Pennsylvania Woman Cited for Honking Car Horn

[TheeBadOne]

GREENSBURG, Pa. -- A western Pennsylvania woman who honked at hunters because she was upset they were in a tree stand that had been her late grandson's will be cited for illegally scaring deer.

Norma Kramer, 77, of Export, Westmoreland County, will be cited for "creating an intentional interruption of the hunting process," according to a state police report.

Kramer said she drove her 1987 Oldsmobile across a field and stopped under a tree stand where a man and his wife were hunting.

Though they had permission to hunt on her relative's property in Salem Township, they didn't have permission to be in the tree stand, Kramer said. The stand had been her grandson's, who died in a hunting accident six years ago.

"I made up my mind that I was going to cause them all kinds of trouble," Kramer said.

But when she confronted them Monday morning, she said the woman yelled that she saw a deer and for her husband to shoot it.

"There was no deer. She just said that to get a reaction from me, and it worked," Kramer said. "I guess it's against the law to blow my horn and scare the deer. If I'd have known that, I wouldn't have done it. I just hate to see deer killed."

If convicted of the second-degree summary offense, Kramer could be fined up to $500.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/sns-othernews-honking,0,7448298.story?coll=bal-features-specials
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my state if it's public land, it's anyones stand, no matter who built it. If I build a deer stand out of my own pocket on public land, I can't kick someone out of the stand if they are hunting in it. I can kick someone off it's my own land.
Is this how it works in your states too?

 

[Peetmoss]

It was private property. However they did have permission to be there.

What I don't get is if she hates hunting so much why get so perterbed about someone using a tree stand that was her sons 6yrs ago? If she wasn't against hunting I could see her wanting to keep something as it was for sentamental value. However the article states that isn't the case. IMNSHO she was clearly in the WRONG.

 

[Bill Hook]

What about the people who bought his car or his house, etc.? Is she going to sit outside and blow the horn at these folks too?

 

[WvaBill]

It was private property. However they did have permission to be there.

Do not know about other states, but in WV, game laws have little respect for property boundaries. She wasn't charged with trespass, just scaring little furry critters.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The fact that no one claimed the tree stand after 6 years of residing on someone's property other than hers means that she doesn't have much of a claim to it or its use.

 

[yy]

I'm trying to feel bad for the honker...

Consider this: the old woman tries to deal with her loss by focusing on the circumstance around her son's death. Very common. So now she's probably against hunting. It's a pity she has no better way than acting out and focusing on the little things rather than moving on. sigh.

cudos to the hunters for not shooting an annoying old woman, but wish they could've skipped the legal recourse as payback for the disturbance.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"cudos to the hunters for not shooting an annoying old woman, but wish they could've skipped the legal recourse as payback for the disturbance."

And been charged for murder, as well as giving all hunters a SERIOUS black eye image wise.

 

[submin]

"I made up my mind that I was going to cause them all kinds of trouble," Kramer said.

I just hate to see deer killed."

Call me insensitive. Call me an ar$$. Call me mean spirited, but I’d like to see the circumstances surrounding her son’s "accident". She definitely has a self-control problem.

 

[Dashunde]

"intentional interruption of the hunting process"???? WTH??

Who even thought to make that a law in the first place?

The old woman needs to have her head checked for intentionally irritating people holding rifles. Seems to me that is a rather stupid thing to be doing nowadays...

 

[Art Eatman]

Dashunde, several states have passed such laws. It's a reaction to the animal rights idiots going out and playing radios and banging on garbage can lids and yelling and screaming in hunting areas during hunt seasons.

These laws give hunters a legal recourse. Without such, I'd guess some folks might make "mistakes" while hunting...

Art

 

[Dashunde]

Ah... good point Art.
Just goes to show how our locality can determine our perception of a given situation.
As far as I know, we have had no problems with activists around here... We have Cabella's and Bass Pro instead.

 

[WvaBill]

I believe 48 of the states have such a law.

Seldom needed in WV

 

[jimpeel]

A little-known section of the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill

Subtitle H-Recreational Hunting Safety

SEC. 320801. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the "Recreational Hunting Safety and Preservation Act of 1994".

