I’m one of the first to recognize and appreciate the value of a government “of the people and by the people”.  That ideal is largely what has provided the citizens of this country with the freedoms so many of us cherish.  With that in mind, I can see the benefit of some sort of “initiative process”, such as the one we have in CA.  If The People want change, they should be able to initiate it and put it before the voters to decide.  However, I’m also one of the first to recognize that what has come to pass over the generations is, on a large scale, government of the people by the corporate interests, and on a smaller scale, government of the people by the squeaky wheels. 

Now I could go down the rabbit hole on this, but that’s not really what I’m here for.  However, there’s an aspect of this that’s really been gnawing at me in regards to the whole Initiative Process.  There are certain areas that should definitely NOT be governed by the fickle voice of popular opinion. Wildlife management is one of these.

This has all been driven home most recently by the fiasco over the expansion of the bear hunting seasons and territories here in CA.  The black bear population has been, by all accounts, booming across the Golden State over the past several years.  The animals are turning up in large numbers, and are moving into areas where they haven’t been seen in ages.  They’re also expanding in already overpopulated areas, such as the Lake Tahoe resort community, and they’re wreaking havoc with homeowners’ property.  It’s a matter of time before there’s a serious bear vs human incident up there. 

Department of Fish and Game biologists have determined that the increased population could stand heavier hunting pressure, and recommended dropping the current harvest quota on black bears (currently set at 1700 bears per season).  They’ve also recommended opening up bear hunting in areas that were previously closed, and allowing houndsmen to use GPS devices to track their dogs (they already use radio telemetry). 

Anti-hunting organizations, including HSUS and Sierra Club (yes, Sierra Club has shed their guise of being a hunter-friendly organization) railed against the proposal because… well, as best I can tell, it’s because they don’t like bear hunting.  They don’t really offer a single, valid, logical argument against it.  But we should all know by now that logic and science have little to do with anti-hunting sentiment. 

As a result of the uproar and some negative press, the Fish and Game Commission have decided to back off of the regulatory changes.  Why?  Because, as Commissioner Michael Sutton (you know, the one who has a “problem with big game hunting”) says in an AP interview, “we’re one initiative away from a ban on all carnivores like mountain lions and bears.”

On the one hand, he’s probably right.  It was an initiative that removed management of mountain lions from the hands of CA wildlife officials based on little more than emotional propaganda.  Antis are hard at it crafting and recrafting initiative efforts to ban dove hunting using the same argument, and given the political and social environment of this state, it won’t be long before they succeed.  I have very little doubt that an initiative to ban bear hunting would eventually pass as well. 

On the other hand, that’s a piss poor way to manage wildlife. 

It’s way past time to remove wildlife management decisions from the hands of an ignorant and easily misguided public.  I know I’m not the first to bring this up, and hopefully I won’t be the last, but there has got to be a way to separate wildlife managment decisions from the political process, not only in CA, but in every state.

Related Posts