BTBowhunter

Interesting.... time will tell, and I bet it wont take long

sproulman

you so called SPORTSMEN..you should be ashame of yourself..

USP which i met at 2 of their meeting they hold around state were very nice people.at least they are trying to stop this over harvest of doe..

if you would have seen petitions ,i did ,with just about every hunter i know name was on it to stop the overharvest of doe..

they wanted the doe season closed..they want 1 deer and your done..

some dont want that, they want a freezer full like DOUGE..

well, that freezer full is ending..its funny,the ones that want to kill deer, like 5 a year here in wmu2g are always saying at our sportsmen club meetings,I SAW 40 DEER TODAY, 11 WERE BUCKS..

i never in my life saw so many LIERS as i am seeing today and most are ones that like way things are now, give me more TAGS..

you so called SPORTSMEN, you dont need to badmouth the USP,they are not ones pulling trigger on doe and fawns..

i give USP credit,they have balls and as my favorite western star said, THEY HAVE GRIT..

how you can hate a group of sportsmen for trying to save our deer hunting for kids and future here in pa. is beyond me..

i guess a FREEZER full of meat is very important to some not SPORT of hunting..

NorthPA

Sproulman, I'm really hoping that you are a young fellow.
Your posts simply do not reflect mature thinking. You go to bat to criticize those who are "happy" calling them liars and saying they are not sportsmen.
How ironic is that when three and four years ago, the same complainers were predicting there would be no doe to harvest in the next year or following year......yada, yada yada.
But hey,those hunters who actually do hunt, are still filling their freezers. Where did those deer come from? And what would be gained by lying, if those deer aren't really there?
If you are so concerned about youngsters, take a few hunting where there "is" deer to be hunted.
This thing about the honorable folks at USP is really amazing.
Will you honestly answer an opinion poll here? I mean "honest" answer?

Do you think deer tearing the linings of swimming pools is the reason for herd management?
Do you think deer eating the bark of trees is the reason for herd management?
Do you think deer scratching trees with their hooves is the reason for herd management?
Do you think deer tearing up the greens of golf courssis the reason for herd management?
Do you think "well over 200,000 deer are killed by predators each year and that is the reason for herd management?
Do you think cougars have a direct impact on the deer herd andthat is the reason for herd management?
Do you think the PGC knew that our coyotes were mixed with wolf genetics and kept it a secret from us?

All these things were accusations of the "good guys in the USP.

Oh, by the way, more than twenty years ago I, and hundreds of thousands of others, read in Pennsylvania Game News about the coyote-wolf hybrids. Seems USP guys were out to lunch that day.

So, how about the above? Does that show their expertise in knowing about deer and deer management?
How about Baileyhill? How do you feel about those claims?

lost horn

NorthPa, I can't find where they made most of these clames, could you post the article here ? Sounds to me like most of these clames came from the DCNR and Audubon. Hope you can find it.

BTBowhunter

Read the lawsuit Lost Horn. It's right there.

patrkyhntr

Now doesn't it make you who belong to such an organization feel pretty stupid? If it doesn't, it should. This is what you are supporting with your twenty bucks.

BTBowhunter

There will always be great numbers of uninformed people out there who dont undertsand a particular situation but they just know they dont like it.And there will always be a few enterprising bandits to stir the pot and take peoples money for a terribly misguided "good cause"

PETA does it, HSUS does it , so does the USP

lost horn

I know my old eyes are getting bad so maybe you can point them out, here is the lawsuit.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania
By and through Their Members,
Individually and Collectively, and Individual
Plaintiffs (John F. Gilmore through and including
Florence Reeder totaling 13,216 plaintiffs As evidenced by Exhibit " A " hereto )
Petitioners
V.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC),
The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (DCNR)) Edward Rendell, Governor Of Pennsylvania (in his official capacity only), the Commissioners of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission (all in their official capacity only) and
Michael DiBerardinis (in his official capacity only)
NOTICE TO DEFEND
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the petition or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. .
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFTCE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU
CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
213 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA. 17101


IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania
By and through Their Members,
Individually and Collectively, and Individual
Plaintiffs (John F. Gilmore through and including
Florence Reeder totaling 13,216 plaintiffs As evidenced by Exhibit " A " hereto )
Petitioners
V.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC),
The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (DCNR)) Edward Rendell, Governor Of Pennsylvania (in his official capacity only), the Commissioners of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission (all in their official capacity only) and
Michael DiBerardinis (in his official capacity only)

Respondents
COMPLAINT/REQUEST FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUlS
Comes Now the Petitioners "The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania" and the individual Petitioners, by and through their attorney Don Bailey Esq., and brings this petition seeking the consideration by this Honorable Court of certain alleged actions and policies by the Respondents above named, which are alleged to be unlawful and further pray for relief in the form of a request for writ of mandamus.


