Supreme Court or Court of Activists?

[Outdoor Talk Network by Jim Slinsky]
Broadcasted Nationwide on the OTN Radio Network

Notice: All content on this website is copyrighted. Do not copy, reproduce or distribute without permission.
© Copyright 1999-2008 Outdoor Talk Network

Supreme Court or Court of Activists? ©

By Jim Slinsky
01/26/08

Americans are busy people, most of us anyway. Our jobs, our families, our hobbies pretty much consume us without much time left for a book, television, the newspaper or the Internet. I realize there are exceptions to this generalization, but it’s fairly safe to say most get their news/politics in ten-second sound bites. We have come to accept that politics never end with new legislation introduced everyday to save the world or save us from ourselves. In the back of our minds, we have also come to believe that the preposterous legislation that threatens our rights will meet its demise in court. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that may no longer be the case, at least not in Pennsylvania.

A brief walk down memory lane and we arrive at the lawsuit filed by the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League against the PA State Police for maintaining a handgun registry contrary to Act 17. This one was argued before the PA Supreme Court. The PA State Police maintain a record of sale for every handgun sold in this state dating back to the 1930’s. Act 17 is crystal clear, no registry is permitted. Incredibly, the PA Supreme Court ruled maintaining the record of sale for every purchase was not a registry. Huh?

More recently, the PA Supreme Court displayed once again their ability to understand the law and the English language. In this case, Johnna Seeton, a board member of the PA Legislative Animal Network filed suit against the PGC for Game and Wildlife Code violations at Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve in Tioga County, PA. She argued that wild boar raised in captivity and harvested in a fenced, 1500 acre property were indeed wild animals. The Supreme Court agreed. The PGC argued that hunting preserves are alternative farming operations regulated by the Dept. of Agriculture, not the Game and Wildlife Code. Of course, wild boar never existed in PA. The Court also instructed the PGC to review whether all the other animals hunted on the preserve are indeed wild animals and subject to regulation per the Game and Wildlife Code. Interesting.

Ms. Johnna Seeton was quick to admit that the ruling was a step toward her goal to end what she calls “canned hunts”. One can only surmise that her logic is to further go after the PGC as the smaller, less powerful agency.

In its’ press release #002-08 the PGC announced it is drafting regulations regarding wild boar and its recommendations will be presented at the next Commissioner meeting. It is common knowledge the PGC doesn’t want wild boar in our woods and they don’t want to be involved in regulating alternative farming practices. Their plate is full with deer management, windmills, DCNR encroachment, timbering controversies and habitat demands by our sporting class just to name a few of their problems.

It would not be difficult for this scenario to quickly develop into a private property/farming business debate. If the PGC decides that Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve can no longer offer wild hogs for harvest and consumption, are all game preserves destined for closure? Will the PGC now control what can and can not be farmed in PA and offered at game preserves? Will Ms. Johnna Seeton now sue the PGC to establish hunting seasons within the fenced areas of shooting preserves? Do these potential changes threaten the constitutional rights of the owners of Tioga Preserve and all owners of shooting preserves? Can all of this be derailed by the PGC closing all games preserves down for one day a year, say Christmas Day?

The lower court ruled the PGC did not have the right to regulate shooting preserves by correctly assessing that such businesses are alternative farming operations. The lower court agreed that boars raised in captivity were not truly wild animals and thus beyond the scope of PGC’s Game and Wildlife Code. Having shooting preserves regulated by the Department of Agriculture was done by statute and the will of our legislators, who represent the interest of all Pennsylvanians. This bizarre ruling by the PA Supreme has turned the law upside down.

The message to be learned is loud and clear. Anti-gun and anti-hunting special interests have been successful at turning the PA Supreme Court away from a court of law into a court of activists. The PA Supreme Court is now legislating from the bench. It is a sad day for Pennsylvania.

Jim Slinsky is the host and producer of the “Outdoor Talk Network”, a nationally syndicated, outdoor-talk radio program. For a station near you or to contact Jim, visit his website at www.outdoortalknetwork.com.

Return To:Newspapers Columns

OUTDOOR TALK NETWORK
11 Dogwood Drive
Jim Thorpe, PA 18229
Tel. 570-325-5560
Email: Jim Slinsky