Don’t get all strung up over hunting

Today is Veterans Day. Because of the efforts and sacrifices of our American veterans through the years, we have the ability to exercise, among other things, our freedom of speech and to read this newspaper. Because of our veterans, we have the ability to pick and choose what we do read, even if the material disagrees with mainstream thinking about issues.

And because of our veterans, we can read those newspapers in English! Remember to thank a veteran today for their service to our country. Also, spend a moment remembering those veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms.

Last week, I discussed some aspects of bowhunting in Alaska and mentioned that the Alaska Board of Game (BOG) will address a few crossbow and general archery proposals at its statewide meeting in Anchorage early next year. I’d like to continue that discussion.

Personally, I don’t see any problem with allowing a modern crossbow to be used during the archery-only hunts. As I stated last week, the crossbow is no faster or more powerful than modern compound bows. In fact, I pointed out some actual disadvantages of selecting a crossbow to hunt with over a compound bow. So what’s the problem? As with most disagreements, the core of the problem can be traced to a misunderstanding of facts, a personal bias or acceptance of incorrect information regarding the situation.

In my opinion, there is another element here that I have personally seen and had to deal with in my associations with various public groups involved in the fish and game regulatory process. That element is a fear of change.

Usually every year sees several proposals before the BOG asking for more weapons-restricted hunts. These hunts are often archery-only requests, but the muzzleloading groups get their share of requests in, too. Personally, I’d also like to see a few hunts restricted to handguns only, but that probably won’t happen in my lifetime. Why? I can only tell you what I’ve been told by those who routinely object to any and all special-interest hunts.

That argument is usually worded like this: “I object to creating a ‘special-interest hunt’ because that is giving a special advantage to one small group of hunters over all the others, and isn’t fair to the rifle hunters who are trying to put meat in the freezer for their families. If they want to go hunting, let them use a rifle like everybody else and be done with it.”

This sentiment is usually voiced by an older hunter with many decades of Alaska hunting experience. This meat hunter apparently doesn’t understand that some folks enjoy the hunt for the experience itself as much as the ability to harvest some meat. This person perhaps never thought about the idea of joining that “special-interest” group or feels that buying a compound bow or a muzzleloading rifle and learning how to use that new equipment is beyond their abilities or finances. Whatever the reason, the attitude is “I have mine and I don’t want anybody else to get something that might reduce what I already have!”

A rather closed-minded way of viewing hunting opportunity, don’t you think?

The BOG and Fish and Game have primary responsibility to protect the various wildlife resources so they continue to produce on a sustained yield basis over time. The two agencies’ secondary responsibility is to provide as much opportunity as possible to use the harvestable portion of that wildlife resource. If you use the most efficient hunting tool available (a modern high-powered rifle) when dealing with a numerically limited wildlife resource, you necessarily reduce the opportunity to participate in the hunt because a significant percentage of hunters will harvest game.

If you create hunts using a less-efficient harvesting tool (bow, crossbow, muzzleloader, handgun), you can put more hunters in the field and know the number of animals harvested will not increase, thus protecting the health of the population while providing a maximum level of public participation. I know we Alaskans don’t do it like they do Outside, but sometimes ignoring the obvious does more harm than good. What is the problem with allowing an additional relatively inefficient hunting tool which won’t hurt population numbers but which will provide additional hunting opportunity?

I received an e-mail from a reader about last week’s column. He said that my comments gave him pause for thought about crossbows. He also raised a good point. If the BOG should include crossbows as archery equipment, would those crossbow users be subject to the same certification requirements currently mandated for bowhunters? I certainly hope so. The bowhunter education program would need some adjustment to discuss the specifics of crossbow hunting (perhaps a separate course). Just because you’re hunting with a different type of tool doesn’t mean you are exempt from showing that you understand and have mastered the use of that tool.

Another archery proposal coming before the BOG would require the use of a lighted nock on an arrow or bolt when hunting moose and all bears. The proposer is a registered guide and his thinking is that the lighted nock would allow all observers the ability to analyze the shot – was it a good hit? The backup shooter or guide would be better able to quickly decide whether a follow-up shot is necessary, especially with a wounded bear. To me, this proposal makes sense. What will the BOG think? We’ll see in January.

Howard Delo is a retired fisheries biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. You can leave him a message by emailing sports@frontiersman.com.