HYPOCRISY WHEN LAUNCH A PRO-HUNTING PROPOSAL OR EXPANSION OF HUNTING OPPORTUNITY….NOT SURE ABOUT THAT….WE ALL BENEFIT

Michael, thanks for your valid inquiry and comment.  As the executive director of Hunters United for Sunday Hunting, I want to take the time to respond accordingly.  First, let me say that you will not be called a “snowflake” or any other derogatory name by myself or persons within HUSH from submitting a valid comment or question.  I also ask that HUSH followers refrain from this practice as well.  We are better than that as sportsmen and women.  

Please do not consider this a ‘call-out’ of you by name either.  Your question and my response can help educate people on why getting full regulatory authority to the Pennsylvania Game Commission as it pertains to Sundays is important.

Question from Michael Rossi, 

I am a hundred percent in favor of full Sunday hunting. However, let me point out a little hypocrisy. Those who argue that the health departments at various levels of government should not "tell you what to do"; I am embarrassed to admit, often include hunters. So, if politicians and public outcry should set health policy, and not health agencies... Why should wildlife agencies and commissions overrule the majority opinion? Because whether you realize it or not, that is what we are doing anytime we launch a pro-hunting proposal or expansion of hunting opportunity. In fact, to make it worse, the antis argue that wildlife is public property, it does not belong only to the hunters, so, according to them, they have a say in how it is regulated. The public land debate is not as clear - hunters certainly have funded a lot of it, but not all of it. However - the existing law about wildlife is clear, it belongs to the collective public, not just the hunters... So, besides calling me a "snowflake" how do you reconcile all that?

Response from HUSH Executive Director, Kevin Askew

Let us keep the discussion on point.   As you well know. The fight to bring hunting on Sunday has never been about a particular species or season. It is not about deer, it is not about specific seasons, it is not about this firearm or the other. It is about the increased opportunity based on the Pennsylvania Game Commissions resource first model and the North American Model of Wildlife Management.  

The Sunday hunting restriction in PA dates back to 1682 and colonial blue laws that were designed to prohibit working or other recreational activities on Sundays. "Whoever does or performs any worldly employment or business whatsoever on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, works of necessity and charity only exempted, or uses or practices any game, hunting, shooting, sport or diversion whatsoever on the same day not authorized by law" is guilty, the law stated. https://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000218sunday5.asp

The last I looked there are no British soldiers on the streets nor is the flag of Britain flying over the capitol in Harrisburg, PA.  It is the 21st Century where we live and exist in a 24-7/365 society of activities and lifestyles.  This includes hunting and shooting sports.

Question - Why should wildlife agencies and commissions overrule the majority opinion?

Response - The PGC process is a fair and open process.  Any individual, hunter or non-hunter, organization, or representative public or private has the ability to participate in the process and address the PGC commissioners and board with any concerns.   The politicians are standing in the way of this by not trusting or changing the Sunday hunting prohibition in Title 34 Game Law.   

There are 480 species of wildlife that the PA Game Commission is charged with managing. We hunt 62 of those 480. In the North American Model of Wildlife Management, hunters who hunt those 62-game species foot the bill for the 480-total species. 

Question -The existing law about wildlife is clear, it belongs to the collective public, not just the hunters?

Response - We currently hunt foxes, coyotes and crows, and the three designated Sundays by the exemption of law; not full regulatory authority.   Two of the three do not adhere to the science-based North American Model of Wildlife management need to be placed in the hands of the subject matter experts. That is the Pennsylvania Game Commission. That is their mission, they have the biologists, trained professionals, and the means to make the best decisions for all 480 species of wildlife that inhabits the commonwealth. 

If politicians and citizens of the commonwealth trust the PGC for 480 species; then why not fully trust them in setting a seven-day per week hunting schedule based on science set biological goals of huntable species?

The PGC is just managing not overruling majority opinion?  A perfect example of this is the semi-automatic rifles for hunting debate.  PGC supports their use.  PA hunters do not.    

Question - The antis argue that wildlife is public property, it does not belong only to the hunters, so, according to them, they have a say in how it is regulated?

Response - Sure they do and are welcome too.  It goes back to the earlier question and comments about participating in the PGC process.  

The PGC manages more non-huntable species than they do huntable.  An example of this is the recent mortality of songbirds.  Do we hunt these birds; certainly not. Do all citizens of the commonwealth benefit and enjoy seeing these species, definitely yes.  Are we as license buying hunters primarily footing the bill for the study and science of figuring out why this is happening in songbirds; the answer is yes.  https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/game-commission-details.aspx?newsid=493&fbclid=IwAR3KlUMIoAThY-i2U9KEm-I4iJIYMPUxY3pdG303sGRhPQ48GyVaY0XFtjQ

The Pennsylvania Game Commission exists to manage the Commonwealth’s wild birds, wild mammals, and their habitats for current and future generations, a mission it has followed faithfully since 1895. https://www.pgc.pa.gov/InformationResources/MediaReportsSurveys/Documents/2020%20PGC%20Annual%20Legislative%20Report.pdf

The PGC is responsible for regulating per the PA Constitution and The Environmental Rights Amendment, “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.” https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/GoodNatured/pages/Article.aspx?post=171

Question - The public land debate is not as clear - hunters certainly have funded a lot of it, but not all of it.

Response - Yes, in PA there are different tracts of land labeled and associated by select agencies for different and overlapping purposes.  But for this discussion let’s keep it to PA Game Lands.  The PGC is clear on what the intended purpose is: “The Game Commission owns and manages more than 1.5 million acres of state game lands throughout the Commonwealth. The primary purpose of these lands is the management of habitat for wildlife and provide opportunities for lawful hunting and trapping. Secondary recreational uses are permitted in accordance with the Game Commission’s regulations.” https://www.pgc.pa.gov/HuntTrap/StateGameLands/Pages/default.aspx

Non-consumptive users are welcome to use the game lands seven days per week.  The only restrictions are on hunters being restricted by politicians on what species and days are allowed to be hunted.  As a whole, hunter-conservationists only want the same opportunity that exists with these non-consumptive users.  

When it comes to hypocrisy there is no better evidence than that of the politicians in the PA Senate and PA House of Representatives who do not hold themselves to the same blue law standards for all legislation as they do for Sunday hunting prohibition.