Trying
to find compromise – concessions by each side – in the proposal
to require coyote hunters to also obtain a trapping license may have
breached the discord surrounding the subject.
If
so, than the rancor, confusion, and mistrust circling the proposal is
at an end.
Even
so, nothing is written in fine print, let alone, stone. Consequently,
the Ohio Division of Wildlife can move out of its corner and toward a
middle ground.
Until
it does, however, the whole cloth needs looking at with a jaundiced
eye.
What
the agency is proposing is that coyote hunters – not just trappers
- first buy a trapping tag before shooting an animal.
Yes,
I now, the agency insists that it is really a “fur-taker” permit.
In truth, however, something on the order of 75 percent of the
licenses issued are believed to find their way into the wallets of
trappers - not hunters - who pursue raccoons, fox and the like.
Fact
is, “fur-taker permit” is one of those journalistic
sour-lemon-tasting euphemisms on the order of “harvest” instead
of “kill.” Or “antlerless permit” instead of “doe tag.”
But I digress.
The
agency’s proposal also calls for a season on the trapping of
coyotes to align with that of other “fur-bearers” which are
trapped, namely raccoons and fox.
Before
a compromise can be reached it is important to note as well the
Wildlife Division bungled this affair from the get-go. This, in a
similar fashion to the Wildlife Division’s premature launch of a
bobcat season in 2018.
The
agency’s press release on the coyote proposal was a mush-mash of
information. The document’s poorly worded paragraph featuring the
matter was condensed into a sentence that melded hunting with
trapping; the run-on lead failing to separate the two subjects.
Then
too, the paragraph continued by noting a season for trapping but
neglecting to specifically exclude the information that it does not
apply to hunting. Again, here is where two short sentences instead of
one poorly written would have better served the reader.
Far
worse is the manner in which the Wildlife Division came up with the
proposal. It never mentions they were really the offspring of the
state’s trappers. Thus the agency failed to appreciate and
understand that hunters needed to be brought into the loop before –
and not, after – the proposal was launched. In effect, the Wildlife
Division blind-sided those to whom the proposals would most impact:
coyote hunters
In
short, this proposal was inadequately vetted. In much the same manner
the Wildlife Division groped about with the 2018 bobcat season
scheme.
Yet
the proposal is not without merit. For this reason it is salvageable.
With concessions and with compromise, certainly.
Clearly
someone who shoots coyotes with the intent of selling their hide
ought to pay something for that activity. Just as do those who hunt
raccoons, fox and the like.
Even
so, a person sitting in a deer stand or blind, participating in a
deer drive, or waiting for a woodchuck to appear on the edge of a cut
hay field ought not to face a fine for taking the incidental coyote.
If
one shoots a coyote and keeps it for personal use; a mount, a rug, or
whatever that individual ought not to have to buy an additional
license. Yes, even if the Wildlife Division bays at the moon how
trapping license sales have taken a 41-percent nosedive over the past
10 years.
A
possible solution here features the idea that if a person brings a
coyote pelt into a licensed fur-trader/buyer than that individual
must also show he possesses a trapping license.
As
for landowners who trap or shoot coyotes on their own property,
handle that matter the same way the taking of deer, beaver, otter,
and whatever is handed now.
The
season thing is a bit more tricky. While the Wildlife Division is
recommending coyote trappers observe a season, no such demand is
being asked of hunters. Hunters therefore could still shoot coyotes
all year long.
Some
trappers might argue this compromise is a gift to coyote hunters
who’ll want to turn a profit on their pelts. Hunters – these
trappers might advance - would get a jump on the
taking/killing/harvesting of coyotes before a likely early November
trapping season date arrives.
Perhaps,
though that possibility is far less odious than demanding an
additional state-mandated license on a hunter who simply took
advantage of an opportunity to shoot a coyote.
Like
I said: Compromise is all about making concessions. And this
arrangement seems to meet that criteria.
Take
the bargain, Wildlife Division; you’ve upset enough people as it is
with a poorly launched proposal.
JFrischk@Ameritech.net
JFrischk4@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment