Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 11, 1992 TAG: 9202110042
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: B8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bill Cochran
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
HUNTERS BEWARE OF ERODING RIGHTS
Let me say right up front, I have no desire to hunt swans. Yet, I felt considerable relief when the General Assembly voted to carry over for a year a bill that would have banned swan hunting in Virginia.At issue wasn't whether swans should be hunted, but who should manage wildlife in the state.
Should it be done by the 75-year-old Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, with its staff of biologists, its governor-appointed board of directors and its input from citizens across the state?
Or should it be carried out in the crowded halls of the General Assembly by people who often lack the time and expertise to carefully consider all aspects of this science?
When that is the choice, I am going to side with the game and fish department every time, having watched it carry out its duties for 30 years.
Virginia has had a modest swan season since 1988. Under a tightly controlled permit system, hunters have been killing about 120 to 150 birds annually, roughly 3 percent of the population.
The season, which is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is justified under the theory that swan populations are increasing and limited hunts are desirable to maintain population objectives while providing recreational hunting.
Because the swan is glamorous, and not abundant like squirrels or deer, the animal-rights groups recognize it as a species over which people - even hunters - can be swayed by emotional rhetoric.
Hunters need to think this through: If swan hunting is banned, what's next? Bear hunting? Wood duck hunting?
In a news release last week, Heidi Prescott, the national outreach director for the Fund For Animals, Inc., said: "Killing them [swans] for recreation is as offensive as hunting a dog or cat, and about as sporting. Even avid hunters such as Delegate Purkey . . . find killing swans offensive."
Harry Purkey, R-Virginia Beach, a man who describes himself as a life-long hunter, introduced the swan bill.
Hunters must be careful not to lend support to anti-hunting groups, even unintentionally.
While the debate was taking place in the General Assembly, federal and state wildlife officials were conducting their annual midwinter waterfowl survey. It showed a 62-percent increase in Virginia tundra swan numbers.
The fact that this magnificent creature has been doing well should be cause for elation rather than for attacks on hunting.
Swans already have reached the point where they are causing problems for crops and for habitat vital to other wildlife. Hunting should be retained as a management option. Overprotection can be a death trap not just for swans, but other species that rely on the same habitat.
Too often, protectionists overlook the fact that the major threat to this species isn't hunting, but loss of habitat, particularly in nesting areas. Hunters have recognized that for years.
Protectionist groups prefer to spend their resources in attempts to stop hunting, through season closures, and in efforts to destroy the autonomy of game and fish departments.
In its news release, the Fund For Animals described the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as "partisan" for opposing the swan bill, while those who favored it were described as "scientists, swan experts and wildlife advocates."
The bill should have been killed in committee. Since it wasn't, it is destined to be back next session, because game and fish officials aren't likely to back down on the swan season when they set waterfowl regulations in August.
Purkey has promised he will be back in 1993. He can count on support from the animal-rights people.
The big question is, how tough a stand will hunters take?