NRA-ILA on HB 97 - Poaching Penalties

[Brick]

Poaching Penalty Legislation Misses It’s Mark!

Please Contact the House Game and Fisheries Committee Today!

Over the past two weeks, there has been a great deal of misinformation regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on House Bill 97, sponsored by State Representative Edward Staback (D-115). It is time to set the record straight. While all reasonable people will agree that penalties should be imposed against those who violate wildlife laws, there can be legitimate disagreement with regard to how severe the penalties should be for specific offenses. One of the basic tenets of the American justice system is that the proposed penalties correlate with the severity of the offense. After a great deal of consideration, it is the NRA’s position that the appropriate balance has not been reached in House Bill 97.

Make no mistake, poaching is theft of one of our most treasured public resources and should be punished in a manner that provides an effective deterrent for potential offenders while still serving the interests of justice. The NRA is concerned that the punishment proposed in this legislation for the professional, calculating criminal poacher is often the same as that for the licensed hunter who may exercise poor judgment. We believe appropriate distinctions must be made.

The proponents of this legislation often portray it as targeting the worst of the worst offenders – those who kill numerous animals for the meat market or regularly trophy hunt from vehicles using spotlights in the dead of night. However the provisions in House Bill 97 go well beyond this portrayal.

The legislation’s proposed misdemeanor classifications for “out of season” and “over the bag limit” offenses involve numerous violations which are not necessarily “bad actor/ poacher” specific but receive the same penalty. For example, under this proposal, a licensed hunter who fails to report a mistaken turkey kill (big game) or shoots a turkey five minutes before or after legal shooting hours faces the same penalties as a poacher shooting two deer (big game) from a vehicle at midnight. Under this proposal, both violations would be classified as a misdemeanor in the third degree punishable by up to six months in prison, a $1,500 to $3,000 fine and a five year hunting license revocation. Clearly these two events vary in criminal intent and culpability, however, under this proposal they are treated identically.

Another example would be a turkey hunter who accidentally shoots a second turkey while shooting the intended target. If the hunter exercises poor judgment and fails to report the second bird as a “mistaken kill,” he faces the possibility of sitting in the same jail cell with the “midnight poacher” for the same length of time.

Finally, if the same hunter is convicted of a second similar qualifying misdemeanor offense of the third degree within a ten year period he faces a felony of the third degree punishable by three years in prison, a $10,000 to $15,000 fine, a 15 year hunting license revocation and a lifetime the loss of his constitutional right to own firearms. In fact, the fines for this offense are higher than those allowed under the Pa. Crimes Code for involuntary manslaughter, arson, luring a child into a motor vehicle, endangering the welfare of a child and assaulting a child.

Please contact the members of the House Game and Fisheries Committee TODAY and urge committee members to ensure that the proposed penalties in House Bill 97 truly fit the crime. Specifically, felony penalties should be reserved for the most offensive poaching acts. Misdemeanor and summary penalties still carry significant fines and months of potential incarceration and work to deter all but the most dedicated offenders. A roster of committee members and links to their contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...?cde=18&body=H

[BanginBonnie2]

Apparently much of this has come about due to many surrounding States having .. " actual " .. penalties for Trespass + Poaching, unlike Pennsy.

We spoke to an Outfitter from Indiana or Illinois at H'burg Sport Show this past Feb ... told us that in their State , Trespassers get $ 2,500 Fine and also Jail time for Illegal Trespass and/or Kill ... I said, good for you cause our Trespass is a joke.

In Pennsy, if you're willing to chance getting caught and/or pay the Chump Change fine, all you need do is be " Legal " about everything in PGC hunt manual, march right past the Trespass Sign, shoot whatever, Tag it and it's yours ... it's a joke.

[schr8er2000]

I happen to agree with the proposals.....

YES.. mistakes happen... BUT all you have to do is report it... DUHHHHH...

and mistakingly shooting a second turkey.. well.. are you NOT suppose to know YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND >>>?????

Chit happens, I know... but REPORT THE MISTAKE... that is all it takes...

Poaching in Wisconsin is also a big time "Business"... and the fines are HUGE if you get caught...$1500.00 plus restitution PLUS losing hunting privileges for 3 years..... That is enough for me... and if you are caught with a second deer ( REAL poaching ) they MAY confiscate everything you had with you when you committed that crime, up to and including your vehicle.,..

Poachers are scum.... and I am NOT talking about the one person that has no job, money etc that is trying to provide some food for his/her family,.... but the BUSINESS POACHER.....

[knight0334]

Poaching and sporting related trespassing are big problems in PA, and our laws on them are literal jokes. Something needs to be done, but we should have some leeway on the accidental and gray-around incidents.

[TXDMERC73]

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...

[bluetick]

Poaching Penalty Legislation Misses It’s Mark!

Please Contact the House Game and Fisheries Committee Today!

Over the past two weeks, there has been a great deal of misinformation regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on House Bill 97, sponsored by State Representative Edward Staback (D-115). It is time to set the record straight. While all reasonable people will agree that penalties should be imposed against those who violate wildlife laws, there can be legitimate disagreement with regard to how severe the penalties should be for specific offenses. One of the basic tenets of the American justice system is that the proposed penalties correlate with the severity of the offense. After a great deal of consideration, it is the NRA’s position that the appropriate balance has not been reached in House Bill 97.

Make no mistake, poaching is theft of one of our most treasured public resources and should be punished in a manner that provides an effective deterrent for potential offenders while still serving the interests of justice. The NRA is concerned that the punishment proposed in this legislation for the professional, calculating criminal poacher is often the same as that for the licensed hunter who may exercise poor judgment. We believe appropriate distinctions must be made.

The proponents of this legislation often portray it as targeting the worst of the worst offenders – those who kill numerous animals for the meat market or regularly trophy hunt from vehicles using spotlights in the dead of night. However the provisions in House Bill 97 go well beyond this portrayal.

The legislation’s proposed misdemeanor classifications for “out of season” and “over the bag limit” offenses involve numerous violations which are not necessarily “bad actor/ poacher” specific but receive the same penalty. For example, under this proposal, a licensed hunter who fails to report a mistaken turkey kill (big game) or shoots a turkey five minutes before or after legal shooting hours faces the same penalties as a poacher shooting two deer (big game) from a vehicle at midnight. Under this proposal, both violations would be classified as a misdemeanor in the third degree punishable by up to six months in prison, a $1,500 to $3,000 fine and a five year hunting license revocation. Clearly these two events vary in criminal intent and culpability, however, under this proposal they are treated identically.

Another example would be a turkey hunter who accidentally shoots a second turkey while shooting the intended target. If the hunter exercises poor judgment and fails to report the second bird as a “mistaken kill,” he faces the possibility of sitting in the same jail cell with the “midnight poacher” for the same length of time.

Finally, if the same hunter is convicted of a second similar qualifying misdemeanor offense of the third degree within a ten year period he faces a felony of the third degree punishable by three years in prison, a $10,000 to $15,000 fine, a 15 year hunting license revocation and a lifetime the loss of his constitutional right to own firearms. In fact, the fines for this offense are higher than those allowed under the Pa. Crimes Code for involuntary manslaughter, arson, luring a child into a motor vehicle, endangering the welfare of a child and assaulting a child.

Please contact the members of the House Game and Fisheries Committee TODAY and urge committee members to ensure that the proposed penalties in House Bill 97 truly fit the crime. Specifically, felony penalties should be reserved for the most offensive poaching acts. Misdemeanor and summary penalties still carry significant fines and months of potential incarceration and work to deter all but the most dedicated offenders. A roster of committee members and links to their contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...?cde=18&body=H

May 12, 2009



Mr. Darren LaSorte
Manager of Hunting Policy
National Rifle Association of America
Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030-7400

Dear Mr. LaSorte:

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments on House Bill 97. It is good to know that, as always, the NRA and I share a common goal.

For well over a year, I have sought to craft legislation that would decrease the number of poaching incidents in the state. My method has been twofold: 1) Increase fines and offenses to a point that those apprehended for poaching (shooting at night with a light, taking over the bag limit, or in a closed season) will cease their behavior, and 2) For those that have successfully poached in the past or are considering poaching in the future, introduce new fines and penalties that act as a serious deterrent to that illegal and unethical behavior.

