Tom Venesky: Pennsylvania’s Sunday hunting issue swaddled in hypocrisy

The debate over Sunday hunting legislation has been beaten to death in Pennsylvania, but the latest banter has revealed quite a bit of hypocrisy.

And a few problems.

First, I believe Sunday hunting is a big enough issue that, as a bill, it should stand on its own. A single subject bill – as the Sunday bill should be – ensures that an issue is judged – and voted on – based on its own merit. Should we lift all restrictions on Sunday hunting Pennsylvania, or not?

It’s a simple question, but thanks to a few legislators the issue grew into something much more complex.

Instead, we have a bill that not only deals with Sunday, but also trespassing, the make up of the Game Commission board and a few items pertaining to crop damage for good measure.

RECENT STORY FROM OUTDOOR NEWS:

Bill to fully repeal Pennsylvania’s Sunday hunting ban passes the House

Our legislators should deal with all that other stuff later. Let Sunday hunting stand on its own and be voted up, or down.

But here’s where the hypocrisy comes in with the whole Sunday hunting issue.

The debate has dragged on for years, and a common theme I hear is if a hunter opposes Sunday hunting, it has to be for personal reasons. The pro-Sunday crowd tells us there is no biological reason to oppose it, just personal.

But is there a biological reason to support Sunday hunting?

MORE COVERAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA OUTDOOR NEWS:

Huge Schuylkill River flathead will not be a Pennsylvania record, at least not officially

‘Forever chemicals’ in 65% of Pennsylvania wells tested

Captive red deer tests positive for CWD in Pennsylvania’s Wayne County

The only reason I hear from those in favor of Sunday hunting is it will give them more opportunities to hunt. That’s it.

There’s no biology behind opportunity. In fact, citing opportunity as the driver to support Sunday hunting is nothing more than a personal reason. You want Sunday hunting because it will give you more opportunity to hunt. That’s a personal reason, and it’s no different from those hunters who oppose the Sunday hunting bill.

Here’s another bit of hypocrisy that has surfaced with the Sunday hunting debate. Supporters of the bill claim to be staunch defenders of “opportunity for hunters.” Opportunity is a strong buzzword, yet within hunting circles it’s selectively applied.

While there’s a bunch of “stuff” attached to the Sunday hunting bill, there could’ve been more.

And this one would’ve given all hunters a real opportunity to have a voice at the table.

When the Sunday bill was being debated in the House Game and Fisheries Committee, Republican Chair Dave Maloney offered an amendment to give hunters the power to select the commissioner for their area to serve on the Game Commission board.

The amendment was a legitimate opportunity for hunters to be involved in selecting those who represent them on the board. Yet, while Sunday hunting supporters clamored about opportunity, they were silent about the prospect of having control of the commissioner selection process.

I guess they’re happy with the selection of their commissioners being handled by the mysterious Governors Advisory Council on Hunting, Fishing and Conservation. The council is run under the auspices of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and is charged with interviewing candidates for commission seats and recommending names to the governor.

But we have no idea who is on the council. That information, you see, was scrubbed from DCNR’s website a few years ago. Maloney’s amendment would’ve replaced the secrecy with transparency – an opportunity any hunters should support.

Yet there was silence, and the Democrat majority on the committee voted the amendment down.

Opportunity is a great thing when it comes to Sunday hunting, but I guess it doesn’t matter much in regard to giving hunters a voice in choosing their commissioners. Just leave it to the politicians.

Aside from the hypocrisy and short-sighted arguments, there is something very odd about the House and Senate versions of the Sunday hunting bill.

Of the nine co-sponsors on the House bill, three are from Philadelphia and two from Pittsburgh. And one of the two co-sponsors on the Senate version of the bill is from Philadelphia. So, between the two bills there are 11 co-sponsors and six of them are from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh – the two largest urban areas of the state.

Why are legislators from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh so adamant about supporting Sunday hunting? I could understand if legislators from hunting strongholds in the north-central region wanted to add their name to the Sunday bill, but they didn’t.

Instead, we have legislators from urban areas where hunting isn’t even on the radar signing up to support a Sunday hunting bill.

There’s more to that story.

By the time this is published, the Sunday bill may have already come up for a vote.

Whether it passes or not, it doesn’t change the hypocrisy and political deals that muddied the water along the way.