HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Lawsuit against game commission?

03-06-2011, 01:22 PM

WCO R.W.J

Fork Horn

Join Date: Dec 2008

Location: Washington County

Posts: 143

Foiled again

PGC’s latest challenger on whiteail management has case thrown from court

Mark Nale

February 14, 2011 9:00am EST

A Commonwealth Court ruling handed down Feb. 8 dismissed the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania’s legal challenge to the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s deer management program.

View larger

Another so-called “Deer Wars” battle is over, with the USP losing again.
“This court ruling is a strong statement that the Game Commission’s deer management program is being conducted in a sound and scientific manner,” PGC executive director Carl Roe said. “In essence, Commonwealth Court’s latest ruling dismissed the challenge because it lacked merit.
“Our hope is that this second ruling will cease the unnecessary expenditure of sportsmen’s dollars and tax dollars fighting frivolous and baseless lawsuits.”
It has been over three years since the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania initiated legal action against the game commission. In my humble opinion, the action was a squandering of that group’s funds, and a total waste of the game commission resources, as well as our tax dollars that had to be used in the defense.
This was the second USP lawsuit claiming that the game commission was not managing the deer herd in the best interests of hunters or the deer. The earlier lawsuit had been quickly dismissed by the court.
The Unified Sportsmen petition alleged that “the Commission failed in its duties and responsibilities to preserve and protect the deer herd for Pennsylvanians,” and “the Commission intentionally acted to destroy and diminish Pennsylvania’s deer herd below natural and sustainable population levels.”
I read what they had claimed, and honestly, I did not understand why the second lawsuit was not also quickly dismissed. However, I am not a legal expert, and I guess everyone deserves his day in court. That day had been set for Feb. 28.
Last November, I became a little concerned when I learned that the attorneys for both sides were discussing a settlement. Then I read the USP’s settlement demands as printed in the Nov. 19 issue of Pennsylvania Outdoor News. As reported, their 10
demands included closing all doe hunting on public land, ending antler restrictions, reimbursing the USP for all legal costs, increasing the number of wildlife management units, and stopping the PGC from issuing Deer Management Assistance Program permits on public land. Although the terms “sustainable” and “reasonable” were not defined, the USP also demanded that the commission “maintain a sustainable deer population on all public lands to provide a reasonable opportunity for all public-land hunters to harvest a deer.”
In other words, with no science or factual basis for their claims, it seemed that the Unified Sportsmen wanted to manage the deer herd, instead of the agency that is entrusted with that management. After reading their demands, I knew that a settlement would not be in the cards. Whether you agree with the PGC or not, the agency could not and should not turn over control of deer management to a private group with no expertise.
I was surprised when reading the 22-page court dismissal, which was released on Tuesday. The Commission alleged that the USP failed to produce a single expert who supported their claims. The court document mentions USP testimony from current USP president and former PGC commissioner Steven Mohr, former USP board chair Greg Levengood, chemist N. Charles Bolgiano and radio talk show host and outdoor writer Jim Slinsky.
If I had been trying to discredit the PGC’s deer management program, I would have attempted to produce a series of wildlife biologists who would offer expert testimony refuting the PGC’s program. Very possibly, those experts do not exist, because the PGC’s program, although not perfect, is scientifically sound. So the USP settled for testimony from Slinsky.
According to court documents, Slinsky referred to Pennsylvania concurrent buck and doe seasons as “annihilation.” His non-scientific estimate of the deer population across Pennsylvania is less than three deer per square mile. As I write this, 19 deer are feeding beside my house, and this is one of only several different groups that visit regularly. So I guess that, according to Slinsky, for some reason the deer from over six square miles of habitat have just decided to visit my “backyard.”
Again, according to court documents, Slinsky stated that, “Pennsylvania’s deer management program is out of line with other states.” He also claimed that the program is based on “fraud and lies.” However, according to the Commonwealth Court opinion, despite Slinsky’s claim that he had interviewed “over 1,031 persons, including every major deer project leader in the country,” he offered no specific examples to support his claims.
Judge Barry F. Feudale had some harsh words for Slinsky.
“…Assertions such as those uttered by Slinsky that the commission based its program on ‘fraud and lies’ is the type of tabloid hyperbolic sound bite that lacks factual foundation and strains credulity,” Feudale said. He also admonished Slinsky for unfairly denigrating the Commission’s efforts as well as those of the Unified Sportsmen.
USP vice president Randy Santucci reacted to the court’s ruling with a bit of disbelief.
“Thousands of sportsmen invested tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, watched this case get legal standing, and develop over 31/ 2 years. We resisted dispositive motions and delay tactics by the PGC, only to be dismissed 21/ 2 weeks before the hearing date,” Santucci said
in an e-mail. “An opportunity has been lost, and the immediate perception now (justified or not) is that this late ruling does not pass the smell test. This needed to go the distance, so we could arrive at a decision based on presentation of all the evidence and expert testimony from both sides.”
While attending the Commission meeting in Harrisburg on Jan. 31, I spoke briefly with — and ended up sitting beside — USP chairman of the board Wayne Haas, of Howard, and Santucci. I will not attempt any direct quotes here, but when the subject of the court case came up, their mood reminded me of two wolves circling what they thought to be a half-dead moose — the PGC.
I will quote Haas’ Jan. 30 letter to the CDT, however. Referring to the Feb. 28 court date, Haas wrote, “The USP will disclose the PGC’s mismanagement to the court and take the final step in changing the PGC’s deer management program.”
With the Feb. 8 court dismissal and a cancelation of the scheduled Feb. 28 court date, I guess that the moose recovered and kicked the hungry wolves in the face.
What lies ahead for the USP is still being discussed within the organization. Santucci said, “The consensus of all directors I have spoken to is, that this is no more than another bump in the road that we have been traveling for the past several years. A bigger bump, yes, but it hasn’t bounced any of us out of the truck. Pennsylvania’s deer herd has reached critical low, if not un-huntable numbers, in many management units. That is what brought us to this point and it wasn’t changed by this ruling.”

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2011/02/1...#ixzz1FrR0SfBl