ShareThis Page
Better defining public hunting the goal of new rules likely coming to Pennsylvania |

Better defining public hunting the goal of new rules likely coming to Pennsylvania

| Saturday, July 21, 2018 11:48 p.m.
Bob Frye | Everybody Adventures
Public hunting as it applies to white-tailed deer is under review in Pennsylvania.

They’re going to have to do better.

Pennsylvania entities – chiefly municipalities – that want permits to cull overabundant white-tailed deer from around their residents’ urban and suburban homes and businesses using sharpshooters must first try managing those animals using real, actual public hunting.

That has, by letter of the law, been the rule for a while now.

But public officials loathe to involve themselves in debating about the pros and cons of hunting sometimes skirt the issue.

Pennsylvania Game Commissioner Brian Hoover of Chester County said several municipalities in the southeast region are prime examples.

One borough might own 200 acres of park land, he said, that’s home to too many deer. They open just 10 of those acres to hunting, though. And only one or two borough police officers – technically members of the public – are allowed to hunt, Hoover said.

When those officers predictably can’t shoot enough deer to solve the overabundance problem, the municipality applies for the cull permit it wanted all along, Hoover said.

“So I think that’s what we’re trying to deal with using this regulation, is to force these entities to go out there and change,” Hoover said. “Otherwise, we don’t issue them a permit. And I’m OK with that.”

Game Commissioners are addressing that.

When they meet on July 30-31 in Harrisburg, they’re expected to preliminary approve rules changes stating public hunting is to be the first tool for deer control.

The new language will specifically quantify “true public access,” said Jason Raup, assistant counsel for the agency.

Municipalities — and other landowners seeking a cull permit — will still be able to restrict how many people hunt their lands. They can limit that by season , too.

But the new rules will make it clear that they have to bring hunters into the mix in a real way, he said.

“If they want to use this resource, I think they’re going to have to have to be a little bit more successful in garnering support from their public on the importance of deer control and how hunters can have a role in reaching their goals of population management,” Raup said.

That — acceptance of public hunting – has been the issue, it seems.

Only a dozen or so entities apply for a cull permit in a typical year in Pennsylvania, said Chad Eyler, of the commission’s special permits division.

Three of four of those applicants – all within Philadelphia city limits — are exempt from the public hunting rule, thanks to state lawmakers.

But the others must meet the rule.

Some have done so in a “robust” way, Raup said. Others meet the public hunting requirement using members of one particular sportsmen’s club. A few open things up to hunters passing a proficiency test.

Those situations are all acceptable, he said. Elected officials hiding behind a handful of police officers – so as to not to face opposition from anti-hunting constituents – is not, he added.

Hunting, after all, is by rule the number one tool for managing wildlife populations in Pennsylvania, he said.

“And anything that needs to occur beyond that with these extraordinary permits is extra on top of that,” he said.

Hoover said the new language is long overdue. He wonders, though, if it goes far enough.

Municipalities that skirted the rules last time will surely try another “end run” to do so again, he said.

Raup admitted the new definition of public hunting may need updated again in time.

But he doesn’t want to anticipate problems that don’t yet exist either.

“We want to leave the applicants enough leeway to be creative and come up with ways that work for their local communities, while at the same time not allowing them to restrict public hunting to the point where they’re not actually allowing it,” he said.

Hoover said that’s fine, so long as the commission remains vigilant. It hasn’t always been in the past, he charged.

“I just don’t want to see us rubber stamp a program that we know in the very beginning is going to fail. And I think that’s what we’ve done in the past,” Hoover said.

Raup said the commission has rejected cull permit applications in the past and retains the right to do so. The new rules, he said, will hopefully make things clear enough to everyone on sides that there’s little wiggle room.

“I think we want to remain supportive of our communities that are having deer control problems,” Raup said.

“I think how we get there is just the important factor. And public hunting needs to be the primary component toward management.”

Bob Frye is the editor. Reach him at 412-216-0193 or See other stories, blogs, videos and more at

Article by Bob Frye, Everybody Adventures,

Copyright © 535media, LLC

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.