Welcome to the era of the impossible. For the first time, hunters have options that were previously not possible, enabling them to go to more places, see and hide from wildlife more effectively and make previously impossible shots with a greater variety of sporting arms than ever before. Some of those technologies are legal. Others, not so much.
At the Pennsylvania Game Commission, lawfulness safety and "fair chase" are the concepts dictating what is legal for recreational hunting, said Tom Grohol. The point man for the agency's new product evaluations, Grohol said the review process is designed to make it as easy as possible for hunters to know what gear is appropriate.
But it's not always that easy. The decision isn't always up to the Game Commission, Grohol said. Product safety isn't always clear, state wildlife agencies don't always use the same evaluation standards and long-established regulations can sometimes seem to change abruptly.
Developments in archery technology provide some good examples. A generation ago, archers were concerned the new cam-operated bows would make it too easy to down a deer, too likely to reduce the herd. But after a long review process the agency made compound bows legal for general use. On Jan. 27, 2009, crossbows were illegal for general use in Pennsylvania, mostly for the same reasons that compound bows had once been banned. On Jan. 28, however, crossbows were suddenly legal for general use in Pennsylvania, but not before the failure of several prior attempts, years of study, back-room horse trading at the state legislature and a quick switch of commission members shortly before the vote.
Grohol said it usually isn't that complicated.
"We try to keep the regulatory process simple with new products and devices," he said. "(We determine) what is the simplest and clearest way for us to regulate this for the hunting public."
On paper, the process looks simple.
"The review is two-fold," said Jason Raup, an attorney with the Game Commission's Bureau of Wildlife Protection. "No. 1, the initial review determines if it is currently lawful to use. No. 2, if it is not legal but not something the Game Commission would oppose, we'd consider putting it on a list for legislative review."
Grohol said there is no formal listing or protocol for making those recommendations to the legislature. It's part of the constant exchange of information between the agency and General Assembly.
Fair chase is determined by evaluating whether the new product actually impacts the hunt in a way that significantly reduces an animal's ability to evade harvest, he said. Optical scopes, rangefinders, camouflage, scent-reducers and increasingly accurate sporting arms are among many products that help the hunter to locate game and shoot more accurately. It was determined that pre-kill products of those kinds do not reduce the animal's natural advantage. Products used after the kill generally pass regulatory muster more easily.
The approval process starts when a new product or device is brought to the agency's attention. Sometimes manufacturers send their edgy new devices to the Game Commission and other state wildlife agencies for review. Occasionally, a wildlife conservation officer comes across a hunter in the field using previously unseen gear of uncertain legality. If the rulebook doesn't specifically say it's legal, it's not.
"Nothing that is not specifically enumerated (in law or regulation) is legal. Everything is illegal unless it has been approved," said Tom Fazi, Game Commission southwest region education supervisor. "Especially if it's an electronic device. If it's mechanical, it would have to meet the definition contained in the regulations. If it doesn't, it's illegal."
Occasionally, the road to legalization begins with one curious hunter. The illuminated nock for arrows, an electrical device, was approved for hunting following a hunter's inquiry.
Roup said curved broadhead blades were initially disallowed when submitted by a manufacturer for review. But a year later, commissioners amended the regulation and determined, said Raup, "the new product and others like it could be used in a manner that did not violate the fair harvest of deer."
Some products are nonstarters. A small group of hunters lobbied for approval of the atlatal _ a hand tool used to increase leverage when throwing a small spear or dart, enabling greater velocity and longer throws. Humans had for millennia killed animals with the atlatal, and modern incarnations are available for sale, but commissioners determined it would not be appropriate in an ethical harvest.
Cellular trail cameras that show real-time images on digital devices are legal to own and legal to use when scouting, but illegal to use during an actual hunt. In the same way, shucked corn and mineral blocks are legal, but it is illegal to hunt over them.
Conversely, electronic hearing enhancement devices are legal, said Raup, as long as the product is worn entirely inside the ear.
"We're not quick to always jump on the new equipment bandwagon," Grohol said. "We want to look to other states, understand how it is used and make a cautious and prudent decision."
Sometimes that takes time. The Game Commission has signaled to the state House Fish and Game Committee and other legislators that it would not object to the legalization of semi-automatic rifles and some modern airguns for use in hunting.
"We looked at them and we may be the only state where semi-automatic (rifles) and airguns are illegal (for hunting)," Raup said.
Bills are currently in the legislative pipeline that would legalize the hunting use of semi rifles and airguns. The status of those bills is pending.
