By Jordan Estrada, Merrimack NH
In approximately 44 states across the nation, hunters can report harvested game online or over the phone. This year, NH had a chance to join those ranks with the introduction of HB322 – a bill that would create an online check system for reporting wild turkey harvests. But on February 14th, the NH general court voted 227-150 to kill the bill, consigning NH to a group of about 6 states that still require hunters to physically transport harvested game to in-person check stations.
Why did NH lawmakers decide to continue an antiquated process while the rest of the country is moving toward a streamlined, technological approach? Of course, NH Fish and Game needs the reports from hunters for accurate biological data collection, but this can be obtained electronically as well as physically.
If asked, proponents of the old-fashioned check stations say requiring hunters to present carcasses for inspection is the best way to catch violators – for instance, seeing if a deer was shot with a breach loading rifle during muzzle loading season. But there’s a couple problems with that argument.
Poachers and criminals who intentionally violate hunting laws aren’t going to turn themselves in at check stations where officials can conveniently catch them red-handed. If check stations are the only antidote to rampant poaching, where is the evidence that this problem has ensued in the 44 states with online game checks? You won’t find it for one simple reason: the vast majority of hunters are ethical, law abiding citizens who care deeply about the ecosystem and can be trusted to accurately report their harvests via any medium.
Another concern with using check stations to police hunters has nothing to do with hunting, but relates to civil rights. Does the state requirement for hunters to present their game as potential evidence against themselves violate article 15 of the NH constitution? Like the 5th amendment in the US constitution, article 15 protects NH residents from self-incrimination. Article 15 specifically states that a citizen shall not be “compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself.” But that’s exactly why NH regulators want to keep the physical check stations – it requires hunters to “furnish evidence” against themselves if they’ve messed up in compliance with hunting regulations. Legal experts should consider whether this requirement is constitutional.
Beyond that, physical check stations create a myriad of extra burdens on hunters. Check stations tend to be 30-60 minutes away from hunting areas, so 1-2 hours of driving time has to be added to any successful hunt.
Worse, check stations have limited hours, especially around holidays, precisely when most hunters have time off to spend in the woods. The law always presents logistical challenges for late afternoon hunters who may not get their game out of the woods and to the check station before close of business, and may need to work the next day. And backcountry hunts (where game needs to be processed in the field and packed out) are simply out of the question.
So, who decided to deny NH hunters access to the easy reporting system hunters in 44 other states enjoy? When the votes were counted on HB322, it was 92% of democrats who voted against this bill, while almost every Republican voted for it. This is troubling, because turkey hunting should not be a partisan issue in a pro-hunting, outdoor-enthused state like NH. NH hunters deserve an answer from the NH lawmakers who opposed this bill en masse. Do our NH representatives know something about hunting the rest of the nation doesn’t? Or are NH Democrats pursuing a regulation-heavy approach that would be sharply out of place in the individualistic, liberty-minded culture of the “live free or die” state?
In our current digital age, it’s only a matter of time before 100% of states move to an automated, online approach to game checking. NH missed the boat this year – let’s not be the last state to get onboard.
