Wednesday, October 08, 2003

By Marc Levy, The Associated Press

HARRISBURG -- The Pennsylvania Game Commission yesterday backed off from two controversial amendments to the game code, including regulations on releasing animals into the wild and how much fluorescent orange hunters must wear during turkey hunting seasons.

After spending much of Monday listening to hours of public comment against both proposed amendments, commissioners came back a day later and struck the controversial portions.

Rules governing hunter visibility will largely stay the same after a torrent of criticism that the proposed new rules were too heavy-handed, and that turkeys would be spooked by the greater amounts of fluorescent orange that hunters would have been required to wear.

Under the proposal, fall turkey hunters would have had to wear 250 square inches of fluorescent orange on the head, chest and back at all times. Currently, a stationary hunter is allowed to remove the orange if 100 square inches of orange material are placed within 15 feet, and regulations are less strict in areas limited to bowhunting and shotguns.

Ed Wentzler, legislative director of United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, said he had opposed the proposed rules because hunters' personal freedoms would have been curtailed and hunters would have been much more visible to people who may not want to see them in the woods, such as property owners.

Hunters, such as Carl Mowry, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, contend that education prevents hunting accidents, not wearing more orange.

While commissioner Roxane Palone countered that wearing more orange would certainly prevent more hunting accidents, she said she was not prepared to infringe on hunters' freedoms by voting to force them to wear more. Instead, she encouraged hunting organizations to "reach out" to members through newsletters and magazines about the importance of hunter safety and voluntarily wearing more orange.

Commissioners removed language pertaining to cats and dogs from a portion of an amendment barring the release of animals into the wild.

Nonprofit groups that capture, neuter and release stray cats in an effort to reduce the population of stray cat colonies had protested the language, saying that it would outlaw their work.

While a game commission spokesman has insisted that releasing a cat is already illegal under game regulations and the state crimes code, he said that commissioners concluded that the proposed language could "muddy" the enforcement waters.

The game commission and wildlife groups argue that stray cats feed on or compete with native wildlife and spread rabies, although the game commission rarely enforces the law.

Mostly, the game commission informs municipalities that the actions of trap-neuter-and-release groups are illegal, but leaves enforcement to local authorities, said spokesman Jerry Feaser.

Other times the game commission has informed municipalities that support or organize such programs that it will fine them $100 per cat that is released, he said.

Alley cat advocates say the animals typically only feed on garbage or scraps, not wildlife, and that neutering the animals produces a more permanent population decline in a cat colony than when animal-control officers are called in to remove problem cats for adoption or euthanization. Cats that are removed will more quickly be replaced by breeding cats or other strays that join the colony, they said.

One alley cat advocate at the meeting, Liz Jones of Allentown, said she was "thrilled" that the commissioners had reconsidered.

"We're just saying, 'Don't curb what we're doing,' " Jones said.

E-mail this story   Print this story