AJ52

Another Great Mentality and great example for young hunters to follow.

If nobody is looking its OK [X(]

NorthPA

Why would a guy shoot elk that ate his apples if he thinks of the apples as "his kids?"

If an elk ate my kid, I sure wouldn't kill him. I'd have the elk tranquilized and do a "c" section to remove my kid in one piece.
Either that or feed him a basket full of Exlax........ I'm thinking some guys are having an Exlax party today![:'(]

sproulman

aj52,first, he was not IDIOT..how would you like to be 85 years old, a have nice yard, 2apple trees that you planted and have elk come into your yard and break limbs off and eat tree and apples..

then call PGC and they will not remove the elk..how would you deal with that on YOUR PROPERTY?

now on to other, the other one sells apples on retirement..HE shot 5 elk..he told the PGC to remove the elk, they did not, so he shot them..

he was not arrested and let go because he sold his apples etc..ALL TRUE STORYS THAT HAPPENEDAND I KNOW BOTH PEOPLE..

archer58

Hey Bailey,George, Sproul,
The laws that the PGC officers enforceare laws passed by the PA. STATE LEGISLATURE. They are no different than the State Trooper that arrests you for speeding.
These officers are given duties to preform by Pa. and enforce the laws of this state as any other state. You will find ,if you care to look, that the game laws are similar from state to state. Did you know that the State Police have the duty to also enforce game laws. Why? Because they are a state law , not a PGC law.
The three ofyou are trying to bash the PGC again, you're wasting your time. You'll get nowhere here.
If you want to break the game laws ,let me know ,I'll be glad to turn u in.

NorthPA

The man was a fool and a pain in the arse Sproulman and you know it. He tried to repeatedly make fools out of the PGC. They made every attempt (repeatedly) to help him with the situation but he refused help.
He had all sorts of offers, even from outside the PGC of help for fencing and deterrents.
Why don't you try a little honesty. Save that "me sproulman me no lie" crap.


He had him a fan club and it ended up costing him to lose the court battle.

BTBowhunter

Private property doesnt give one the right to be above the law.

You cant sell or grow illegal grugs on your own private property

You cant commit crimes of murder, rape assault etc just because you're on your own private property

The game laws should be regarded no differenly. The wildlife doesn't belong to the property owner

Just as you cant shoot another human being who is not threatening your life for stealing from your property, you cant shoot an elk or any other animal for stealing your apples although the game laws have provisions intended for farmers who make their living from the crops on their land.


All that being said, there is that one section of 901a that is troubling:

I am not real comfortable with the wording on this one.Can a WCOsearch my camp, tent, trailer, cabin without a warrant or probable cause? This section seems to say so. That would most definitely be power that most even the police dont have. Maybe RSB or someone who is more familiar with the game code can clarify why this doesn't mean just that. It sure reads that way to me. At best, this section is poorly worded.

I would think that this particular section wouldnt survive a constutional challenge but how many individuals have the money and time resources to challenge a law or section thereof thats so poorly worded.

In a perfect world, one who has done nothing wrong should have no reason for concern with a WCO searching anywhere. But our bill of rights exists solely because it's not a perfect world and because law enforcement is done by human beings and not all of them are 100% perfect at playing by the rules either.

Sylvan

Maybe you needthe civics refresher course! We DON"T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY we live in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and one of the most important differences is that a lawmay not standjust because the majority wants it.The founders hated the idea of democracy.They knew that majority rulewould be just as tryanical as a tryrant king. They therefore set up a system to protect us from peple who think like you.

In our country, laws enacted by a legislature may be challenged at any time and if found unconstitutional by the judiciary will be thrown out. It happens all the time and this isthe basic question of this thread. Are some of the laws like requiring a landowner to wear certain colors while hunting on their own land legal or not? That, my friend, is a very valid question in our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. In my opinion it's not only the right of a citizen to question laws but their duty. Maybe it's you who should think about moving to a European state where the state makes whatever law they choose and a citizen has no right and may even be jailed for questioning it.

Do land owners have special privelges? In this country, absolutely they do and those rights/privilegesare gaurenteed by the constitution and can not be legally trampled even if the majority of the people wantthem to be.

Good thread.. good questions... thanks georgepoker!

NorthPA

Don't think so Sylvan -- you're playing pretty loose with definitions of governing.
You are correct that anyone can "ask" or "challenge" any law, including questioning the constitution. But the basic premise is the rule of the majority to protect the rights of the minority and of all citizens.
(Clue --- elections are determined by majority vote)

Laws are designed to be fair and applied to all without discrimmination.
Try "equality" on for size.

George's question is valid to ask -- no contest there. Equally valid is my opinion that he wants "preferred" treatment based on what ---he is a landowner?
I own a truck, should I be exempt from driving laws? I even pay road taxes, therefore I have more rights than someone who uses public transportation!!!!

If you and Georege want to be above the law, I suggest (if you don't want to move to a place that rewards landowners more so than the peasants), you start a petition, schmooze your local legislator and go for it.
Good luck commrade.

Sylvan

- You said we live in a democracy.You are simply wrong, we don't. Our form of government is a democratic republic. Any HS civics student knows that and knows the difference.

- You said "...the basic premise is the rule of the majority to protect the rights of the minority and of all citizens". That's wrong too. Fact is we live by rule of law, not rule of the majority. We are protected by constitutional law FROM the whim of the majority not by it. That's how the founders designed it.

- We elect or legislatures to make laws but they can not make any law they choose, regardless of what the majority wants. The laws they enact must be legal under the constitution or they will be struck downwhen challenged.


"Good luck commrade." ME? LOL, you are the one touting ideascontrary to the founding principles of this country.

PABuck_HNTR

I see the know it all has arrived