My interest is certainly the multiple offender, but please know that I believe strongly that the individual, causal poacher, the person who is tempted into poor judgment by the current soft penalties now in Title 34, must also be addressed in any penalties bill. If passed into law, the penalties in HB 97 will leave no doubt to all of those who would pursue poaching, on a large or small scale, that their actions are viewed as serious crimes by the outdoor community and by legitimate hunters.

With that in mind, lowering misdemeanors back to summary offenses defeats those goals and my basic belief as expressed in this bill on how best to fight poaching: stiff penalties make strong deterrents.

One specific scenario has been repeated for over 15 months that I want to address now and I do so in the hopes of not having to repeat myself - again. When you defend the hunter who shoots “five minutes before or after legal shooting hours,” you defend someone who hunts at night. The Pennsylvania Game Commission extended huntable hours to one half hour before and after sunset. Without even considering the grace period within the PGC standard operating procedures, step outside away from the


Page 2
Mr. LaSorte


city’s lights at that time tonight, as I recently did, and see what your well-worn hypothetical shooter sees. Is it not time for him and this scenario to be put to bed?

Given the fact that there is no evidence of arrests having been made to fulfill the inflammatory scenario that you cite and acknowledging its perceived harshness, an amendment was recently drafted that would address this situation without weakening the bill. The amendment will create a summary offense with no set license revocation for illegal kills of big game within one half hour before or at the end of legal shooting hours. Simply put, it leaves this violation as it is today in Title 34.

My office tried repeatedly to contact your Pennsylvania representative to inform him of this and other developments in the bill. Perhaps because he was preparing the erroneous NRA Alert or because he had told me in an earlier face to face meeting that he would not work against House Bill 97, he was reluctant to call. Either way, the bill becomes better as he falls behind in up-to-date information.

Another criticism that is often cited is mentioned again in the May 6th letter: My bill treats the “calculating criminal” and the person exercising “poor judgment” the same. Criminals use poor judgment. Whether someone at night with a light, or a commercial operator, or someone filling tags for non-hunting license buyers, they all use bad judgment. All poachers use bad judgment.

Title 34 is made much better by its mistake kill provisions. Mistakes happen. But what keeps people from turning in a mistaken kill? Is it that they do not have enough time? HB97 doubles the time allowed to report a mistake kill. Is it because they cannot get anyone on the phone at the Game Commission? HB 97 will include provisions to create an email reporting procedure. Is it because they do not want to go to any trouble at all to report an illegal kill and they would rather risk it than report it? How would you have HB 97 treat this person? It seems you want an offense: Mistaken Kill But Did Not Want To Report It. What daylight poacher would not welcome such a loophole?

Another amendment that will be voted on during the upcoming June 2nd meeting actually will remove the final barrier to reporting a mistaken kill - the threat of a greater fine and license revocation if the excuse is not accepted as valid. The new language will remove any chance of an increased penalty. If the hunter turns in the mistakenly killed game, he will pay only a nominal processing fee already set in statute. In case of the infamous turkey that is so often cited, the fee is $20.

The courtesy of a returned phone call would have saved your organization the errors that are included in your Alert and the necessary efforts you must now take to correct the incorrect assertions.

As you know, the points you raise in your letter are not new arguments against the bill, nor are my responses new to you. But a point you do not mention in this letter and, as far as I can tell, have never mentioned during discussions on the bill with my colleagues or the press is the long list of substantial suggestions from the NRA I have already put into the bill. While the offer to work together on the bill is certainly


Page 3
Mr. LaSorte


appreciated, I would have hoped you knew that I was open to such an arraignment given all the considerations I have given to NRA ideas in the past.

1) The removal from the bill of all language providing for the forfeiture and confiscation of personal property, including guns, used in the committing of a poaching offense, 2) the raising the number of offenses in a single illegal event to reach a felony from 3 animals to 5, 3) the creation of a misdemeanor 1 offense for the poaching of 3 and 4 animals at one time, and 4) the lowering of the possible jail time for a M1 from 24 months to 18 months were all NRA ideas and they will all be in House Bill 97.

