I have read with a mix of amusement and disgust the advertisements run by the "Coalition to Stop Hunting Now."
This "coalition" is attempting to ban hunting in the Shrewsbury and Navesink rivers based on its "abhorrence" to "senseless killing," the old reliable "child safety" issue and of course, the noise created by the hunters (gunshots).
I’m not a hunter, am a big fan of animals, and can certainly understand the objection to killing. However, if this were really a concern of the coalition, why is it only focusing its efforts on these locations?
I haven’t noticed any ads from individuals who have extra money on their hands trying to organize to try and counter the primary threat to wildlife in this area (i.e., loss and destruction of habitat). Perhaps the hypocrisy of this would be too obvious for them to ignore, especially considering their personal watercraft, bulkheads, boat docks, and chemically created lawns are the proximate cause.
Imagine if, by some miracle, ducks or other wildlife reclaimed their former habitat (currently known as the yards of the coalition members). If they saw a duck deposit its dropping on the lawn, these people would be petitioning state and local officials to hire sharpshooters, net, or otherwise eradicate these "pests" with everything short of tactical air strikes. And hey, by the way, how about allowing hunting to control the population? Contrast this with the hunters whose effect on the duck population is negligible and actually do something (via license fees, etc.) to promote conservation. The people who are having a hard time explaining to their kids why hunters are shooting the ducks should try the same story they used to tell them where their "Happy Meals" come from.
As far as child safety goes, I know you can usually justify just about anything in this country based on this overused excuse. However, the several individuals quoted in the article have sufficiently debunked this as an issue based on the effective range of the weapons involved and other restrictions on where and how hunting is conducted.
For a practical example of this, note that walking on the side of a road can be safe if done properly. It seems that now one of the primary functions of government is to idiot-proof the world. However, since there hasn’t been one incident of anything ever happening in the long history of duck hunting in these rivers, why restrict the rights of citizens to conduct a legal and apparently safe activity?
What is really bothering these people is noise.
It seems they just don’t like to be awakened early on the weekend for a few weeks a year during hunting season. I guess to them this is sufficient reason to ban an activity that has been going on in this area without incident for more than 100 years. For the most part, this seems like relative newcomers to the area whose motto is "I really like the area, but I just need these natives to do X, Y and Z to make it more to my liking."
There is one other thing I noticed in the article, which I found very disturbing. The woman spearheading this effort says she won’t reveal her identity for fear of reprisals from hunters.
However, from what I gather from the article, she is in receipt of some communication from one of her supporters threatening to "become the hunters’ worst nightmare — if I don’t kill them first." Isn’t making this type of terrorist threat a crime?
Likewise, isn’t it illegal to be in receipt of these threats and not notify the police? I would hope the authorities are investigating. Seems that to some in the coalition group, killing hunters might fall into the category of "sensible" killing.
Jim Nowicki,
Oceanport