The Game Commission and Wildlife Ownership

By N. Charles Bolgiano, PhD
January 16th, 2006

Before America was settled by Europeans, Indians relied on nature to provide food. What little food they learned to raise themselves was insufficient and so the abundance of nature’s wild game- fish, turkey, deer and bison comprised their main diet. Without these natural and renewable resources the Indians would not have survived. Upon the arrival of the white man, they too learned from Indians that the gifts of nature were the secrets of survival, yet during the first years of landing on the shores of America, survival was only for a few who learned how to live off of the environment by hunting, trapping and fishing.

The rich and abundant natural resources of the New World allowed settlers to survive and develop to what would become the most powerful nation in history. It was the resources that the great Creator had provided that mankind was charged to respect and care for that made this nation successful. The gifts that nature provided, commonly referred to as natural resources, were indelibly labeled for responsible management by mankind.

Article 1, Section 27 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania deals with Natural Resources and the Public Estate. It reads, “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustees of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

Article 1, Section 27 affirmed that all natural resources created by God were the property of all the people and were subject to preservation and control by trustees of the Commonwealth for all generations. Article 1 did not say that the natural resources were owned by the trustees, but the Constitution states it must be managed by trustees.

For some reason Pennsylvania went astray when Section 103 of Title 34 (Game and Wildlife Code) was written. It states in (a) of Section 103, “The ownership, jurisdiction over and control of game and wildlife is vested in the commission as an independent agency of the Commonwealth in its sovereign capacity to be controlled, regulated and disposed of in accordance with this title.” Part (b) states , “The commission shall utilize hunting and trapping as methods of affecting necessary management of game, furbearer and wildlife populations.”

The PGC was formed in 1895 and in 1913 the first hunting license was approved. The cost was $1.00. Shortly thereafter the PGC petitioned the PA Legislature seeking permission to protect and propagate wildlife. If at that time the PGC owned
the wildlife (which they did not) they would not have had to ask permission to protect and propagate. At some time after 1913 the PGC assumed ownership of game and wildlife. Other than Title 34, there is no case law that conveyed to the PGC ownership of wildlife. How, when and who empowered the PGC to embrace ownership? William Penn in his Charter establishing Pennsylvania as a State endowed all the citizens of Pennsylvania with wildlife ownership. Since the PGC claims to have ownership of wildlife where is the document showing that it makes it so, or was it assumed to be the case during a late hour legislative session?

Speaking of PGC ownership of wildlife, Title 34 was recodified in 1984-85, wherein the ownership phrase appears. The question must be asked if ownership infers “real property” ownership, “jurisdictional” ownership or something else. If the PGC claims “real property” ownership than it must assume liability for damages caused by deer, bear and other wildlife, otherwise it must only be “jurisdictional” ownership. In reality, what does ownership of wildlife mean?

Title 34, the Game and Wildlife code defines the duties of the PGC, “ to protect, propagate, manage and preserve the game or wildlife…. and to serve the interests of the sportsmen by preserving and promoting our special heritage of recreational hunting and furtaking by providing adequate opportunity to hunt and trap the wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.”

To clarify, the last paragraph merely providing adequate opportunity does not mean to sell a hunting license for the privilege of carrying a gun or bow afield unless there is adequate game to hunt. In numerous areas there are so few if any deer that the license buyer does not have the opportunity to hunt. The Game Law definition of “hunt” is to kill game. Furthermore, to own wildlife does not mean that wildlife can be made extinct, an objective that the PGC seems headed for.

N. Charles Bolgiano, PhD
Legislative Director
Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania