cuchulainn
Member
from the SF Chronicle
DFG in tug-of-war between hunters, anti-hunters
Tom Stienstra
The debate over two anti-hunting bills has put the Department of Fish and Game right in the middle of a tug of war between long-time adversaries. On one side are hunters, often from rural areas, who have funded conservation programs though license fees, hunting tags and donations to protect and restore wildlife populations through habitat work.
On the other side are anti-hunters, usually from cities, who usually oppose any form of hunting.
Then there's the DFG, right smack in the middle, which manages wildlife and is funded largely by a variety of user fees, including from hunters.
"There's a big fiscal impact, the economic benefits of hunting," said Lorna Bernard, who completed an analysis of the bills for the DFG. Yet at the same time, the growing urban populations in California "are less supportive of hunting," she said. "And that's the trend we're seeing," Bernard said, "a more urbanized population."
One proposal, AB 342, would make it illegal for hunters to use dogs when hunting mammals such as bears, raccoons and rabbits. The other, Assembly Bill 1190, would remove dove as a gamebird and ban hunting them. According to the DFG, populations of both bear and dove are in good condition in California.
The Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife originally scheduled to hear both bills on Tuesday, but that hearing has been reset for April 9. The bills are supported and contested by polarized opposites. The most notable support is coming from the Humane Society, which wrote and sponsored what is known as "The Dog Bill," AB 342, as well as the Animal Protection Institute and others. The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) and Western Outdoor News have organized opposition to the bills, and hope to defeat them at the first committee hearing.
The governor's office, not state wildlife experts, will determine the DFG's positions.
"We're running them up through the chain, to the governor's office, for official positions," said Sonke Mastrup, deputy director for the wildlife and inland fisheries division of the DFG. "We've talked extensively about the bills and they left here in agreement." He did not say what that agreement was.
Bill Karr, the editor of Western Outdoor News who has taken a lead position to defeat the bills, objected to Gov. Davis determining the DFG's support or opposition to the anti-hunting proposals.
"The debate in the Department of Fish and Game should be between the scientists and biologists based on the needs of wildlife," Karr said. "By the governor getting involved, it turns this into a political decision, not a scientific decision."
One reason duck hunters are getting involved, according to the California Waterfowl Association, is because of a potential domino effect regarding future hunting laws. Duck hunters often use dogs to retrieve waterfowl. They fear if dogs are banned when hunting mammals, then in a domino effect, the anti-hunters will next move to ban the use of dogs on bird hunts. Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-Los Angeles, who is sponsoring the "Dog Bill," said the primary issue is fair chase. Through an aid, Koretz said that dog packs will chase and tree bears, allowing hunters to shoot bears out of trees. That is why the use of dogs on bear hunts is already banned in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
Because of the contentious of the debate over these bills, Bernard has posted a Q&A for dove and dove hunting on the DFG's website, www.dfg.ca.org. She said a similar Q&A would likely be posted by the end of the week on the proposal to ban dogs on mammal hunts. Bernard said the increasing polarization of California between rural and urban areas shades the debate. "It's something we see and talk about," she said.
Karr agreed with that assessment. "It's one thing after another," Karr said. "Like Prop. 117 to make mountain lions a protected species, then the ban on trapping, all the new gun laws, all these things coming out of cities that affect how things are out in the field."
E-mail Tom Stienstra at [email protected].
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
