Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says PGC Can Regulate Game In Preserves

Animal rights groups, which have shown in past history to have very little interest in saving animals and more interest in trampling on the rights of individuals, sued the state of Pennsylvania in order to force the Pennsylvania Game Commission to implement its regulations on game hunting preserves – specifically the Tioga Hunting Preserve which provides opportunities to hunt boar.

The PGC claims it has no jurisdiction over the boars at Tioga as they are non-native but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 4-1 decision said, “wild boar are protected wild mammals that are subject to the commission’s regulations.”

The intent of Fund for Animals is to stop any and all forms of hunting. They will chip away at U.S. citizen’s rights until they have achieved their sought after goals – forcing their ideals on the general public.

In an earlier statement made by Jerry Feaser of the Tioga Hunting Preserve, he said that the rights of a property owner allows him to decide who harvests his animals.

Let’s put it to you this way, for comparison. If I’m a farmer and I have some dairy cows, and I decide for some reason to allow some people to come in and shoot them, there’s nothing the Game Commission can do.

The Court’s ruling stated that the boar were “protected wild mammals”. I assume as far as protected, they are using this term to describe that the PGC would regulate or manage the animal as part of its game management programs? Wild pigs are far from a federally protected species. As a matter of fact, many states are trying to figure out how to get rid of their wild pigs.

Part of the argument seems to be that the boars that are present at the Tioga Hunting Preserve are imported Russian and European boars. The PGC has said that because of that, they cannot control the pigs there.

What is questionable is the double standard being used by the animal rights groups. When their argument fits the mold, they will argue against the mere existence of game preserves claiming that none of the animals inside the fences are “wild” and fight to stop the slaughter of what they called tame or domesticated animals. If the moment is right, such as seems to be the case here, they will argue that pigs are wild animals and therefore need to be under the jurisdiction of the PGC.

Included in that double standard is that of the use of the term hunting. In some cases, animal rightists will attempt to use to their advantage that shooting animals on a fenced-in preserve isn’t hunting. They will refer to it as inhumane slaughter. In this case, they clearly refer to the events taking place at Tioga as hunting and are demanding that the PGC have jurisdiction because of that. So which is it? We can’t have it both ways, or can we?

With this ruling, it becomes clear to me that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has set precedence that shooting boars on game preserves is hunting and therefore needs to be regulated by the PGC. Will that stop the future arguments as to whether or not shooting game inside fences is hunting? Probably not but maybe some smart lawyer will use this ruling by the PSC in its fight to protect property rights.

But don’t get confused here. The goal of Fund for Animals and all the animal rights groups is to take away everyone’s opportunities to hunt. This is just one step in that direction.

Now that it appears the PGC has jurisdiction over Tioga’s boars and of course all other game preserves in Pennsylvania, it will be interesting to see how this actually changes things. You can bet that if this ruling doesn’t force the closure of Tioga and other preserves statewide, the animal rights groups will be back with more ridiculous lawsuits stripping away our rights as American citizens.

Weren’t cows wild mammals once also?

Tom Remington