Tag: Pennsylvania

11 Activists Arrested in May 29 Home Demonstration

Nine adult and two minor animal rights activists were arrested in Chester County, Pennsylvania on May 29 as they protested outside the home of Forrest Sheffy, an executive with Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials.

The arrested adults were Nicholas Cooney, Ian Ross and Lawrence Toft of Philadelphia, Pa; Ethan Wolf of Washington, D.C.; Christopher Price of Hughesville, Md.; Janice Angelillo of Highland Park, N.J.; Alexandra Deyo, of Short Hill, N.J.; Kristine Marusic of Cochranville, Pa; and David Lambon of Norristown, Pa.

Lambon told Daily Local News,

ItÂ’s our experience and a product of years of social research that says they donÂ’t listen when you protest at a business, but they do listen when you protest at their homes.

Our theory is, without customers, the company cannot continue to break the law, therefore Johnson Matthey needs to be stopped (in order) to stop Huntingdon.

A spokesman for Johnson Matthey, however, said the company does not currently have any business with Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Sheffy called police and told the Local Daily News,

It wasnÂ’t subtle, it was basically terrorism. They scared my kid and they scared the children in the neighborhood. I called the police right away because you let the professionals deal with this type of thing. It was totally inappropriate.

The activists were charged with criminal conspiracy, harassment, disorderly conduct. In addition, Cooney and Deyo were charged with corruption of minors due to the presence of the two juveniles arrested. Deyo told the Local Daily News that neither she nor Cooney were aware that the two individuals in question were minors.

State Police Cpl. Bill LaTorre told the Local Daily News, however, that the corruption of minors charges against the two were only added after consulting with the parents of the two minors,

It was indeed a corruption of minors. These kids were led to believe they were doing something in the city and ended up on private property in suburban Chester County. They (the parents) believed there was an appropriate time and place for this type of behavior and the minors were led to believe it was occurring under different circumstances.

Sources:

Animal rights activists arrested. Jill Nawrocki, Daily Local News, June 14, 2004.

Press Release. SHAC USA, May 30, 2004.

Activists Harass Pennsylvania Restaurants that Serve Foie Gras

Acts of extremism and violence by animal rights activists in California have gotten a lot of attention and led to a bill that would ban the production of foie gras in that state, but activists in Pennsylvania have recently begun protesting and vandalizing a Pennsylvania restaurant that serves the dish.

Lucca’s, in Oakland, Pennsylvania, has been the target of protests from Voices for Animal Liberation which has conducted sidewalk protests against the restaurant. According to Lucca owner Joe Jordan, police recently had to be called to break up a protest in which animal rights activists were harassing customers.

Other activists have taken their opposition to more violent ends. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

Jordan arrived at work yesterday to find a stone obelisk in front of the restaurant toppled over. A statue of the Venus de Milo also has been “chopped to bits,” Jordan said.

Last wee, someone tossed a brick with the word “quack” written across it through the front window.

Source:

Protesters target foie gras menu item. David Conti, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, May 8, 2004.

Amendment to Protect Hunting and Fishing in Pennsylvania Passes State House

In January, the Pennsylvania House overwhelmingly approved a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution to protect the right to fish and hunt in the state.

By a vote of 189-11, the state House approved the amendment and sent it on to the Pennsylvania Senate for consideration. Under Pennsylvania’s constitution, an amendment must be approved by both chambers during two successive legislative sessions, and then must be approved by voters as well. The earliest that this amendment could go to voters would be in November 2005.

Rep. Matthew Baker, who introduced the legislation, said the proposed amendment was important to forestall future efforts to limit hunting, fishing and trapping in Pennsylvania. He told Penn State’s Collegian,

There’s not an immediate threat, but what a lot of people are failing to recognize is it is a lot easier to address these issues before there is a crisis than when there is a crisis.

Animal rights groups, of course, oppose the proposed amendment.

Fund for Animals’ released press release quoting national director Heidi Prescott opposing the amendment (emphasis added),

The constitution is a sacred document which shouldn’t be used as a graffiti
wall for political rhetoric.

. . .

To establish constitutional protections for recreational pursuits such as
hunting is not only inappropriate, but redundant. Nearly a
million people already hunt in Pennsylvania without having that ‘right’
enshrined in the constitution.

. . .

Prescott said the bill may expose the Pennsylvania Game Commission to
lawsuits from hunters who do not think any restriction on hunting is
reasonable – wanting larger bag limits, longer season dates, and additional
species to shoot.

Who knew animal rights activists were so concerned about frivolous lawsuits over hunting?

The full text of the proposed amendment can be read here.

Sources:

‘Right to hunt’ advances in Penn. Don Sapatkin, Philadelphia Inquirer, February 15, 2004.

Pa. law may protect hunting. Erin James, The Digital Collegian (Penn State), February 26, 2004.

No Constitutional ‘Right’ To Hunt, Say Animal Advocates. Fund for Animals, November 25, 2003.

Pennsylvania Proposes Expansion of Bobcat Season

In January, the Pennsylvania Game Commission gave preliminary approval to expanding the reach of its fifth bobcat season since the bobcat was given protected status by the state in 1970.

Small-scale hunting of bobcats resumed in 2000 when 58 bobcats were killed. A hunt has taken place each year since, with 146 bobcats killed in 2001 and 137 in 2002, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The bobcat hunt the last four years has been restricted to northcentral and northeastern Pennsylvania, but the game commission gave preliminary approval to expand the hunt into southwestern Pennsylvania.

Game Commission biologist Matthew Lovallo told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that,

Southwestern Pennsylvania has had a thriving population of bobcats for many years. This expansion in the size of the territory open to bobcat hunting and trapping will not alter the Game Commission’s conservative harvest object of 175 animals.

