Nevada
News & Commentary
Hunting Suits -
A Matter of Discretion
By Jim
Slinsky
It
was all the rage for a few days, but the dismissal of the Unified Sportsmen
of PA’s lawsuit against the PGC seems to have been drowned out
by a plethora of new controversies. The hunting license increase boiled
to the top within days of the court’s ruling. The upcoming PGC
Commissioner meeting and the 2007 doe allocations are now on everyone’s
mind and lips. The scientific mountain lion permit to Dr. Dennis Wydra
was again denied by the PGC. I suppose we can say the beat goes on.
In
any event, there was a major lesson to be learned from the Unified court
case and it centers on the issue of discretion. Unified originally went
to an attorney focused on the issue of accuracy and credibility. We
never had 1.6 million deer and Unified believed this should be the focal
point of the litigation. The attorney advised “mandamus”
should be the legal strategy to provide a path to depositions and the
discovery of the truth. Unified deferred to the discretion of the attorney.
Mandamus
is Latin for “we command”. In essence, the legal approach
was to command the PGC to honor Title 34 and its provision to “provide
a reasonable opportunity to hunt”. Unified believed the opportunity
to hunt includes a reasonable expectation of success; otherwise, hunting
would merely be taking your gun for a walk.
Unfortunately,
the judges didn’t agree with the presentation of the mandamus
approach and used their discretion to dismiss the suit. The case was
over before it began. This is the risk of litigation. One rolls the
dice when they go to court, as they say. We are all aware that sometimes
the guilty go free and the innocent go to prison.
Toward
the end of the judges’ written ruling there is some language discussing
the problematic issue of discretion. If Unified had succeeded past the
initial phase of presenting the case, discretion may have ultimately
decided the case. If Unified or any entity sues a government agency
for not operating in an acceptable manner, agency discretion will probably
become the issue. Courts tend to defer discretion to the agency as the
perceived experts in the debate. Suits are supposed to focus on violation
of the law.
There
is statewide talk amongst our sporting class of suing the Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) for their veneer timbering
practices and forest certification program. There is no doubt that DCNR
has been a driving political force in the deer reduction effort. There
is even less doubt that their efforts have dramatically affected our
rural economies. Without discovering and putting forth the proof that
DCNR is violating the law, hunters will find themselves fighting the
discretion issue once again. No matter how abusive to our forest ecosystems
and our wildlife veneer timbering may be, without discovering specific
violations, discretion will probably be the deciding factor.
However,
I do see an interesting conflict developing. If DCNR’s primary
mission is resource extraction and DCNR argues the deer must die to
comply with forest certification, how does the PGC promote and preserve
the tradition of hunting? Can we allow the mission of one agency to
destroy the mission of another? Furthermore, DCNR’s second mission
is recreation and hunting is the most popular recreational activity
on State Forest Lands. Is it acceptable for DCNR to destroy hunting
on State Forest Lands in pursuit of forest certification? Without creating
balance are they not in violation of their own second primary mission?
While
all of the above creates intriguing cocktail party banter, the tradition
and future of hunting is in grave jeopardy. I understand Penn State
is reviewing the possibility of the PGC obtaining forest certification
for our State Game Lands. This should be interesting.
Our
only hope is our legislators are paying close attention. It is time
for them to become involved. At this point, we need our legislators
to use their discretion and remove some discretion from the agencies
before our deer herd reaches the point of no return.
Jim
Slinsky is the host and producer of the “Outdoor Talk Network”,
a nationally syndicated, outdoor-talk radio program. For a station near
you or to contact Jim, visit his website.
Sign-up
for our free e-mail News Flash Alerts!
Subscribe
Me!