1

Introductory Statement
This is a complaint brought by a group of Pennsylvania Sportsmen whose membership numbers exceed 40,000 persons. The men and women of this organization and tens of thousands of their members, and others, collectively and in their individual capacities (including many individual Pennsylvania citizens who are not members), assert standing to petition this court on behalf of their constitutionally and statutorily recognized rights as outdoorsmen and hunters, pursuant to Pennsylvania law, asserting that they have been expressly entrusted by the Commonwealth with the responsibility to protect and preserve Pennsylvania's deer herd. The gravaman of this complaint is that the Respondents have not only failed in their duties and responsibilities to preserve and protect the deer herd as a ward of, and for the citizens of Pennsylvania and particularly the sportsmen and women of Pennsylvania, but that the respondents above named have intentionally acted to destroy and diminish Pennsylvania's deer herd, in contravention of law, below a reasonable or rational level. Further, petitioners allege that the above named Respondents, have in their official capacities, intentionally embarked upon the promulgation of policies designed to deplete and diminish the deer herd in support and pursuit of other political and policy

2

interests which are in conflict with, and in derogation of, the intent and purpose of established Pennsylvania law to the contrary. The petitioners seek the intervention of this Honorable Court to require the Respondents through a writ of mandamus, consistent with the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania, as they relate to Pennsylvania's deer herd and the basis upon which the Respondents have promulgated their policies and based, and base, their actions and policies to reveal the basis of their decisions affecting the well-being of the herd. Petitioners do not seek a temporary restraining order or ask for preliminary injunctive relief, but rather ask this court, based upon the following issues of law and allegations of fact; to grant petitioners appropriate discovery rights and opportunities to access public information to be followed by an evidentiary hearing(s) should petitioners meet the legal and factual burdens required by this court entitling them. to potential equitable relief.

Jurisdiction and Venue
1. Jurisdiction is vested in this court by virtue of Pa.R.C.P. No.’s 2101-2125 and 1501,1502, 1093, 1094, 1531 and 1577. This court is also asked to consider, as an alternative, declaratory relief as per Pa.R.C.P. 1602,

3

2. Since Petitioners do not seek preliminary injunctive relief' no bond is required or necessary.
3. Original jurisdiction lies with this court to hear complaints against the Commonwealth or Commonwealth parties (see explanatory comment- 1991) to Rule 2102, see also Rule 2103.
Relief Requested
4. Petitioners do not seek preliminary injunctive relief.
5. However, Petitioners do allege that sufficient grounds exist to seek permanent injunctive relief and/or mandamus.
6. More specifically, this court's equitable powers are necessary to prevent further decimation of Pennsylvania's deer herd through inappropriate regulations and policies promulgated and enforced by the respondents; which if carried forward in this and in future years, might lead to the irreparable decimation of the Commonwealth's deer herd. Consequently Petitioners aver as follows:
a. Compensation by damages are not adequate to prevent the irreparable and immediate harm to the population and health of the deer herd if respondents are not restrained or otherwise required to conform to the requirements of the law and,

4

b. Greater injury than that already believed sustained will result if this court refuses to take action forcing the Respondents provide the data and or information upon which their actions in setting and antlered and antlerless deer license allocations are based and,
c. By granting mandamus relief this court will restore the parties to the status quo anti.
d. Petitioner's right to relief is clear and manifest.
7. Pennsylvania's Constitution contains a Declaration of Rights which, like the Bill of Rights, is a limitation on the power (s) of our state government. These rights are considered inherent in man's nature. Further, these rights are specifically reserved to the people; each inhabitant of the Commonwealth shares in them and enjoys them.
8. The "Declaration of Rights'~ in Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads as follows:
“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."
9. 34-P~C.S:&. & 3-22 imposes the following duty on the Pennsylvania game commission:
a. “Duties…

