Post by yihunt on Jan 9, 2009 20:36:09 GMT -4
Thursday, January 08, 2009
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Hunters shot 28 geese in Bradys Run Park during six arranged outings meant to enhance recreation and reduce problems caused by fowl droppings.
But even as Beaver County County Commissioner Charles A. Camp said he plans to bring the controversial hunt back next season to Bradys Run, opponents are researching tactics to thwart it.
Two animal-rights groups hope they have found a way through a federal regulation that forbids baiting areas -- putting down salt, grain or other feed -- where migratory birds are hunted.
"Any such area will remain a baited area for 10 days following the complete removal of all such salt, grain, or other feed," the regulation states.
Baiting is broken down into direct and indirect. Nowhere does the regulation define the latter, but the Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese, which says it is a nonprofit group based in Pearl River, New York, takes it to mean recreational feeding of geese by the public.
Although the feeding of geese is not permitted in the park and there are signs to that effect, Mr. Camp acknowledged that people engage in it.
Sharon Pawlak, the coalition's national coordinator, wrote to county commissioners' chairman Tony Amadio Dec. 26 and cited her concerns.
"Given the fact that parks with waterfowl traditionally lend themselves to recreational feeding, whether prohibited or not, Beaver County may have acted irresponsibly -- if not unlawfully -- when Bradys Run Park was not closed to the public 10 days prior to the first hunts," Mrs. Pawlak wrote.
"We're of the opinion these hunters could possibly be fined for hunting over a baited area," Mrs. Pawlak, who lives in New Jersey, said this week in an interview.
Mrs. Pawlak asked Mr. Amadio to call off the remaining hunts. He did not. She threatened to go to court. She did not.
"At the 11th hour, we already had three or four hunts in, they said, 'We may go to court to stop you if you don't talk with us about looking at other options,' " Mr. Camp said. "Our solicitor responded, 'It's perfectly legal.' The [Pennsylvania] Game Commission's been involved. We weren't sure who the organization was or if it even existed."
On Monday, Mrs. Pawlak wrote to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asking for an official definition of indirect baiting.
Now she will wait for an answer along with Rebecca Reid of the Voices for Animals of Western Pennsylvania, the group that brought the question of indirect baiting to Mrs. Pawlak's attention.
"When an animal or bird is trained to return to an area and is trained to trust people, to turn around and start shooting at them ... it gets a little sticky at this point," said Ms. Reid, of the North Side.
Last month, Mr. Camp said he favored hunting over a variety of alternatives to thin goose flocks, including applying oil so goslings cannot hatch from fertilized eggs. He cited pro-life beliefs.
Ms. Reid took Mr. Camp to task for not embracing alternative methods, starting with a firm crackdown on feeding.
"If you have a hunt to get rid of the geese and you're not doing anything about the feeding, that's a sham," Ms. Reid said. "There's corn bags and bread bags littering the place."
Ms. Reid said she is aware that her group, which has protested goose hunts in North Huntingdon, is often portrayed as the "crazy animal rights people" Not so, she said. Her group is not disruptive and believes in solving problems so everyone is happy.
"It seems to me that whatever you propose to Charles Camp he doesn't like it. He's not OK with egg addling but it's OK to shoot a goose."
Mr. Camp defended his stance, saying, "I believe all God's creatures have the right to see the sunshine" but noting that it took roughly 120 hunters more than six days to kill 28 birds.
"That's sport," he said. "If I go in there and stomp on these eggs or put oil on them I'm killing 100 percent of the eggs. That's not sport. That's not ethical."
Mr. Camp has taken some heat over the hunt by opponents e-mailing him their complaints and attaching photos of a white feather meant to symbolize cowardice.
But he is loathe to employ alternatives such as using "$40-an-hour deputies" to ticket grandparents tossing bread to the geese.
As commissioner, Mr. Camp has to deal with allocating thousands of dollars for removing goose droppings from park structures and equipment. He said he hopes the hunting program has adequately thinned the flock, but the proof will not come until this summer when problems typically peak.
Mr. Camp said he was looking at extra solutions beyond the hunt but would not elaborate.
He allowed that there are non-lethal methods for teaching geese that the environment is not friendly, such as using barking dogs. But the commissioners chose a different option.
