ShareThis Page
Pigeon shoot protesters don’t get video evidence |

Pigeon shoot protesters don’t get video evidence

In minutes, the opening salvo in the latest skirmish of the Pennsylvania pigeon wars was due to begin.

And there, a half-mile away across the Delaware River, lay ground zero.

Shrouded behind a long, 30-foot-high wall of pale fabric, the Philadelphia Gun Club looked fortress-like in the distance.

For decades, the club in Bensalem has been staging pigeon shoots that animal activists call cruel, savage and an outrage.

On the New Jersey side of the river, in Beverly, five of those activists stood watching Saturday as the clocks on their laptops ticked toward 9 a.m.

Armed not with shotguns but an inflatable boat and a drone-mounted video camera, they could barely contain their contempt for the men and women who fire at caged birds flung skyward by handlers.

“To any ethical hunters, they are the scum of the earth,” said Steve Hindi of Chicago, president of the Illinois protective organization known as Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK.

They were there, Hindi said, to gather video evidence to try to persuade Pennsylvania lawmakers to ban the sport.

Just last month, the Senate voted 36-12 on a bill to enact such a ban. But days later, the Pennsylvania Flyers Victory Fund, a lobby for pigeon shooters backed by the National Rifle Association, handed $1,000 checks to 17 members of the House Rules Committee, and a $3,000 check to House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods.

Turzai, who had promised a House vote, instead blocked the vote, and the bill died.

“These kinds of shoots should have ended before the 20th century,” Hindi said Saturday, sweeping his arm westward with an angry gesture that seemed to take in all of Pennsylvania, the only state that does not ban pigeon shoots by law.

Hindi, 60, and his fellow “investigators” insist such shoots are illegal anyway, because they violate the state’s animal cruelty laws.

Representatives of the Philadelphia Gun Club did not return requests Saturday for comment.

The animus between the shooters and their opponents runs deep. Funded by retired TV game-show host Bob Barker, SHARK not only monitors shoots but lobbies to ban such shoots.

The gun club responded by filing a federal lawsuit in April against five of SHARK’s investigators, seeking damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged harassment, intimidation, trespass and assault.

By 9:25 Saturday morning, however, no shotgun blasts were audible from across the river. SHARK’s operatives decided to investigate.

Like Hindi, Mike Kobliska had traveled from Chicago to monitor the shoot.

At 9:48 a.m. the two men pressed buttons on their handheld remotes, and a $15,000 eight-bladed drone, or “octocopter,” three feet in diameter and equipped with a high-definition, remote-controlled Sony video camera, sprang to life.

The drone let out a moaning whir like the locusts of Exodus, rose to 326 feet and dipped toward the Bensalem shore.

Two minutes later, the club grounds were visible on the men’s laptop screens. But instead of revealing hunters with shotguns and crippled birds fluttering on the ground, the copter showed only empty lawn and shooting platforms and a vacant parking lot.

The club had evidently canceled the shoot, which had been announced on its website.

“It’s a victory of sorts if we can stop a single shoot,” said Hindi, who appeared disappointed. “It’s wonderful when not a bird is shot. But the only real victory is when this (is) stopped.”

He said his team would travel Monday to Western Pennsylvania to demonstrate against Turzai in his district and then Wednesday to Harrisburg, where they will show disturbing videos in the Capitol rotunda of pigeon shoots.

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.