Changes are needed to PA Game Law and how pets are handled

The following is a portion of the letter that was addressed to the PA Game Commission

  On the first Monday of bear season my family experienced firsthand how some hunters can be very careless in terms of safety.  We currently reside on a property consisting of approximately 12 acres of land bordering a private club consisting of 100+ acres (a fenced in area).  From the back of our house to the fence of the private club is approximately 80 wooded yards.  I am not sure of the actual yardage but I am aware that this area is considered a safety zone.   So on Monday November 26, after hearing a shot that sounded very close to my house, there was a knock at my door.  It was a hunter that was bear hunting at the private club. He had come to inform me that he believed he had just shot my pet mini potbellied pig. I was dumb founded, big difference from a bear.  A pig has hoofs, a bear has paws and a pig has a tail that will wag like a dog.  Chopper was a house pet. He lived in my house with his brother just as someone’s pet dog would.  Now any experienced hunter knows that one topic that is highly stressed before and during hunting is to properly identify your target and know what your surroundings are.  When it comes to identifying the target, this gentleman did do this because he had admitted that he believed it was a pig but shot it anyhow because he could not understand why a pig would be in the woods. Let me stress again, my pet was on my property within a safety zone, where he should have been protected.  But this hunter shot over a fence, which ended the private club’s property, on to my property where he did not have permission or the legal right to do so.  In thinking that our family’s rights were going to be addressed, the Pennsylvania Game Commission was contacted.  The first problem with this was the amount of time it took the game officer to arrive. I do understand that it was hunting season and there are a limited number of officers on staff covering a wide area, but my pet laid suffering.  A second call was placed because of this, at which time we were told we had to wait for the game officer to arrive to do anything.  After a few hours, the officer had arrived and my pet had finally passed.  The officer went to the site where Chopper laid to check surroundings.  He also took measurements to verify the safety zone issue and had visited the private club.  By that time, the hunter had already left the club but the officer did reach him via telephone that night.  Before leaving my home, the game officer had briefly touched on what would happen to the hunter.  He would be cited with a safety zone violation and be required to make restitution.  Well here is my problem with that; a first time offense for a safety zone violation per Title 34 - 2505 Safety Zone is a penalty of $200 but no more than $500.  A second offense is a penalty of $500 but no more than $1000. Restitution falls under Title 34 - 2509 Damage to Property.  Here are the problems I see with that:

Issue #1 – the penalty for a safety zone is less than that of shooting game out of season.  I am not by any means saying shooting game illegally should be happening, but it does, and there could be very understandable reasons for doing so. For example, someone could be trying to feed their family during trying times.  The fines for shooting game out of season are much higher than the fines given for shooting into a safety zone.  There is loss of license and the need to re-take the hunters safety course before the re-instatement of hunting privileges also.   Safety zone penalty results in a minimal fine.  A safety zone violation has the potential to be a deadly, more serious problem.  What if one of my grandchildren were here and out with one of my pets. What if I was out back of my house for any reason at all?  This could have been a more serious tragedy; therefore, I believe the fines issued for shooting into a safety zone should be higher than the fines given for hunting out of season.

Issue #2 – Pets are family and should not, by any means, be considered JUST personal property, classified as if there was building damage or some other property  damage.  Pets are living, breathing animals and cannot be replaced, just like a family member.  There should be a separation to that effect.

Issue #3 – Restitution – restitution for shooting a pet is based on the fair market value, the same basis followed for selling a car, a home, or some other material item.  This is not fair to those victimized by careless hunters.  For example; a careless hunter shoots a Labrador retriever that has champion bloodlines. The owner paid for professional training and spent thousands on the addition to their family, but because there are people selling Labs for $200 to $250, the restitution made to the family will most likely only be $225.  In my situation, I am being told that my restitution will be based on what a pig goes for at a livestock sale.  My pet was by no means considered LIVESTOCK.  Chopper was trained, house broke, would sit for treats, and come when called for, just like someone’s dog would. This is truly insulting and adds insult to injury.  Let’s not forget, with the loss of anyone you love, there is a grieving process.  Pets form a strong bond with their human parents and siblings, as well as their animal siblings, and are grieved for like any member of the family would be.

Changes in the way these situations are handled are long overdue.  I realize that this will not bring Chopper back and will not fill the void that my family has.  Stronger punishments need to be in place.  As things stand currently, careless hunters are just getting a slap on the wrist with no real incentive to be cautious and aware of their surroundings.   It should be a must that anyone hunting takes responsibility for where that bullet or arrow ends up. Currently, the way regulations are, the game law is sending the message that shooting out of season is a bigger no-no than the safety of people and animals.

I would also like to make note that to date there has been no resolution to my case.