Sources:

Bobcat season to be expanded. Ben Moyer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 1, 2004.

Pennsylvania Game Commission Board Approves Expanded Use of Crossbows. CHARLES WARREN, The Intelligencer & Wheeling News Register, February 21, 2004.

Pennsylvania HB 1512 — Right to Hunt

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOUSE BILL


No. 1512


Session of 2003

        INTRODUCED BY BAKER, B. SMITH, ALLEN, BARRAR, BASTIAN, BELFANTI,
           BENNINGHOFF, BOYD, BUNT, CAPPELLI, CAUSER, CREIGHTON, CRUZ,
           DALEY, DeWEESE, FAIRCHILD, FEESE, FLEAGLE, GEIST, GERGELY,
           GOODMAN, GRUCELA, HERSHEY, HORSEY, HUTCHINSON, KIRKLAND,
           LAUGHLIN, LEWIS, McGEEHAN, S. MILLER, PETRARCA, PHILLIPS,
           SATHER, SAYLOR, STABACK, T. STEVENSON, WATERS, WILT,
           WOJNAROSKI AND YOUNGBLOOD, JUNE 3, 2003

        REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GAME AND FISHERIES, JUNE 3, 2003

                               A JOINT RESOLUTION


     1  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth
     2     of Pennsylvania, to provide for the right to hunt and fish.
     3     The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
     4  hereby resolves as follows:
     5     Section 1.  The following amendment to the Constitution of
     6  Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:
     7     That Article I be amended by adding a section to read:
     8  § 29.  Right of the people to hunt and fish.
     9     The right of the people to hunt and fish shall not be
    10  prohibited, subject to reasonable restrictions relating to
    11  seasons, licensure, limits, methods and locations, as prescribed
    12  by the laws of this Commonwealth. However, this right shall not
    13  be construed to confer a right to a license to hunt or fish
    14  issued by the Commonwealth when the privilege to hold such a
    15  license has been revoked or suspended pursuant to an act of the

     1  General Assembly.
     2     Section 2.  (a)  Upon the first passage by the General
     3  Assembly of this proposed constitutional amendment, the
     4  Secretary of the Commonwealth shall proceed immediately to
     5  comply with the advertising requirements of section 1 of Article
     6  XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and shall transmit the
     7  required advertisements to two newspapers in every county in
     8  which such newspapers are published in sufficient time after
     9  passage of this proposed constitutional amendment.
    10     (b)  Upon the second passage by the General Assembly of this
    11  proposed constitutional amendment, the Secretary of the
    12  Commonwealth shall proceed immediately to comply with the
    13  advertising requirements of section 1 of Article XI of the
    14  Constitution of Pennsylvania and shall transmit the required
    15  advertisements to two newspapers in every county in which such
    16  newspapers are published in sufficient time after passage of
    17  this proposed constitutional amendment. The Secretary of the
    18  Commonwealth shall submit this proposed constitutional amendment
    19  to the qualified electors of this Commonwealth at the first
    20  primary, general or municipal election occurring at least three
    21  months after the proposed constitutional amendment is passed by
    22  the General Assembly which meets the requirements of and is in
    23  conformance with section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of
    24  Pennsylvania.



    D21L83JAM/20030H1512B1908        - 2 -

Fund for Animals Sues Pennsylvania Game Commission Over Boar Hunt

In January the Fund for Animals filed suit against the Pennsylvania Game Commission in an effort to stop the hunting of boars at the Tioga Hunting Preserve in Pennsylvania.

The Tioga Hunting Preserve is a 1,500 acre canned hunt operation that allows people to hunt boar, deer and elk at $500-$2,000 per animal. The web site for the preserve guarantees hunters that they will kill the animal of their choice in no more than two days.

In its lawsuit, the Fund for Animals argues that exotic boar, such as Russian and European boars, are “protected mammals” under Pennsylvania’s Game and Wildlife Code and so cannot legally be hunted.

In a press release announcing the lawsuit, Fund for Animals national director Heidi Prescott said,

Neither the Game and Wildlife Code nor the regulations of the PGC permit the canned shooting of wild boars. Although we have brought this to the attention of the PGC on several occasions and asked the agency to order the Tioga Preserve to stop offering canned hunts of protected mammals, the PGC has failed to take enforcement action.

In response to the lawsuit, Tioga Hunting Preserve spokesman Jerry Feaser told the Associated Press that the Pennsylvania Game Commission lacks jurisdiction over swine. Feaser told the Associated Press,

Let’s put it to you this way, for comparison. If I’m a farmer and I have some dairy cows, and I decide for some reason to allow some people to come in and shoot them, there’s nothing the Game Commission can do.

This is not the first time that the issue of whether or not the PGC has jurisdiction over boars has come up. The PGC blames another canned hunt operation, Big Mike’s Hunting and Fishing Preserve, for allowing wild boards to escape from its grounds where they have caused numerous problems for wildlife and residents.

The PGC wants all the boars at Big Mike’s killed, but maintains that under existing law it only has jurisdiction over native species. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture maintains jurisdiction over non-native species, but its jurisdiction extends only to certifying wild boars as healthy and free of disease. What happens to wild boar after they are brought to Pennsylvania currently falls through the gaps of both group’s jurisdiction.

Sources:

Fund for Animals goes to Pennsylvania court to put the lid on “canned hunt.” Press release, Fund for Animals, January 14, 2004.

Game officials say wild boar problems continue in western Pa.. Associated Press, November 2, 2003.

Game Commission sued over regulation of boar hunts. Associated Press, January 15, 2004.