I'm confused as usual.

Unless I am reading the laws incorrectly, in Pennsylvania the Fish and Game Code applies to many animals we might normally consider nuisances or vermin.

Let's start with some definitions of the animals subject to regulation:

"Furbearers." Unless otherwise modified by regulation of the commission, the term includes the badger, the fisher, the mink, the muskrat, the opossum, the otter, the pine marten, the striped and spotted skunk, the beaver, the raccoon, all weasels, the red and gray fox and the bobcat.

"Game animals." Unless otherwise modified by regulation of the commission, the term includes the elk, the whitetail deer, the bear, the cottontail rabbit, the snowshoe hare, the red, gray and fox squirrel and the groundhog or woodchuck.

"Hunt" or "hunting." Any act or furtherance of the taking or killing of any game or wildlife, or any part or product thereof, and includes, but is not limited to, chasing, tracking, calling, pursuing, lying in wait, trapping, shooting at, including shooting at a game or wildlife facsimile, or wounding with any weapon or implement, or using any personal property, including dogs, or the property of others, of any nature, in furtherance of any of these purposes, or aiding, abetting or conspiring with another person in that purpose.

"Trapping." The securing or attempting to secure possession of game or wildlife by means of setting, placing or using any device that is designed to close upon, hold fast, confine or otherwise capture game or wildlife whether these means result in capturing or not. It includes every act of assistance to any other person in capturing game or wildlife by means of such device whether these means result in capturing or not.

"Wild animals." All mammals other than domestic animals as defined in 1 Pa.C.S. section 1991 (relating to definitions).

"Wildlife." Wild birds, wild mammals and facsimiles thereof, regardless of classification, whether protected or unprotected, including any part, product, egg or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof (excluding fossils), whether or not included in a manufactured product or in a processed food product.

It's not as if the people who wrote these laws were unaware of exceptions. For whatever reason, raccoons have been exempted for reporting purposes -- but not other "wildlife":

Sec. 2122. Report to commission officer.

Any person who kills any game or wildlife, other than raccoons, under the provisions of this subchapter shall, within 24 hours, report, orally or in writing, the killing to an officer of the commission. The report shall set forth the date, time and place of the killing, the number of species killed and the sex of the species.

Or am I misreading the law? In vain I looked for nuisance exceptions which might apply to ordinary homeowners, but unless there is a general statute limiting the jurisidiction of Fish and Game, I could find nothing. Aside from an exception for the protection of cultivated lands from damage the only one I can find is for protecting the life of a human -- and it's quite specific:

2141. Killing game or wildlife to protect person.

(a) General rule. - It is unlawful for a person to kill any game or wildlife as a means of protection unless it is clearly evident from all the facts that a human is endangered to a degree that the immediate destruction of the game or wildlife is necessary.

Killing mice is illegal?

Where is my common sense? you might ask. Such laws were written many years ago -- often at the behest of hunters who wanted to protect game, in an era when common sense prevailed. But as more and more bureaucracies like "fish and game" become infiltrated and staffed by people who believe in the animal rights philosophy, the less likely that common sense can be taken for granted as it once was.

Philadelphia's Mayor Street, for example, has long been under attack for his rat eradication program, but reading the above laws, I'm now wondering why no one sought to enforce fish and game regulations against harassing, driving, or killing rats.

At least in California they've spelled these things out:

Common mouse and rat traps are exempt from being marked, per T-14 section 465 (g), "Except for common rat and mouse traps, all traps used pursuant to this subsection must be numbered as required by subsection (f) (1)".

5 I've heard it said regarding this new law that the Department of Fish and Game is "not interested in rats and mice". I assume then that DFG could also say that they aren't interested in gophers, moles and voles or maybe not interested in non-game mammals altogether. I question the ability of a Department of government to assume a posture of indifference in the face of a law that requires enforcement. Please explain where my understanding fails?

Response: Your response is not correct. Fish and Game Code section 4005(a) states; Every person who traps fur-bearing mammals shall procure a trapping license. Any person taking non-game mammals must be licensed. Section 472-T-14 defines non-game mammals. "Except as otherwise provided is section 478 (bobcats) and 465 (American crow) and subsection (a) through (d) below, non-game birds and mammals may not be taken. (a) The following non-game birds and mammals may be taken at any time of the year and in any number except as prohibited in Chapter 6: English sparrow, starling, coyote, weasels, skunks, opossum, moles and rodents (excluding tree and flying squirrels, and those listed as fur-bearers, endangered or threatened species.

Groundhogs and moles are lawn excavators that can make a mess of a yard quickly. Both problem animals are best handled through trapping. Groundhogs can be caught with baits such as apples, carrots or lettuce. Moles are best removed with hole or bayonet-type traps, which kill the animal as it passes through a trap armed with spring-loaded bayonets that is placed in the animal's underground runways.

[...]

The most inexpensive and effective way to straighten out a mouse problem is to set traps. Available at most hardware stores and feed mills, mouse traps should be baited with cheese or peanut-butter and placed at locations where mouse droppings or damage have been found. Set more than one trap and move them around until you start catching mice. Don't stop until sightings and damage stop.

But is that legal?

The only exception in the section dealing with killing game or wildlife is for raccoons, but additionally, there's a section on "disturbing game or wildlife" and its interpretation:

Sec. 2162. Disturbance of game or wildlife.

(a) General rule. - It is unlawful for any person to drive or disturb game or wildlife except while engaged in the lawful activities set forth in this title.

(b) Nonapplicability. - This section shall not apply to any owner of land, any member of the commission, the director, any representative of the commission or any other law enforcement officer engaged in any otherwise lawful action.

(c) Penalty. - A violation of subsection (a) shall be a summary offense of the first degree.

So, while it would seem to be illegal for me to kill them without filing a report, it might not be illegal for me to merely "drive or disturb" rats, mice, or squirrels in my own yard.

However, elsewhere it is declared to be illegal to allow a dog to do so:

Subchapter E. Dogs Pursuing Game or Wildlife

Sec. 2381. Dogs pursuing, injuring or killing game or wildlife.

Except as otherwise provided in this title or by commission regulation, it is unlawful for any person controlling or harboring a dog to permit the dog to chase, pursue, follow upon the track of, injure or kill any game or wildlife at any time.

I can chase mice and squirrels in my own yard. But Coco can't.

I ran this past Coco (who is a dog), who has often been annoyed by vermin in the yard, and occasionally in the house. She thinks it's quite unfair that dogs are being singled out when by far the biggest offenders are cats. Furthermore, cats are much more successful as predators than dogs, and they're freely allowed to slaughter not only rodents, but birds of all varieties -- without regard to their rarity or protected status.

In a word, it's unfair discrimination. Now, we don't think of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to dogs and cats, but considering that if Coco chases a squirrel I'm the one who'd be the criminal, I think I might have a good Equal Protection claim if cat owners are not prosecuted for the same act -- especially if I could demonstrate that cats kill more wildlife than dogs. (This is not to say that I support these laws; only that they should be fair and evenhanded, and reasonably calculated to achieve the goal of wildlife protection.)

At this point, I'm more confused than ever. I don't know what's illegal and what's not.

(And to think I was trained as a lawyer!)