Concord Monitor Fisking: Several Bad Ideas On Hunting, Wildlife - Granite Grok

Concord Monitor Fisking: Several Bad Ideas On Hunting, Wildlife

 “As for editorial content, that’s the stuff you separate the ads with.”  —Lord Thomson of Fleet

On Thursday, February 9, 2012 the Concord Monitor‘s Dan Williams wrote an opinion column entitled, Several bad ideas on Hunting, wildlife Williams contacted me personally to talk about his upcoming story. When I read the column, however, I didn’t recognize the lion-share of our conversation. Much was missed in the piece and it took on a rather pejorative tone, versus an analytical tone.

Seeing the text on line, I attempted to clarify with only nominal token success. I had to generate an account, was limited to 1000 characters in my response. and was only permitted one entry. My second one never appeared.

Anybody familiar with media, publishing and news understand the need to be concise, identify key points and articulate a position demonstrating some modicum of brevity. But in the final analysis, I am left only with the conclusion that the Concord Monitor isn’t really interested in accuracy of point of view, so much as it is in preserving their leftist-progressive flair and spin in their news media.

Unlike most others, though, I am not only the President of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, but aside from my duties there, I am a conservative opinion blogger at Granite Grok and I am not constrained as the Concord Monitor seeks to do. So without further fanfare let the fisking begin.

Dan writes,

 “House Bill 194 is a good example. This bill, which passed 204-110 recently, allows you to carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle. Other laws already in place prohibit having a loaded weapon on most roads, so in order to be in compliance with all laws, one would have to unload, exit the vehicle, get the requisite distance from the road, and reload.”

HB194 is a classic example where one could argue the existence of an overreaching jurisdiction of a single State Agency: Fish & Game. The prohibition on having loaded long guns in or on vehicles is under the umbrella of Fish & Game Laws, not New Hampshire Gun Laws.

In essence, a Fish and Game Law can currently be used to enforce gun laws in the Granite State where there might be no hunting context. The original intent of the law was a safety measure in the context of hunting. Another intent of the law was aimed at targeting those who might hunt animals from the confines of a motorized vehicle, chase down game with snowmobiles or off-highway recreational vehicles or other such unethical behavior related to Hunting.

HB 194’s advocacy arises out of the Second Amendment advocacy arena and has found conflict with the Hunting Sports community. There are a significant number of people in the Hunting sports community who support the measure. The overwhelming majority of hunters supporting this bill do so, not because they want to poach deer from vehicles, but because many in the Hunting sports community also happen to be ardent pro-second amendment advocates who believe deeply in an inherent right of self defense.

And there are those within the Hunting Sports community that vehemently oppose the bill. The belief is that by changing the law in this fashion, we make it far easier to hunt from vehicles and a loaded long gun inside or on a vehicle is inherently dangerous. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department opposes this bill for the obvious reasons. And you have to give credit where credit is due. Fish & Game, in their opposition has stayed narrowly within their context, being careful not to step outside of that hunting/poaching context.

This bill presents a situation where Second Amendment advocacy is at odds with a significant many in the Hunting Sport community. But neither have impure motives. Those in the Hunting Sports community who oppose the law, genuinely desire to uphold a commitment to principles of fair chase and want to continue to maintain hunting as a relatively safe sport, while Those in the second Amendment/Self Defense community have a legitimate claim in expanding the right to possess long guns loaded in a motor vehicle in a context of self defense.

If we are truly candid about this issue, most understand handguns present a greater challenge for muzzle controlling than do  long guns. Despite that, our present body of law allows for the possession of a loaded handgun within the confines or on a motor vehicle.

The New Hampshire Wildlife Federation opposed HB 194 last year. Since then there have been amendments to the bill that preserve the prohibitions on the taking of animals from a motorized vehicle and re-defines what constitutes a loaded firearm. with the amended language, the bill allows for a magazine to contain ammunition, but not the chamber. New Hampshire Wildlife Federation did not overtly oppose the bill, but did not proactively support it either as the majority within the NHWF still oppose the loaded crossbow provision.

Concord Monitor:

Giving the bill’s authors the benefit of the doubt, let’s say that this bill is not about hunting, but rather about self-defense. Can you imagine trying to carefully and quickly wield a 3-foot long firearm within the confines of your Prius – or even your pickup? Law enforcement officers are trained to do so, but the average citizen is not. According to Rick Olson, president of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, “The possibility that a weapon will be discharged is inherently more likely in the act of hunting.”Regardless of the author’s intent, this bill sets a dangerous precedent and should not be made into law.

Dan Williams’ assertions here indicates a degree of short-sightedness. Let us being with, “imagine trying to carefully and quickly wield a 3-foot long firearm within the confines of your Prius.” That statement plays out as pure hyperbole. According to a 2007 Scarborough Research survey, in partnership with The Nielsen Company and Arbitron, Inc., found Prius owners are twice as likely to claim to go skiing, hiking, or practice yoga than non-hybrid owners. They consume more organic food, yogurt, and decaffeinated coffee than the general population.  Politically, 14 percent called themselves Republican, 38 percent Democrat, and 34 percent identify as independent. Not exactly a core constituency within the second amendment community. One would be more likely to find a pair of Birkenstocks on the floor of a Prius, than .357 magnum ammunition.

Pick up trucks? The military veteran community comprises a significant majority of America’s gun owners. These same people have used long guns…fully loaded…round in the chamber (referred to as locked and loaded for the non-military folks) in pick-up trucks, transport vehicles, helicopters, aircraft, watercraft, and the ever-ubiquitous claustrophobic confines of a Hummer. I can be done safely and has been done safely.

 “Law enforcement officers are trained to do so, but the average citizen is not.”  So, I am curious how the author knows this to be a qualified opinion? Aside from the many who have served in the Military, there exists this expansive cottage industry today in America where any “average citizen” can take self-defense courses where the training is just that: handling a long gun in a motor vehicle.  Retired Law Enforcement folks, in pursuit of the almighty dollar, charge significant fees for three to four-day courses, parlaying their considerable years of training into a marketable good.

If we give the Concord Monitor opinion the, “benefit of a doubt,” we will accept the notion that the majority of law-abiding citizens are irresponsible, caring little about what is a safe firearm handling practice. Inversely we find the argument to be an exercise in reductio ad absurdum.

Concord Monitor:

“According to Rick Olson, president of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, “The possibility that a weapon will be discharged is inherently more likely in the act of hunting.”Regardless of the author’s intent, this bill sets a dangerous precedent and should not be made into law.

Quotes out of context are particularly useful in the arena of Charlatanry. Do I think the author is a Charlatan? No, I do not think so. But somebody over there with editorial authority at the Concord Monitor is. When people take to the field to hunt game, they bring a firearm, be it a handgun or long gun. That firearm is loaded. The intent to loading is to shoot it at a live animal. Consequently, it is a fact that the probability is far higher that a firearm will be discharged in the context of hunting. When the conversation gravitates to discussions about loaded firearms in vehicles, hunting presents a safety challenge for the hunter and others in his party. This goes back to the argument of context. Hunting is one context and the right of self-defense is another. Summarily, the notion that, “this bill sets a dangerous precedent and should not be made into law.” is not well supported within the context cited by the author. Injuries and deaths related to automobile use vastly outpaces firearm-related injuries and deaths, yet we see no plethora of laws to ban, curb or otherwise restrict motor vehicle use. Argumentus ex nihilo.

Concord Monitor:

“HB 1333 would allow a person three Fish and Game violations in a two-year period before losing their hunting or fishing license. A person could break the law not once but twice without facing any consequences.”

 I read HB 1333 and I do not arrive at the same conclusion as Dan Williams. New Hampshire Wildlife Federation opposed this Bill. In opposing the bill the NHWF was crystal clear about its reasons for opposing the bill. What Williams says about the bill is misleading.

Fact: If this bill were to be signed into law, a person would be given a citation and pay a fine for violations. That is a consequence. Realistically, this law would make legal the violation of fish and game laws based on how much fines one has the ability to pay. Like a speeding ticket and driving laws. So many points and one loses his or her driving license.

Unlike motor vehicle laws, however, violations of Fish and Game Laws have ominous consequences. This law directly affects a natural resource and subjects it to potential abuse. Hunters have a responsibility to be lawful, ethical and careful in their participation of Hunting and this law fails to serve that end. Williams is correct about this being “self serving” and regretfully, there is a whole separate history behind that notion. On principle, it challenges lawmaker credibility and calls motives into question.

Concord Monitor:

“HB 1334 would mandate a court hearing for anyone convicted of a Fish and Game violation prior to having their license revoked.”

No, it is not a “court hearing.” The bill  would provide for an “administrative hearing.” In the Monitor’s Dan Williams opinion, however, HB 1334 is worthy of opposition, but fails to flesh out “why.” The NHWF opposed the bill, but for very clear reasons. I question whether the Monitor staff or editors actually read this bill. How does one oppose any notion of due process because that is what this bill is. The Bill attempts to bolster a Fish & Game License revocation with aspects of due process. Why would one oppose that?

New Hampshire Wildlife Federation opposed the bill because while fundamental due process is paramount for any state agency to revoke a privilege from a citizen, this bill creates an imbalance between the mission of Fish & Game and rights of a licensee. Under the present law, the executive director can revoke a hunting or fishing license. The person revoked can request a hearing with the executive director. RSA 214:17 and 18 deals with suspensions and revocations effectively and NHWF believes this law would subject the resource to abuse.

Concord Monitor:

“Finally, HB 1335 would make being convicted of a state or federal gun crime the only reason Fish and Game could deny a person a license.”

 No, not really Other places in the law provide for the basis of denial resting upon violations and revocations in other jurisdictions RSA 214:18-b; RSA 214:19. The larger point is do we want to utilize the vagueness of the Federal law? Moreover, firearms are only one component of our hunting laws. Archey equipment and Muzzle Loading rifles are the other component. I would not want to face a person in the woods, having been adjudged to be insane and armed with archery equipment, nor a muzzle loader. NHWF did not support nor oppose the law because its’ final effect, if passed is unknown.

Concord Monitor:

“To me, this is the worst kind of abuse of power in government. These bills enshrine into law acts which up until now, have been illegal for good reason, tying the hands of Fish and Game officials and tipping the scales in favor of the law-breakers.”

Pure hyperbole. Abuse of power in Government is never truly felt until its’ full weight bearings down on one of the least of its’ citizens. Right or wrong, this legislation is sought to afford a level playing field, enhance due process and make our government more accountable. Its’ flaws and shortcomings and misguided notions hardly make the case for governmental abuse. When a citizen is under attack by the government in any issue, significant resources are required by the citizen for redress. Government rarely takes responsibility for its harm caused to citizens.

While Fish and Game is a governmental agency charged with the mission of properly managing the wildlife of the state, these dialogs are necessary from time to time to sharpen the focus on equity and balance. Most reasonable people call it maintaining perspective.

Concord Monitor:

 I part ways with the Wildlife Federation position on the next two pieces of legislation. The first of these, HB 1339, “prohibits a person engaged in hunting, fishing or trapping from contracting for the limitation of access or the reservation of rights to enter private lands.” This bill bucks what I consider a disturbing trend in the hunting community. In the Midwest, for example, most hunters must lease land if they are to pursue their sport. This is dangerously close to the European model where only the “landed gentry” are able to hunt and fish due to their wealth and restrictions on land access.

The Wildlife Federation does not favor this bill, and Olson offers what he feels is a better solution to this problem. “It’s not about legislation, but education,” he says, adding, “I feel landowner relations will be a key issue going forward.” According to the Wildlife Federation, Fish and Game needs to reach out to landowners and ask, “What can we do for you?” The unfortunate part about this is that, with funding decreasing and re-appropriation of funds always a possibility, Fish and Game is ill-equipped to take on such an educational campaign.

The NHWF advocates for the maintaining of land open to hunting, fishing and trapping. NHWF fully supports the spirit and intent of Representative Mirski’s bill. We did not oppose the bill, we simply sought to monitor the bill for areas where our feedback could be useful and helpful in achieving that end the bill seeks.

The fact is, while this bill is solid in its intent, its effect could prove problematic and the “law of unintended consequences,” could manifest itself. Williams is right in that much of the hunting conducted in the mid-west is done through expensive hunting leases where large scale tracts of land shut out those with modest resources.  That aspect is a serious concern.  But what Mr. Williams fails to take into account is this law could potentially affect a landowners use, versus the hunter and lessee. While the law focuses on the licensee, the net effect is upon the landowner. In its present form and absent any amendments, this law could cause significant parcels now open to be posted in the future

The NHWF gladly embraces the mission of Landowner relations and we are more than happy to carry the water in that effort, recognizing that N.H. Fish & Game Department is widely diverse in its mission that often challenges its resources. It is one thing to write an opinion column, but another to do so and throw a non-profit organization “under the bus.”

Concord Monitor:

HB 1646 is another bill in which Fish and Game’s increasing inability to cope with rising demands comes into play. HB 1646 “prohibits the practice of baiting for the taking of deer, and also prohibits feeding deer during deer season with foods known to be attractive to deer.”Vermont passed similar legislation years ago, and Fish and Game has been advocating this for some time. The department cites studies linking feeding of deer with the spread of diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease, increased human/deer conflict, degradation of habitat and overpopulation in their rationale for putting a stop to the feeding of deer. According to Olson, however, the numbers don’t back up these claims.

Williams never mentions Representative Paul Simard’s amendment to HB1646 (the anti-baiting bill) seeking to ban baiting for Bear as well. Williams offers a narrow view that baiting violates principles of “fair chase” yet left unaddressed the overall nature of how wild animals “forage” for food. Concerns for Chronic Wasting disease encroaching New Hampshire’s Deer Herds, belie the fact that years of baiting, the Granite State has yet to have a single documented case of CWD. Williams further asserted that many other states ban baiting, yet failed to point out most of those states have severely restricted access to hunting, through leases and laws that impose strict statutory requirements to hunt on private property…the very thing he rails against previously.

Fish and Game Biologist Steve Webber testified before the committee that his data showed baiting to have an adverse effect on the overall deer herd, but failed to meaningfully demonstrate a causality. If one looks at the Hunting season Deer Kill numbers going back to 2001, one finds no remarkable change in the trend. Lastly, there has been little communication to the Hunting community from those at Fish & Game who advocate for the ban. Baiting as a practice is already considerably regulated and simply baiting for deer is of no guarantee for hunting success.

Finally, by eliminating baiting, we give rise to other hunting conflicts. Creating and planting food plots will become more popular in the wake of a baiting ban. After a person has toiled worked and persevered to create and maintain a food plot, there will be an expectation that that person will exclusively hunt over that plot. A conflict in the making when one who has not labored hunts that plot. the consequence will be…more posted land.

This is pure speculation on my part, but in the last few years baiting permits have burgeoned from over 200 to over 800. One aspect of the permit is that a Conservation Office is charged with inspecting a bait site. with roughly 47 plus conservation officers to inspect over 800 bait sites. That averages out to roughly 17 sites per CO. But that is not the reality because some areas are baited more heavily than others. Let us call this what it really is: a burden on Fish & Game Law Enforcement. That is what is driving this legislation. But let us also bear in mind that baiting at one time required no permit and it was Fish & Game Law Enforcement that asked for that permit process.

Finally, look at the politics of this bill….Other bills discussed here in Mr Williams’ column had nearly a dozen sponsors on each. The baiting bill had just two, one of which is widely considered in political circles as a “RINO” Few legislators were willing to touch this with a ten foot pole (hyperbole intended).

This is probably the longest blog I have ever written. But far be it from me the let a Fishwrapper like the Concord Monitor besmurch an organization with such a long history as the NHWF or the sport hunters of this state.

 

>