The Total Package

[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

The Total Package ©

By Jim Slinsky
09/20/08

Recently, State Representative Ed Staback has refined his HB2205 commonly referred to as the “poaching bill”. SR Staback is committed to crack down on those guilty of repeated poaching violations. Poachers are a threat to our whitetail resource. I can not tell you how many repeat poachers we have. Soon, I will write the PGC and try to determine the magnitude of the problem.

In any event, the current thinking is to make repeat poaching violations a felony. This is common in other states. The penalties are severe. Poachers will lose their gun rights, but at this time they will not lose their property. The rem forfeiture consequences of the first HB2205 have been totally removed from the revised bill.

Rem forfeiture is an interesting legal principle. In essence, the law is saying the rifle someone used to poach an animal is as guilty of the crime as the individual; consequently the rifle is arrested, too. Rem forfeiture is extensively used in the prosecution of drug dealers. In those cases cars, boats, houses and other valuable property is confiscated on the belief that illegal drug money purchased them. This system has been operating since the early 1990’s and the federal government is now confiscating and selling billions of dollars of personal property every year. SR Staback has decided to postpone the rem forfeiture discussion for another day. He is currently focused on increasing the penalties for repeat poachers. I have briefly reviewed an analysis of the new bill, but have not seen the exact language. It is a safe bet that we are going to get a tough, new poaching bill.

While all this is unfolding the Unified Sportsmen of PA (USP) is making some noise trying to broaden the coverage of this new bill. First, USP would like to see a “probable cause” clause inserted into Title 34, our Game Code. Our state and local law enforcement can not act without having probable cause. The PGC wants to have the powers of state and local law enforcement, so it would only be logical that they are required to act in accordance with our Crimes Code. Furthermore, protection against unwarranted search and seizure is a Constitutional right, not to be ignored by any law enforcement agency. How this plays out should be very interesting. With poaching being elevated to the felony level, the PGC will need to work with District Attorneys, not local Magistrates. District Attorneys are quite cognizant of how evidence is legally gathered. Constitutional rights adherence is paramount if any law enforcement agency expects to get a conviction.

Secondly, USP would like to see a “protection of property” clause worked into Title 34. It probably should include “protection of self” language, as well. At issue are cases such as Art Gavlock and Robert Floyd, who shot elk attacking their property. These people were pursued under Title 34 as poachers. Obviously, when someone shoots an elk in their yard while that elk is destroying their property is hardly a poaching incident. These gentlemen promptly called the PGC to have the elk removed. Unfortunately, in cases such as these the individual has to spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees defending themselves against poaching charges. Once again, defending one self and property against animals and humans is a Constitutional right. If you dig into Title 34 you will find clauses that are in direct conflict with your Constitutional rights.

Actually, I am beginning to feel sorry for SR Ed Staback. He set out to put some teeth in our poaching penalties and people are coming at him from all angles. Once again, retired SR Bruce Smith must receive some of the blame for this dilemma. For twelve years SR Smith blocked all legislation intended to deal with some of these long-standing problems.

My only suggestion to SR Staback at this time is to develop companion legislation that addresses these other PGC problems. The PGC also has to decide how important HB2205 is to them and whether they are willing to give a little to get a little. SR Staback can also incorporate these additional concerns into one bill and pass the total package. Whatever he decides the PGC’s response will be consistent.

They will only support the legislation that increases their authority.

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