Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 2, 1992 TAG: 9202030017
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bill Cochran
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
A BAD MOVE TO MIX HUNTING WITH POLITICS
An outdoorsman's look at the General Assembly:CHASE SEASON: Organized raccoon hunters in the western part of the state have persuaded several legislators to introduce a bill that would establish a longer chase season in their area, one that would run Aug. 1-May 31, the same as in the eastern part of the state.
Even through coon hunters have built a good case for expanding their non-consumptive season, the board of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has turned down the idea on several occasions. The frustrated hunters are attempting to circumvent the board by going to the General Assembly.
That's a bad move. It is bad because wildlife management must be accomplished in the biological, not political, arena. Lawmakers recognized that fact a few years ago when they wisely purged a whole mess of old legislative-set hunting and fishing regulations.
The chase season bill is an unfortunate return to the old way.
The issue isn't how long the chase season should be. It is this: Who is going to set wildlife regulations?
If coon hunters can get the General Assembly to do the job, so can others. Even the anti-hunters. And they are.
Going into the same hopper as the raccoon bill are bills that would prohibit swan hunting and deer hunting with dogs; bills that would control waterfowl seasons and the state's endangered species list.
Such matters must be left to game officials, who have a 75-year history of being responsible to both hunters and wildlife.
Even before the raccoon bill was introduced, the game department board had scheduled a March meeting in Richmond where serious attention is to be given to a longer chase season.
CONSERVATION PERMIT: The last thing hunters, fishermen and boat owners need is another fee. Hunting licenses, in particular, already are so expensive that some sportsmen wonder if they will have to drop out of the sport.
So why support a bill that calls for an additional $5.50 on top of a hunting or fishing licenses or a boat registration fees?
Because it is necessary. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries simply lacks the funds to operate its programs. Sixty-year-old fish hatcheries are crumbling; key wildlife habitat must be purchased while it still is available; the list of boat access needs fills a page.
Sportsmen are at the grumbling stage, but they will carry the financial burden, as they have for 75 years, and do so with pride. This time, however, there needs to be some assurances.
For one, there can be no more raids on our money, as was the case last year when $1.2 million was switched from the boating fund to the general fund. That money must be returned.
Secondly, sportsmen need some help with funding wildlife and conservation efforts. They should get it from the other segments of society that also are benefited.
For two years, a subcommittee of legislators has studied ways to broaden the financial base of the game and fish department. The Conservation Permit came out of that study, but the committee needs to be way more innovative than that. It is asking for a chance to continue its work. Let's hope it uncovers some real solutions this time.
STREAM POSTING: Legislators did well to kill Chip Woodrum's stream posting bill. While there were some fine anglers who favored it, there were just too many uncertainties associated with it when given careful scrutiny.
GUN LEGISLATION: Good people frequently are perplexed when hunters and gun owners resist firearms legislation, especially when it appears to be aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of kids and criminals.
Just why sportsmen often are reluctant to embrace gun legislation can be seen in a bill that was introduced by Sen. Benjamin Lambert, D-Richmond. It would prohibit the carrying of a loaded firearm on public property in any locality of the commonwealth. That would include schools and city parks.
But what about the more than 2 million acres of national forest land in Virginia, and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries wildlife areas? Aren't they public property? Wouldn't the bill prohibit a hunter from carrying a loaded gun when after deer or other game?