As someone who believes lowering the penalties lowers the deterrence, these changes on your association’s behalf were not made lightly by me. Now, new NRA suggestions are made, new NRA questions are raised whether poaching in Pennsylvania is even a problem, and new steps to lessen the penalties in House Bill 97 are put forward.

I will look at your ideas and give them their due consideration. I must tell you that many of my colleagues see the irony in the difference of views on HB97 I now have with your organization. For them, the fact that the NRA and I can disagree on anything comes as a shock. For me, the fact that the NRA is so involved in a non-gun rights issue still surprises.



Sincerely,

Edward G. Staback
Majority Chairman
Game and Fisheries Committee


At this time it is vitally important to contact your State Representative. Visit the local office, call the local office, or write / email them.


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

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



A note to the House Game and fish Committee Members is also in order. Just copy and paste this into your mail program:

estaback@pahouse.net, ghaluska@pahouse.net, kmurphy@pahouse.net, dcosta@pahouse.net, pdaley@pahouse.net, tdeluca@pahouse.net, mgergely@pahouse.net, ngoodman@pahouse.net, mhanna@pahouse.net, jhornama@pahouse.net, dkula@pahouse.net, dlevdans@pahouse.net, tmahoney@pahouse.net, mmcgeeha@pahouse.net, hreadsha@pahouse.net, cdally@pahousegop.com,bcutler@pahousegop.com, geverett@pahousegop.com, kgillesp@pahousegop.com, mkeller@pahousegop.com, Tkrieger@pahousegop.com, dmoul@pahousegop.com, mpeifer@pahousegop.com, jpyle@pahousegop.co, trock@pahousegop.com, csonney@pahousegop.com

To read more:

http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbt...40#Post1156040

and

http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbt...gonew=1#UNREAD

[BanginBonnie2]

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...

TXD,

Sad that you finally got to the .. ' I've had it point ' ... and I'm certain you aren't alone.

Other than Bear Season, I could care less if I ever shoot again ... I guess that sounds a little goofy, but I just enjoy watchin' .. well .. maybe if I saw a Trophy Buck that I hadn't been feeding since he was a little guy ... be like shootin' my Beagle.

I had an incident by a neighbor this past season .. shot a Trophy .. I MEAN a TROPHY , that I'd been feedin' since he was a pup ... stud service for our doe's ... myself and a couple ' good neighbors ' feed year round , but hunt elsewhere, we just get a kick out of growing Big Racks and observing our efforts.

You can't believe the Bull involved in FRYIN' this repeat offending two-legged trash ... got him dead to rights .. Trespassing, Safety Zone (100 measured yds.), Shooting DIRECTLY at my house, Failure to Identify, Fleeing, Attempted flee with UNTAGGED game , previously licensed hunter DRIVING GAME w/o Pa. Hunt License , Littering ...


... all that crap and a couple I can't remember ...

He got .. " Shooting in Safety Zone "


... and the best part .. I had to commit to the P G C that if this skunk tried to fight the charges in Court that I would go , or they wouldn't press charges.

Lovely, just lovely !


I hope some day you rekindle the hunting enthusiasm ... just seein' my Uncle , the guy's and a little of Mother Nature makes it all worthwhile for me.

[bluetick]

To the best of my knowledge, these are the amendments to be made at the June 2nd meeting on this bill:

1. A00532 – Removes from Definitions Section 102 the word and description of poaching. This citation in Title 34 only relates to the acts that are eligible for rewards from a special hotline tip fund already in existence and use by the Game Commission. The wording was deemed to be unnecessary and removed, thereby ending an ongoing confusion over any use of “poaching” elsewhere in Title 34.

2. A00660 – Strikes out “24” and inserts “18”. This amendment lowers the number of months of possible jail time for a M1 offense. [b]By doing so, this amendment will permit a judge to sentence guilty parties to county jail facilities instead of state prisons, as will be necessitated by judicial reform measures to take effect in the near future.[/b]


3. A00661 – Amends section of Title 34 that permits additional fines for repeat or multiple offenses by limiting such fines to summary offenses. Currently an additional fine of 1 ½ times for each repeat or multiple offenses is permitted by HB 97 language. Since misdemeanor and felony fines are believed to be severe enough, the additional multiplier was felt to be unneeded. Also, by letting the multiplier to remain for summary offenses, this amendment allows for an additional sentencing tool for repeat and multiple summary offenders.

