Dueling Duo: Choose your Weapon
March 21, 2008
The Dueling Duo
Con
By Ron Spomer
We’ve been so busy battling the anti-gun and anti-hunting forces that we might have missed a big one right under our noses - state fish and game agencies that establish our hunting seasons.
Huh?
I’ll admit this may be a reach, but maybe not. The way many hunting seasons are set up is eroding our gun rights and jeopardizing our hunting heritage. For instance, you cannot hunt deer in Ohio, Iowa or Illinois (and probably a lot of other states) with a modern, centerfire rifle. Ostensibly this is for safety reasons, but I’ve seen no statistics that show higher accidents per participant in Missouri, South Dakota or Minnesota where centerfires are legal. How many .270s, .243s and 300 WSMs languish on dealer shelves because thousands of deer hunters in these anti-rifle states aren’t allowed to use them?
But wait! There’s more. Many states, coincidentally overrun with whitetails, hold open firearms deer seasons for just three or four days per year. As the kids ask, “What’s up with that?” If a crowded Eastern state like South Carolina can host an open rifle deer season that’s nearly three months long, why must Illinois restrict theirs to one three-day season followed by another four-day season a week later? Such tight schedules lead to frenetic if not frantic behavior in which frustrated hunters are pressured into cutting corners and bending, if not breaking, laws. Quick. Shoot before someone else does. Take a risky shot because it might be the only one you get before the season is over. There are no second chances, no time to pattern a buck, no time to gain permission to hunt the other side of a fence line, no time to wait for a better shot, no time to practice the highest, ethical woodsmanship and hunt a deer properly. Just shoot. Such crazy, ridiculously short seasons don’t justify unethical or illegal behavior, but they sure encourage it.
Another example of anti-gun regulations are archery deer seasons. In most jurisdictions these seasons open in September or October and sometimes run right up to the abbreviated gun season in late November or early December. Then they reopen for another month or two. Naturally, this provides wonderful opportunities for bowhunters who get the time to hunt the right way. They also get the first opportunities and the best opportunities. They hunt the summer pattern bucks, pre-rut bucks, rutting bucks and often wintering bucks that are concentrated on low elevation fields and valleys. They kill many of the biggest, oldest, monster bucks of the year before rifle hunters are allowed out of the house.
That’s all well and good if the resource isn’t compromised by the pressure, and it rarely is. But why the bias in favor of bowhunters? Why should they get all the breaks, all the best opportunities and all that time in the field? Because rifles are more efficient at harvesting game? That’s the only semi-legitimate reason I can think of. But who gave government bureaucrats the power to tell us, the unwashed masses who own the wildlife in this country, that we must limit ourselves in weapon selection for harvesting our meat? And if they can, why don’t they shorten the bow season and offer a spear season? That would bring in even more license sales and impact the resource even less. Take this to its conclusion and we’d all be limited to camera seasons.
Am I overreacting? Sure. But these are still legitimate points. As our out-of-control human population continues to gobble up wildlife habitat, gun restrictions continue to limit hunting options. Idaho, for goodness sakes, already has bow or shotgun-only deer hunting zones. So does Montana. Certainly we don’t want 338 Magnums going off in suburban deer habitat, that’s the place for arrows. But why must rifle hunters stay home for three months while archers roam the backwoods and wilderness?
A simple argument is to shut up and start bowhunting. Sorry. Been doing that since 1967. That doesn’t fix the problem of inequitable distribution of hunting opportunity. Rifle hunters shouldn’t be penalized because bow hunting is “harder.” A more sensible approach would be to set harvest goals, then dole out licenses in sufficient number to meet those goals, based on average harvest statistics, and let the tag holder decide whether he wants to use a gun, bow or slingshot during a long season so he/she can hunt properly.
Okay, that won’t fly because bowhunters don’t want the competition. Besides, with the increased success rate by firearms hunters, fewer tags could be sold, and that would impact Fish and Game budgets. So, here’s a compromise - sell, auction or select by lottery a certain number of firearms tags that can be used during the bow season, during the rut, pre-rut or on the wintering grounds. Give non-bowhunters at least a small chance to enjoy the best hunting of the year, too. And stop the anti-gun bias.
Pro
By Scott Grange
Thirteen years ago, when mule deer herds were at alarmingly low levels throughout the West, I sat on a committee made up of wildlife managers, sportsmen and industry folks. Our assignment was to analyze biological and cultural carrying capacities along with mule deer studies. From this data, we were asked to make recommendations to the wildlife board as to what direction the state should proceed with their long term management strategies.
I can still feel the frustrations as we met, month after month. What magical formula could we possibly come up with to increase buck-to-doe ratios while desperately attempting to maintain hunter numbers? As the National Shooting Sports Foundation painted a gloomy picture of America’s hunting future, I can’t relate in writing the helpless feeling we all shared early on.
A significant factor none of us could ignore was that the state’s population, many who were hunters, was exploding and the resource could no longer handle this increase considering the state’s current management practice. Add to that the fact that the majority of deer hunters chose to hunt with a rifle - very few took to the field with a muzzleloader or archery tackle. Hmmmm.
As with any diverse group, opinions and personal desires couldn’t help but surface on occasion. However, there was one area that we all seemed to agree upon during the many, sometimes heated, exchanges. One did not have to possess a doctorate degree in wildlife management to note the insignificant success ratios within the archery hunting segment. If there was one bright spot amongst all the gloomy data, it was with this group - using one of the oldest means of harvesting an animal. The trick would be to convince more folks to participate in the primitive weapons seasons, while placing less emphasis on centerfire rifles. In other words, increase hunter opportunity through less effective methods and thus inflict less impact on the resource. This concept had already been put to use by many Eastern and mid-Western states with tremendous success. Nonetheless, some cried foul, and there were those who swore it was a conspiracy to eliminate hunting with firearms.
Today, although we continue to struggle with mule deer management challenges, we in the West are experiencing good times for the most part. Deer numbers are on the increase in most areas, record book entries are up and harvest numbers are steady. Oh, and I might add that archery hunter numbers are at an all-time high. Why? Because archery opportunity has increased significantly. Have we lost overall hunter numbers in the past ten years? Yes, but that is a very complex issue and remains a major concern not only to the Western states, but to the entire industry. However, what would have been the impact locally had we not taken the steps we did?
If it were up to me, like fishing, I’d make archery season a year around event for those willing to call this their only deer hunt. I know that this strategy sounds a bit extreme, but if this is what it takes to salvage the resource while providing opportunity, I’m all for it. It’s not gun control, its responsible resource management.
Comments
Got something to say?