5

"It shall be the duty of the Commission to protect, propagate, manage and preserve the game or wildlife of this Commonwealth and to enforce, by proper actions and proceedings, the laws of this Commonwealth relating thereto” ...
c." Specific powers and duties...
(11) collect, classify and preserve such statistics, data and information as in its judgment will tend to promote the object of this title and take charge of and keep all reports, books, papers and documents which shall, in the discharge of its duties, come into its possession or under its control.
(12) Take any necessary action to accomplish and assure the purposes of this title
(13) Serve the interests of "sportsmen” (emphasis added) by preserving and promoting our special heritage of recreational hunting and fur-taking by providing adequate opportunity to hunt and trap the wildlife resources of this Commonwealth."
10. The aforementioned duties are obligatory and must be performed by the Commission which does not have the discretion to avoid the obligations enumerated above.
11. In carrying out their duties the PGC (and all of the Respondents above) are required as a matter of law to base their decisions on scientific evidence and not arbitrary or capricious speculation and certainly not on an undisclosed political agenda. Lehman, et. al. v Pennsylvania Game Commission, et .al., 34 Pa. D.& C. 662 (pa.Com.PI. 1938), Pacurariu, et. al. v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et. al. , 744 AZD 389 (Cmwlth.Ct. Ct. 2000).

6

12. The commission to the contrary has never conducted a reliable or scientific census of Pennsylvania's deer herd at any time in its history.
13. Rather, based upon information and belief, in seeking to trade political decisions encouraging increased forest growth at the expense of the deer herd, the PGC, in conjunction with the DCNR and the other Respondents in their official capacities, have engaged in a policy not guided by information or scientific knowledge but rather have engaged in a consistent year in year out policy of engineering the rapid decimation of Pennsylvania's deer herd from an estimated 1.5 million to less than half that number .
14. In carrying out its policy objectives the Respondents have intentionally excluded the public, and particularly hunters and sportsmen and similar groups, who are recognized in the Constitution and laws of Pennsylvania as partners and participants in the Protection and preservation of the Pennsylvania deer herd.
15. The Respondents have systematically excluded citizens" hunters, and other sportsmen from a proper role in the formulation and application of public policies which Pennsylvania law specifically recognizes as a lawful interest for them.

7

16. The practices of the PGC and the DCNR and the other Respondents have become so secretive and exclusionary that the very citizens and interests that they are by law directed to recognize and advance are totally denied access to information or participation in the formulation of policy, the setting of harvest figures, and access to even rudimentary information which would fulfill the constitutional and statutory mandates cited herein.
Wherefore this court is respectfully requested to grant petitioners the following specific relief:
a. Order Respondents to provide the information and sources of information upon which they rely to set harvest figures for the Pennsylvania deer and decide deer population computations and to make this information available to the plaintiffs and to the public.
b. Set a discovery schedule and permit petitioners to conduct discovery, including access to PGC and DCNR staff for deposition evidence and documents to a reasonable extent sufficient to allow plaintiffs to collect and acquire information. Petitioners do not seek access to an extent or which by nature would be burdensome to the public administrative needs of the Respondent entities or officials.

8
c. Allow the parties to engage in a briefing schedule whereby the parties could generate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to what the respective rights and positions of the parties are under the Constitution of Pennsylvania and the provisions of title 34 Pa.C.S.A§l02 et seq of the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code.
d. In the alternative provide the parties hereto with the requisite declaratory relief as to the rights and duties of the respective parties pursuant to him 34Pa.C.S.A.§ l02.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Don Bailey Esquire
Bailey & Ostrowski 4311 N. 6th Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717.221.9500
717.221.9600 Fax

sproulman

deep down , i believe most of you are good people and dont like to bash anyone, USP tried to stop this maddness on deer..

remember, petitions i saw signed were almost everyone in the county that saw it..old people, none hunters,hikers,vets,police, sportsmen,priests/rev/disabled in hosptials etc..

they wanted this DOE KILLING stopped because of overharvest of doe..

they had GRIT to sign their name on it and no USP member ever pressured 1 of them..i saw mothers mad over doe killing and said, they want deer for our kids and want to see their kids hunting in future..

they all said, no deer here in wmu2g ..

disgusting thing i saw was hunter that pulled trigger on 3 ,4 or 5 doe,many did..then went to sportsmen clubs and BRAGGED,I GOT A FREEZER FULL OF MEAT..

hell, our president ofour club did it,but we understand, he is former DCNR employee that is off on disability..

so, USP is bad guy, hey look ,there goes a bad guy,well, i think that BAD GUY was only group with GRIT here in pa..

for that, they earned my respect..,

patrkyhntr

I believe what you posted was the original lawsuit and not the amended one in which they included the crapola about wolves and other stuff like deer clawing trees.