ShareThis Page
Notebook: Hoffman pushing for a constitutional guarantee |

Notebook: Hoffman pushing for a constitutional guarantee

| Friday, April 1, 2005 12:00 a.m.

Henry Hoffman has spent a lifetime enjoying Pennsylvania’s outdoors. A member of the Pitcairn-Monroeville Sportsmen’s Club, he’s had the privilege of hunting and fishing in various places across the state.

Now, though, he and a number of like-minded sportsmen are supporting an effort to turn that privilege into a right.

State Rep. Matt Baker, a Bradford County Republican, is the prime sponsor of House Bill 532. It calls for amending Pennsylvania’s constitution to guarantee sportsmen the right to “hunt, fish and harvest game.”

Baker first introduced the bill last session. It passed the House of Representatives, only to die on the floor of the Senate when other lawmakers tried to tack on language capping the damages people could receive in medical malpractice cases.

Senate leaders would not let the bill move forward under those conditions, Baker said.

He’s reintroduced the bill this session because animal rights activists have challenged the right to hunt, fish and trap in other states. Baker doesn’t want to see that war fought here.

“Right now, without a constitutional right to hunt and fish, some organizations are challenging those rights in one way or another,” Baker said. “We want to prevent that before a crisis occurs.”

Hoffman, who also serves as first vice president of the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League — which is supporting the proposed amendment — said the bill is important because it could keep the “anti-gunners and bunny huggers” who are committed to ending hunting, fishing and trapping from getting their way.

“It’s for the hunters of today and the future hunters,” Hoffman said. “My grandkids are coming up now, and three or four of them like to hunt. It’s for them and all of us.”

Steve Mohr, a member of the Pennsylvania Game Commission board from Lancaster, supports the measure, too.

“If they can beat Pennsylvania, they can beat anyone, speaking of the antis,” Mohr said. “We can’t sit back and wait for them, we’ve got to be proactive.”

The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs are backing Baker’s bill. The Federation has some concerns, however.

Melody Zullinger, the group’s executive director, worries that sportsmen won’t be able to come up with the money or energy to support the bill if anti-hunting organizations make a determined effort to defeat it. She also worries that, if the bill passes, hunters will take their new right for granted.

The bill only goes so far as to guarantee the right to hunt, fish and harvest game subject to “restrictions relating to species, seasons, licensure, limits, methods and locations, as prescribed by the laws of this Commonwealth,” she noted.

“Laws can still be changed, bad laws can still be passed, we can still lose some privileges,” Zullinger said.

That’s true, Baker said, but the amendment would add a level of protection for sportsmen.

Amending the constitution is not a quick or easy process. The legislature would have to approve Baker’s bill this session — which ends in December 2006 — then approve it again in the next two-year session. It would then have to be approved by voters in a referendum.

Now, though, is the time to get things moving, Baker said.

“Growing up in a rural area, that’s the first thing a lot of kids looked forward to, getting to hunt with their family. I just don’t want that right to be challenged or taken away from us,” Baker said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.