SEC. 320802. OBSTRUCTION OF A LAWFUL HUNT.
It is a violation of this section intentionally to engage in any physical conduct that significantly hinders a lawful hunt.

SEC. 320803. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.-A person who violates section 320802 shall be assessed a civil penalty in an amount computed under
subsection (b).
(b) COMPUTATION OF PENALTY.-The penalty shall be-
(1) not more than $10,000, if the violation involved the use of force or violence, or thethreatened use of force or violence, against the person or property of another person; and
(2) not more than $5,000 for any other violation.
(c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PENALTIES.-The penalties established by this section shall be in addition to other criminal or civil penalties that may be levied against the person as a result of an activity in violation of section 320802.
(d) PROCEDURE.-Upon receipt of-
(1) a written complaint from an officer, employee, or agent of the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or other Federal agency that a person violated section 320802; or
(2) a sworn affidavit from an individual and a determination by the Secretary that the statement contains sufficient factual allegations to create a reasonable belief that a violation of section 320802 has occurred; the Secretary may request the Attorney General of the United States to institute a civil action for the imposition and collection of the civil penalty
under this section.
(e) USE OF PENALTY MONEY COLLECTED.-After deduction of costs attributable to collection, money collected from penalties shall be-
(1) deposited into the trust fund established pursuant to the Act entitled "An Act to provide that the United States shall aid the States in wildlife-restoration projects, and for other purposes", approved September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669) (commonly known as the "Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act"), to support the activities authorized by such Act and undertaken by State wildlife management agencies; or
(2) used in such other manner as the Secretary determines will enhance the funding and implementation of-
(A) the North American Waterfowl Management Plan signed by the Secretary of the Interior and the Minister of Environment for Canada in May 1986; or
(B) a similar program that the Secretary determines will enhance wildlife management-
(i) on Federal lands; or
(ii) on private or State-owned lands when the efforts will also provide a benefit to wildlife management objectives on Federal lands.

SEC. 320804. OTHER RELIEF.
Injunctive relief against a violation of section 320802 may be sought by-
(1) the head of a State agency with jurisdiction over fish or wildlife management;
(2) the Attorney General of the United States; or
(3) any person who is or would be adversely affected by the violation.

SEC. 320805. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW AND CIVIL ACTIONS.
This subtitle does not preempt a State law or local ordinance that provides for civil or criminal penalties for conduct that violates this subtitle.

SEC. 320806. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this subtitle.

SEC. 320807. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to impair a right guaranteed to a person under the first article of amendment to the Constitution or limit any legal remedy for forceful interference with a person's lawful participation in speech or peaceful assembly.

SEC. 320808. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this subtitle:
(1) FEDERAL LANDS.-The term "Federal lands" means-
(A) national forests;
(B) public lands;
(C) national parks; and
(D) wildlife refuges.
(2) LAWFUL HUNT.-The term "lawful hunt" means the taking or harvesting (or attempted taking or harvesting) of wildlife or fish, on Federal lands, which-
(A) is lawful under the laws applicable in the place it occurs; and
(B) does not infringe upon a right of an owner of private property.
(3) NATIONAL FOREST.-The term "national forest" means lands included in the National Forest System (as defined in section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))).
(4) NATIONAL PARK.-The term "national park" means lands and waters included in the National Park System (as defined in section 2(a) of the Act entitled "An Act to facilitate the management of the National Park System and miscellaneous areas administered in connection with that system, and for other purposes", approved August 8, 1953 (16 U.S.C.
1c(a))).
(5) PUBLIC LANDS.-The term "public lands" has the same meaning as is provided in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).
(6) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" means-
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to national forests; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior with respect to-
(i) public lands;
(ii) national parks; and
(iii) wildlife refuges.
(7) WILDLIFE REFUGE.-The term "wildlife refuge" means lands and waters included in the National Wildlife Refuge System (as established by section 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd)).
(8) CONDUCT.-The term "conduct" does not include speech protected by the first article of amendment to the Constitution.