"We allowed hunters to come in there and teach the geese that," Mr. Camp said. "If the people have got a problem with me because I'm allowing hunting, they're barking up the wrong tree. They should be going to the state Legislature and saying 'Make hunting illegal.' "
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Hunters shot 28 geese in Bradys Run Park during six arranged outings meant to enhance recreation and reduce problems caused by fowl droppings.
But even as Beaver County County Commissioner Charles A. Camp said he plans to bring the controversial hunt back next season to Bradys Run, opponents are researching tactics to thwart it.
Two animal-rights groups hope they have found a way through a federal regulation that forbids baiting areas -- putting down salt, grain or other feed -- where migratory birds are hunted.
"Any such area will remain a baited area for 10 days following the complete removal of all such salt, grain, or other feed," the regulation states.
Baiting is broken down into direct and indirect. Nowhere does the regulation define the latter, but the Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese, which says it is a nonprofit group based in Pearl River, New York, takes it to mean recreational feeding of geese by the public.
Although the feeding of geese is not permitted in the park and there are signs to that effect, Mr. Camp acknowledged that people engage in it.
Sharon Pawlak, the coalition's national coordinator, wrote to county commissioners' chairman Tony Amadio Dec. 26 and cited her concerns.
"Given the fact that parks with waterfowl traditionally lend themselves to recreational feeding, whether prohibited or not, Beaver County may have acted irresponsibly -- if not unlawfully -- when Bradys Run Park was not closed to the public 10 days prior to the first hunts," Mrs. Pawlak wrote.
"We're of the opinion these hunters could possibly be fined for hunting over a baited area," Mrs. Pawlak, who lives in New Jersey, said this week in an interview.
Mrs. Pawlak asked Mr. Amadio to call off the remaining hunts. He did not. She threatened to go to court. She did not.
"At the 11th hour, we already had three or four hunts in, they said, 'We may go to court to stop you if you don't talk with us about looking at other options,' " Mr. Camp said. "Our solicitor responded, 'It's perfectly legal.' The [Pennsylvania] Game Commission's been involved. We weren't sure who the organization was or if it even existed."
On Monday, Mrs. Pawlak wrote to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asking for an official definition of indirect baiting.
Now she will wait for an answer along with Rebecca Reid of the Voices for Animals of Western Pennsylvania, the group that brought the question of indirect baiting to Mrs. Pawlak's attention.
"When an animal or bird is trained to return to an area and is trained to trust people, to turn around and start shooting at them ... it gets a little sticky at this point," said Ms. Reid, of the North Side.
Last month, Mr. Camp said he favored hunting over a variety of alternatives to thin goose flocks, including applying oil so goslings cannot hatch from fertilized eggs. He cited pro-life beliefs.
Ms. Reid took Mr. Camp to task for not embracing alternative methods, starting with a firm crackdown on feeding.
"If you have a hunt to get rid of the geese and you're not doing anything about the feeding, that's a sham," Ms. Reid said. "There's corn bags and bread bags littering the place."
Ms. Reid said she is aware that her group, which has protested goose hunts in North Huntingdon, is often portrayed as the "crazy animal rights people" Not so, she said. Her group is not disruptive and believes in solving problems so everyone is happy.
"It seems to me that whatever you propose to Charles Camp he doesn't like it. He's not OK with egg addling but it's OK to shoot a goose."
Mr. Camp defended his stance, saying, "I believe all God's creatures have the right to see the sunshine" but noting that it took roughly 120 hunters more than six days to kill 28 birds.
"That's sport," he said. "If I go in there and stomp on these eggs or put oil on them I'm killing 100 percent of the eggs. That's not sport. That's not ethical."
Mr. Camp has taken some heat over the hunt by opponents e-mailing him their complaints and attaching photos of a white feather meant to symbolize cowardice.
But he is loathe to employ alternatives such as using "$40-an-hour deputies" to ticket grandparents tossing bread to the geese.
As commissioner, Mr. Camp has to deal with allocating thousands of dollars for removing goose droppings from park structures and equipment. He said he hopes the hunting program has adequately thinned the flock, but the proof will not come until this summer when problems typically peak.
Mr. Camp said he was looking at extra solutions beyond the hunt but would not elaborate.
He allowed that there are non-lethal methods for teaching geese that the environment is not friendly, such as using barking dogs. But the commissioners chose a different option.
"We allowed hunters to come in there and teach the geese that," Mr. Camp said. "If the people have got a problem with me because I'm allowing hunting, they're barking up the wrong tree. They should be going to the state Legislature and saying 'Make hunting illegal.' "