From The Morning Call
July 26, 2006

Court lets Unified Sportsmen take their best shot
The statewide group has legal standing to sue Game Commission.

By Christian Berg
Of The Morning Call

Commonwealth Court has upheld a statewide hunting group's right to sue the Pennsylvania Game Commission over deer management — a decision being hailed by some as a major victory for sportsmen.

The lawsuit that sparked the ruling was filed last year by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, which claims the commission is intentionally decimating the state's whitetail herd with no scientific basis for its policies.

Although the merits of that argument have yet to be considered, Unified officials are celebrating the court's recognition that sportsmen have ''standing,'' which is the legal right to challenge the commission on hunting-related matters.

''This in itself is a major victory for sportsmen,'' Unified Chairman Gregory Levengood said in a news release.

Levengood also called Judge Robert Simpson's July 20 ruling a ''major step in the USP's efforts to bring accountability to the Game Commission's deer management plan.''

Game Commission officials, however, viewed the court's ruling much differently and expressed confidence that Unified's case will eventually be defeated.

''In my opinion, it's only prolonging the inevitable that this is going to get tossed out,'' said Commissioner Gregory Isabella of Philadelphia.

Commission President Thomas Boop, a lawyer from Northumberland County, said just because the court recognized Unified's right to pursue its case, that doesn't mean the group's claims are true.

''It's going to proceed on the merits [of their case], and I think ultimately it will be determined that the commission does use scientific methods to make these decisions,'' Boop said. ''At the end of the day, the commission will prevail.''

Unified filed its lawsuit against the commission last August. In addition the commission and individual commissioners, the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, DCNR Secretary Michael DiBerardinis and Gov. Ed Rendell were named as defendants.

Unified claims the commission and DCNR have conspired to drastically reduce deer numbers for the benefit of the state's $5 billion timber industry. By so doing, Unified claims, the commission has violated statutory and constitutional requirements to manage wildlife for the benefit of all citizens and provide adequate hunting opportunities to sportsmen.

Unified, which claims 40,000 members, also contends the commission has never conducted a reliable census of Pennsylvania's deer population and therefore lacks the data needed to make management decisions.

Unified said deer-management policies implemented by the commission in recent years — such as a concurrent firearms season for bucks and does, special seasons for antlerless deer and a dramatic increase in the number of antlerless deer-hunting licenses — have already slashed the deer population from an estimated 1.5 million six years ago to less than half that today.

Unified's suit asks the court to force commission and DCNR officials to release all information used to formulate deer management policies and make state employees available for depositions where they can be questioned about the rationale for their decisions.

The state, which is being represented by the attorney general's office, argued that Unified's suit should be thrown out because the commission has sole authority and ownership of Pennsylvania's deer herd. Therefore, the state argued, hunters have no standing from which to bring a legal challenge.

However, Simpson noted in his 21-page opinion that the state Game Code specifically requires the commission to serve the interest of sportsmen by providing adequate hunting and trapping opportunities. Simpson also cited a U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized the desire to use or observe an animal species as a basis for legal standing.

Unified's lawyer, Don Bailey of Harrisburg, said the court's decision to grant Unified standing sets a legal precedent that can be utilized by sportsmen's groups throughout Pennsylvania.

''If the court said there was no standing,…groups like Unified would never be able to participate in the way they need to be able to participate,'' Bailey said. ''We would have a door closed to us probably forever.''

Although Simpson sided with Unified on the issue of standing, he granted the state's request to dismiss DCNR, DiBerardinis and Rendell as defendants because they have no mandatory legal duties regarding deer management.

Simpson also expressed numerous concerns about the nature of relief sought by Unified and gave the group 30 days to amend its pleading. Simpson said the relief requested by Unified — access to commission records and staff — do not appear directly related to the agency's alleged failure to protect and preserve game, serve the interests of sportsmen and provide adequate hunting opportunities.

''Based on the ambiguous nature of Sportsmen's pleading, it is not possible to discern a legal theory to support the relief requested,'' Simpson wrote.

Despite that, Simpson said there are potential legal grounds for Unified to seek relief. So, the court decided to grant a 30-day extension for amendments rather than dismiss the lawsuit.

Bailey said he plans to meet with Unified officials and have a revised complaint filed with the court prior to the Aug. 19 deadline.

[email protected]