Quote:

 

-----Original Message-----
From: AFAWR@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AFAWR@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Audrey Hollaar
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:08 PM
To: AFAWR@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AFAWR] (Fwd) [GoodBirdGroup] Fw: Urgent: PA Legislation to outlaw
nanday

From: Jean Clark

Cross posting permitted - you may share this information with interested
parties and post it to online lists.

I have been informed that there are some people circulating the email quoted
below, and that they are incorrectly advising people not to worry about the
presently pending proposal to ban possession of Nandays in Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately the quoted, "PGC Jason Decosky, head of Special Permits and
Wildlife Conservation in the Harrisburg (main) office of the PA Game
Commission", or any other employee of the Pennsylvania government, does not
have the authority to violate Pennsylvania law as set forth in the
Pennsylvania Code. Government employees are required to obey the law
as it is written.

The fact is there is no grandfather clause in the pending proposal (which is
a proposal to amend existing Pennsylvania Code Title 58 (Recreation), Part
III (Game Commission), Chapter 137 (Wildlife), subsection 137.1
(importation, sale, and release of certain wildlife) ). The existing
Pennsylvania Code can be read at:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/browse.asp

The proposed amendment can be read at (starting on page 42 of the PDF
file) http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=481&q=163334

If the drafters of this amendment (presently before the Game Commission)
wanted a grandfather clause they could have easily included one in the
pending proposal to change the Pennsylvania Code. They could also
present a proposed regulation specifically grandfathering existing Nandays
in Pennsylvania from the requirements of this new Code section prohibiting
the "possession" of Nandays. They have done neither.

The assurances of individual game commission staff members, or any other
state employees, while perhaps well-intentioned, are not the law. The
language of the law and related regulations will control, and as the
proposal is now worded, it will be illegal for anyone to possess Nandays
without a
permit (which is not available to pet owners).

In fact, the word "possession" does not now appear in the existing
Pennsylvania Code section noted, and the word "possession" is specifically
being inserted by this proposal into the existing law (in addition to adding
Nandays to the section that previously only banned Quakers).

A reasonable person has to ask why would the Game Commission, or anyone
else, go to the trouble of amending the law in question to specifically
outlaw "possession" with no grandfather clause if that was not exactly what
they had in mind?