For outdoor enthusiasts who may also hunt and fish, it seems as though we’re always faced with one challenging policy or law change after another. It’s bad enough that we must constantly be battling with our own state government over major issues that negatively would impact both conservation as well as our long established heritage activities, but that’s been the case in recent years.
What is confusing to many is why all these proposed changes, laws and regulations are being pushed on us, one after the other? If certain activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping were truly causing a problem, okay, we could live with the need to make some changes to correct it. But that’s not the case. In fact, these activities are critical to generating money for conservation as well as managing many species that would otherwise truly present major problems if left to their own natural devices.
When I was a youth, thanks to what is supply and demand in the fur industries, fox pelts were worth next to nothing and the NYS Conservation Department allowed them to be hunted or trapped year-round to attempt managing their ever-swelling population. Despite that, the fox population kept increasing to the point that a serious rabies epidemic occurred because responsible hunters and trappers hated to waste what might have been or could eventually be a valuable natural resource. The state finally had to enlist paid government trappers to help cull the overabundant fox numbers, and eventually the disease played itself out.
Now jump ahead a few decades. Pressure and heavy lobbying from well-funded animal rights organization were demanding that all hunting, trapping, or domestic use of animals, even pets, be banned. Radical animal rightists in larger cities threw red paint on anyone wearing leather or natural fur, trashed or burned medical test labs, demonstrated at dog and cat shows and harassed hunters in the fields and woods. Unfortunately the news media greatly helped the cause by sending crews to cover the events even if only a dozen or so animal rightists were there.
By and large, this was the first real indication that a surprisingly large percentage of the uninformed public and some officials could be easily swayed by media coverage, even though the cause went against common sense or facts. Send money, join us, and get on TV seemed apparently more attractive to some than accepting the complete idiocy of the cause. The organizations pushing the cause neither cared nor would face up to the consequences of their actions. If one truly analyzes the long-term effects of this, it’s no small wonder that we now find ourselves in a them-versus-us situation when it applies to managing our renewable natural resources and those who’ve successfully done so for decades.
This has evolved into what we’re currently faced with, especially in heavily urbanized states like New York, New Jersey and California. Because of the very nature of our democratic system, the people voted into office and those appointed to the higher positions tend to either come from or have an urban background. Precious few have any training or experience in understanding natural resource management and the activities that accompany them. The bulk of their knowledge is often based on perception and often influenced by what they perceive as the popular vote, much of that generated by large urban areas.
This demographic situation is vastly different in many states in the Rockies, Plains and Southeast, where agricultural, natural resource values and the residents harbor a totally different situation … one that’s based primarily on first-hand experience and lifestyles. It’s also more evident in their elected and appointed officials. Otherwise these officials wouldn’t stay in office very long. Natural resources in these states are managed by trained professionals, and laws are enacted based on factual necessity and not perceptions. Both domestic and wildlife species are seen as valuable renewal resources and not something to be totally protected. For someone coming from a large urban area, say, back East, many of these states would seem like a foreign country to them. And vice versa.
This attitude or perception differential is exactly what is causing friction here in New York. An upstate hunter or anyone owning a gun is perceived as dangerous. Why? Because guns in urban areas are so often used in the commission of crimes and not for hunting or sporting activities. And hunting and then using harvested wildlife species as food probably seems very unnatural for someone whose experience with wildlife has been confined to Central Park and city pigeons, and whose food comes strictly from the store, all processed and packaged.
So by the sheer demographic attitude trickle effect, based on the highest populated areas’ mindsets, the changes, both actual and proposed, primarily have their origins there and not in the areas where their impact will be felt the most. This is at the basis of the various changes being proposed or made in Albany that often seem to make so little sense to those of us living upstate.
My fear is that as our government drifts ever closer to what I personally perceive as being more socialistic than democratic, outdoor enthusiasts will see activities that were once taken for granted overregulated and mismanaged to the point of becoming nearly extinct or only available to a very select few. Funds that once went for natural resources projects must necessarily be diverted to support the growing urban residential needs, and to offset the losses, outdoor enthusiasts will need to cough up far more money to enjoy their chosen activities.
But it’s not too late to insure against this occurring. Regardless of your chosen outdoor activities that depend on natural resource availability, don’t assume that “someone else” will be safeguarding your interests. Keep informed and let your elected officials know, in no uncertain terms, when you don’t agree with an action or bill that will have a negative effect on you or the natural resources you enjoy.