The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

PGC Game of Gotcha

11K views 139 replies 45 participants last post by  jimbridger 
#1 ·
A game of ‘Gotcha?’ Pa. court shoots down archery hunter’s Catch-22 conviction for hunting over bait
Updated Feb 18, 5:52 PM; Posted Feb 18, 4:22 PM
Archery
A state appeals court has overturned an archery hunter's conviction for hunting over bait, finding that the Game Commission mishandled the case on several levels.

By Matt Miller | mmiller@pennlive.com
Saying the Pennsylvania Game Commission violated the man’s rights along with simple common sense, a state appeals court panel has shot down an archery hunter’s conviction for hunting over bait.

For starters, Judge Patricia A. McCullough noted in the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, a game warden cited hunter Joshua Redovan after Redovan himself called in a complaint that someone else was using corn as bait near his tree stand.


The warden didn’t tape off the area where the corn was found to warn hunters that it was off limits, as required by state law, McCullough added. Nor, she wrote, did prosecutors prove Redovan actually was violating the law because his tree stand was 70 yards away from the previously baited area.

The whole case had a Catch-22 vibe.

State law bars hunting in areas where bait – such as corn or salt – has been placed within 30 days of the opening of a hunting season.

Redovan had placed corn and a salt block near his tree stand in Westmoreland County in August 2016 but removed it 30 days before the start of archery season. About three weeks before the season opened, Redovan notified the commission that he had found someone else’s pile of corn and game camera about 70 yards from his stand. He removed that bait.

Redovan’s report prompted an investigation by a game warden, who tasted salt on the ground in the area, but did not mark it off as a no hunting zone or tell Redovan about his discovery of the salt residue, McCullough noted. On opening day, that warden returned to the area, saw Redovan in his stand and cited him for hunting over bait.


Redovan appealed to Commonwealth Court after a county judge upheld his conviction for the violation.

McCullough found the commission seriously missed the mark on this one.

The citation didn’t specify what type of bait -salt or corn – was supposedly used, so Redovan didn’t have the information he needed to defend himself, McCullough found. She ruled that the warden’s failure to mark off a “reasonable” no hunting area also merits dismissal of the charge. Nor was there any proof the supposed bait area was even within arrow-shot of Redovan’s tree stand, the state judge added.

And, she wrote, “Given that Redovan attempted to comply with the (law) by calling in a possible baiting violation, it is troubling that he was later convicted of a baiting violation for the same bait about which he notified the Game Commission.”

“Because of the lack of the posting of a ‘reasonable area’ around the corn (the) decision to apprehend Redovan…amounts to a game of ‘gotcha,’ which requires we overturn the conviction,” McCullough concluded.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/...atch-22-conviction-for-hunting-over-bait.html
 
See less See more
#7 ·
Also, the judge said the hunter couldn't shoot an arrow 70 yards to the bait. By law, as long as the game commission can prove the hunter knew about the bait and was hunting from a location that the deer were passing by on their way to and from the bait is really all the game warden needed to file charges.>:)
 
#8 ·
Like the recent case of the Deputy assaulted by the two ATV outlaws, expect lots of "opinions as facts" to be presented in this one?

:wink2:

Too bad the hunter that reported nearby baiting, wasn't smart enough not to go back to an area he knew was under investigation. And no kudos to the GW for not following thru and posting the baited area off limits. Enough blame to go around, it seems?

Them's my opinions. :smile2:
 
#10 ·
It sounds like the good Samaritan Rodovan salted his area, then found a competing hunter's corn pile, and called the warden to get rid of the competing hunter.

In the meantime, the warden (unbeknownst to Rodovan) discovered Rodovan's salt and figured he would forego the required posting of the baited area to catch Rodovan in the very act he was reporting.

Think of all the time and effort that could have been saved if the warden would have just told Radovan the jig is up, move your stand. And posted the area as per the law.

Of course, the same hunter that put out the corn could have put out the salt....really no way of proving who put the salt out. For this reason alone, it was a pretty poor setup for a sting that would hold up to the scrutiny of the court.
 
#44 ·
Umm, no.

If you had read the judicial opinion, https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2020/02/18/com._of_pa_v._j.t._redovan.pdf you would have seen this:
Opening day was 9/17.
Redovan had put his salt block out on or about 8/1, near his tree stand. He removed the salt on 8/16 (more than 30 days before opening day, thus complying with the law). He had also put his salt block on a rock. He left his tree stand.
On 8/26, he noticed that someone else had dumped corn about 70 yards from his tree stand and put up a game camera, too. Concerned with the possibility that he might get cited for hunting over bait he called the game warden. The game warden came out and the corn was removed. (and it was like 70 lbs of corn) The warden did not tape off or otherwise sign the area where the corn had been, to mark it as posted against hunting (because of bait).
On opening day, the warden came out and busted Redovan for hunting, from his tree stand, over bait.
The warden prosecuted the case on the basis of salt residue and only the salt residue. He identified the salt by tasting the soil, then took soil samples which showed salt. None of the proofs the warden brought at trial said anything about Redovan hunting over corn.
The judge found Redovan guilty of hunting over the corn and said nothing about the salt.
The issue of whether 70 yards between Redovan's tree stand and where the corn pile had been was close enough to qualify as hunting over bait was not decided. The judges didn't have to decide that because Redovan had not been prosecuted for hunting over corn. He'd been prosecuted for hunting over salt. The judge had convicted him for hunting over corn despite there being no [formal] evidence of hunting over corn.
In other words, the judge railroaded him.

It's a subtle case, the kind of thing law professors love to use in their examinations or as a case to study for criminal law students. But the Commonwealth Court got this one right.

And the warden's game of gotcha was very, very wrong.
 
#12 ·
Not hard to gather up any corn left over, 30 days out from the season, but the regs specifically say any remaining mineral residue in the ground, counts as bait.

When my parent retired in the early 80s, they'd spend weeks at camp over spring and summer. There's a wide, open path up thru the woods behind camp, for the 100 yard target board. Mom liked to see deer up in there, so I put a steel pipe in the ground up near the target, covered the ground around it in about a four foot circle with over lapping flat rocks and put a salt block on the pipe each summer. Made them happy. Dad passed away in the mid 90s, no more salt blocks up there since the summer of '95.

Long before hunting seasons I'd put the block away. Coupla late summer rains washed any residue off the rocks and under them, no further issues.

Never saw any deer around the pipe, come deer seasons. No rocks, salt residue remains in the ground where the block was, so deer could conceivably try to dig it up during a season, in violation of the regs?
 
#13 ·
I was always told mineral sites you had to dig so far down to remove the dirt that might contain residue 30 days before hunting season or place plywood something big enough to cover the site that had a mineral block but that might have changed over the years. That would be hard if it was a stump. I guess a warden could get on his hands and knees and lick the stump to taste for salt lol.
 
#21 · (Edited)
It sounds to me more like the Judge isn't a hunter, understand about game using trails to get to bait or even have a full working knowledge of the law she was ruling and commenting on.

The fact is there is no law that required baited areas to be posted against hunting even after the Game Warden becomes aware of the bait.

Below is the law. I have bolded the most relevant wording in regards to what is says about posting of a baited area.

§ 2308. Unlawful devices and methods.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this title, it is unlawful for any person to hunt or aid, abet, assist or conspire to hunt any game or wildlife through the use of:

(8) Any artificial or natural bait, hay, grain, fruit, nut, salt, chemical, mineral or other food as an enticement for game or wildlife, regardless of kind and quantity, or take advantage of any such area or food or bait prior to 30 days after the removal of such material and its residue. Nothing contained in this subsection shall pertain to normal or accepted farming, habitat management practices, oil and gas drilling, mining, forest management activities or other legitimate commercial or industrial practices. Upon discovery of such baited areas, whether prosecution is contemplated or not, the commission may cause a reasonable area surrounding the enticement to be posted against hunting or taking game or wildlife. The posters shall remain for 30 days after complete removal of the bait.

Dick Bodenhorn
 
#24 ·
If the article has it right, and I certainly wouldn't say it is correct, then perhaps the Game Warden had failed in the investigation.

The correct process, especially when mineral is the bait, would be to collect a soil sample from the bait site and then a few in other nearby spots and have them analyzed by the Crime Lab. They would be able to tell you exactly what mineral had been used and whether it was natural in the surrounding soil.

Those lab fees also then get passed on to the defendant upon conviction.

Dick Bodenhorn
 
#25 ·
It's too bad there isn't a defined distance in the law. Deputy/warden discretion is too ambiguous for my taste. I own 7 acres and my neighbor does not hunt but he puts out food and salt for deer/squirrels/ducks. I've never asked him where he places the food as he owns 25 acres and I can't see it from anywhere on my property, but an officer could decide I am taking advantage of game going to/coming from a baited area. Maybe this judge's ruling of 70 yards will help to start define things better.
 
#28 ·
If there is ever a defined distance it will be a very bad day for hunters and hunting.

The day they set a defined distance is the day I will be legally able to shut down massive areas around the spot I want to hunt from ALL other hunters.

Say they make the distance two hundred yards. All a hunter then would need to do is decide what spot he wanted stand, go out 225 yards in each direction and dump a pile of bait. Then go out another hundred yards in each direction from there and dump some more bait. By doing that the hunter has thus closed down a distance of five hundred yards around him from anyone else legally hunting. If someone moved into that five hundred yard zone the hunter could just tell them, "hey, move along, you can't hunt there, it is baited."

Does that set distance thing still sound like a good way to go?

Dick Bodenhorn
 
#26 ·
Don't think she has the ability under the law, to define something like that? Although her opinions likely carry a tad more weight than ours do.

:smile2:

Besides, vagueness and ambiguity are the hallmarks of many of our statutes, seems like.

As for tasting salt, I've seen places like cow pastures, where salt blocks had been out for some time and pretty much saturated the soil. So when it's been damp and rainy, sometimes a bit of salt crystals tend to collect on some of the damp soil when it dries out. Maybe that's what the GW took a taste of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohunr
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top