4. A00662 – Strikes out the broad citation “poaching of game and wildlife” in the section of Title 34 that permits an additional $500 fine to be imposed to compensate witnesses who aid in the apprehension of the violator. New language is inserted to guarantee the original intent of this section of Title 34 - that such rewards be given only to informants on big game violations or on those affecting threatened or endangered animals.

5. A00918 - Removes 925 (i) Replacement Costs. As of April 21st, the Pennsylvania Game Commission established suggested replacement costs that may be accessed on those convicted of illegally killing certain game animals: $5,000 for T and E, trophy deer, bear, or elk; $1,500 for elk or bear; $800 for a deer, $500 for bobcat or river otter, $300 for turkey or beaver; and $200 for other wildlife. This amendment removes the PGC authority to seek replacement costs on top of the new, substantially higher penalties included in the bill.

6. A00533 – Allows juveniles who go through an ARD type of program to have the offense completely expunged and not used to determine any repeat offender status in the future.


7. A00663 – Addresses the section of law that governs procedure for the reporting of mistaken kills by lengthening the window of time for such reporting from 12 hours to 24 hours. Also, for the first time, this amendment will allow for the use of email to make reports of mistaken kills.

8. A00664 – This amendment adds the word “knowingly” to the section of Title 34 that prohibits any participation with the act of unlawful hunting with the use of an artificial light.

9. A00534 – This amendment adds the word “knowingly” to the section of Title 34 that prohibits killing over the bag limit and closed season kills.

** Not sure if this will be added to the above amendment, but the fine for a mistake kill will be removed entirely ( A00663 ).

To quell the kill five minutes before or after legal hunting assertion, another amendment will be made that clarifies the time before sunrise and the time after sunset to 1/2 hour for both.

From A00918 above: Removes the restitution fee's for those convicted under this law - if passed.

(I personally think at least the trophy animal fee's should remain.)

[Dredly]

Has anyone ever looked into the lack of poaching arrests by the Game Wardens? The numbers are pathetic. I researched it in 2007 and the game commission caught something like 125 poachers state wide and most got a fine of less then 1,000.00 and lost hunting license for 3 years.

Its a complete joke.

I would strongly support a new anti-poaching bill but it also has to figure in a method to report accidents and not get in serious trouble, the classic "it had points when I shot it" or "I didn't see anlters"... etc

Make the punishment fit the crime, if you are guilty of real poaching you lose your license for life, very sizeable fines (10,000,00+) etc

[bluetick]

Dredly,

Not sure where your research was done, but I think it was a bit incomplete.

From the Feb 2008 hearing on HB 2205 (last years bill number for the current HB 97) by the GC LE Division Head:



Poaching is prevalent throughout the Commonwealth, not only in rural areas, but in suburban and even urban areas as well, with significant violations and chronic offenders prosecuted each year. In fact, more than 1,000 prosecutions a year have been made for the past three years directly relating to poaching of big game species. The current statutory undervaluation of wildlife due to low penalties can create a public and judicial sentiment that these crimes are not important, and are counterproductive to wildlife protection efforts, as they do not create an effective deterrent to chronic offenders.

To make the point more visible this slide compares the penalties specifically for poaching a deer at night with a light. Please note that this offense is graded as a misdemeanor with a penalty of potential imprisonment in every state except Pennsylvania where it is a summary offense with only a $300 to $800 penalty and no possibility of imprisonment. While it may appear that West Virginia has a lower monetary penalty on the bottom end of the sliding scale, it should also be noted that they have a mandatory 10 days in jail. My counterpart in West Virginia tells me that this aspect of the statute provides far more deterrent than the monetary aspects of the penalty. Currently in Pennsylvania a poacher could kill 100 deer and still not have any chance of being imprisoned.


http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...?Q=173519&A=11


Or, you can do a basic search:


This Google search uses "Pennsylvania Poaching" as the search term:


http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...vania+poaching


Clearly there are far more cases for poaching than you suggest. I will agree, the fines and penalties for the offense are far to low.