Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB709

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/17/23
• Refer: 5/17/23
• Engrossed: 6/20/23
• Refer: 6/21/23
• Refer: 4/10/24
• Report Pass: 4/15/24
• Enrolled: 4/29/24
• Chaptered: 5/8/24
• Passed: 5/8/24

Caption

In game or wildlife protection, further providing for the offense of unlawful taking and possession of protected birds and for endangered or threatened species.

Impact

If enacted, SB709 would significantly alter the legal landscape governing wildlife protection in Pennsylvania. The proposed changes include introducing a summary offense with a minimum fine of $2,000 for the unlawful taking and possession of protected birds, specifically targeting scenarios where such acts result in the deaths of bald eagles or golden eagles. This amendment is intended to reinforce the authority of the state in enforcing wildlife laws and underscore the seriousness of protecting endangered species.

Summary

Senate Bill 709 is geared towards amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to strengthen the enforcement of wildlife protection laws related to the unlawful taking and possession of protected birds, particularly focusing on endangered or threatened species. The bill proposes to impose stricter penalties for violations that involve the killing of protected birds, including the bald eagle and golden eagle. By increasing the penalties for such actions, the bill aims to enhance the protection of these vulnerable species and deter illegal activities that threaten their survival.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB709 appears to be largely supportive, particularly among environmental and conservation advocates who see the bill as a necessary step in ensuring the protection of wildlife. Proponents argue that the heightened penalties reflect the importance of safeguarding species at risk of extinction and on the brink of endangerment. However, there may be concerns raised by some landowners or hunters who might view increased penalties as overly punitive, potentially creating tensions among different stakeholders involved in wildlife conservation and recreational hunting.

Contention

Despite the overall support for the bill, there could be notable contention regarding its potential implications on hunting regulations and land use rights. Opponents may argue that stricter penalties could infringe upon legal hunting practices, particularly if the definitions surrounding unlawful taking are perceived as vague or encompassing a broader range of actions. The balance between enforcing wildlife protection laws and maintaining the rights of hunters and landowners will likely be a key area of debate as the bill progresses through the legislative process.