New easy answers on firearms

Earlier this week, the temperature at my house was -30 degrees. The combination of cold and other responsibilities kept me from venturing forth on some outdoors adventure I could write about. I’ve had to live vicariously through reading and thought I’d pass a few things along.

Don’t forget the Matanuska Valley Sportsmen’s Association gun show at Raven Hall next Saturday and Sunday, Feb. 9-10. Hopefully, the weather will be a little warmer and without ice.

A fellow member of the Mat-Su Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission (MSBFWC) shared a scientific article he found recently addressing the realities of so-called “overescapement” of salmon on resulting salmon populations and the environment. In my quick read through the paper, it appeared to support virtually everything we have been saying for years about this meaningless argument used by the commercial fishermen and Fish and Game to justify additional commercial fishing periods to harvest overly abundant Kenai and Kasilof sockeye salmon stocks.

Because of the mixed-stock nature of salmon returning to Cook Inlet, the extra fishing periods to harvest Kenai/Kasilof stocks also involve harvesting far less abundant Northern District sockeye stocks and, later in the season, Northern District coho stocks as well. As a result, our Susitna/Yentna sockeye have been in a Stock of Concern status since 2008 for low returns and our Little Susitna coho stocks, for example, have failed to make minimum escapement goals for the last four years.

My quick take on the article is that about the worst thing “overescapement” does is possibly lower the efficiency of the spawner-to-return ratio. Having “too many fish” on the spawning grounds can actually improve genetic diversity within the population and provide the extra nutrients necessary to keep the ecosystem functioning in a healthy condition. I want to study the article a little more before I launch into a full-blown discussion, but I found nothing in the information presented to indicate a so-called overescapement of salmon every few years was necessarily a bad thing. Rather, additional fish on the spawning grounds beyond the bare minimum required could benefit the environment as well as the specific fish population involved.

The gun control debate is everywhere in the media, including this newspaper. I’ve read some articles recently that have partially restored my faith that some folks are trying to seriously address the overall issues and not just ban guns.

An opinion piece in Wednesday’s USA Today by the USA Today editorial board made some valid suggestions on reforms that would have a more significant impact on gun violence than just banning some types of firearms. The board is suggesting five steps: more inclusive background checks on buyers, improving the quality of the mental health database used in these background checks, significantly increasing penalties for straw purchasers, stepped up prosecution of so-called rogue dealers, and increase the public’s awareness of their responsibilities as gun owners to keep their firearms secure.

The more inclusive background check raises questions. I hold a federal firearms license, or FFL, and know the process dealers must follow when transferring a firearm. If suddenly all firearms transfers require a background check, how will it be handled? There’s currently a process whereby the FBI can identify me as a dealer when I call for a background check. How will they identify a “civilian” seller?

If all transfers were required to go through dealers, who pays for the cost increase in calls for background checks that will require additional personnel and phone lines to handle the increased call volume? How will dealers know if the firearm to be transferred is legally owned or perhaps was stolen and being “fenced” back into circulation? I have other questions as well.

Every dealer, including me, who is required to perform this background check will charge some fee for their services and time in completing paperwork, further complicating the transfer.

Rebecca D. Costa, a columnist also writing in Wednesday’s USA Today, brought up a troubling point from within the mental health discussion — how do you deal with an individual who has lost the will to live and has decided to take others with them when they go? This is similar to the actions of the Islamic suicide bombers, but done with different motives. The bombers are willing to die to further their religious beliefs while these mass-murderers have simply made a decision to die, in many cases as a reaction to antidepressant prescription drugs they are taking. I don’t have an answer.

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.