- ALL considered POACHING..... If you ever have to defend yourself against wildlife attacking you or your family fully expect to be facing a possible charges of poaching.

When the law (any law) is not crystal clear you rely on the mercy of a judge or a prosecutor's understanding or YOU having the ability / cash to hire an attorney to save you instead of the law giving you protection, because it was poorly written, ripe for interpretation and abuse of what your "intent" was.

WE can do a much better job to deal with career poachers that steal from all of us than this bill in its current form offers us.