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
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