Where hunters and wildlife enthusiasts collide

Jenny Neyman
The interests and perspectives of hunters and wildlife watchers often clash, but it’s rare that they collide in so dramatic and disgusting a fashion as they did Saturday along the Seward Highway downstream of the Russian River Ferry.
Two hunters are reported to have shot and killed a male, subadult brown bear in full view of a crowd of onlookers – including children – that had been watching and photographing the bear in the Kenai River just moments before.
In the time it took the bear to climb up an embankment from the river, cross the highway and start running up the hill on the other side, it went from being a target of cameras to a target of rifles; a highlight of the day for a crowd of onlookers to a nightmarish scene they won’t soon be able to shake.
As the bear started up the hill, two men in camo and carrying rifles chased after it and shot it twice in the rear, an observer said. The observer reported that the bear rolled down the hill, flopping in a still-alive heap next to the road, where the men finished it off – all in full view of the crowd of horrified onlookers.
When done as it should be, hunting is not horrifying. It is not disgusting. It is not unethical. It is messy and uncomfortable for some to watch, but it is – or, at least, should be – a meaningful and utilitarian endeavor that instills more respect for the food we eat than shopping at a grocery store ever will.
What happened Saturday was not that kind of hunting.
Taking each facet of the incident individually, some arguments could be made to support what the men are reported to have done.
For one thing, the bear is a bear. Just because it was entertaining afternoon wildlife watchers doesn’t make it any less a wild animal than is permissible to hunt with the proper permit in the proper area during the proper timeframe.
For another, hunters should be able to take advantage of an “easy” shot. If a hunter lucks into their prey with a minimal amount of effort, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take the kill, as long as it is lawful to do so.
There is debate over whether the men were on the road or not when they shot. The matter is under investigation. Fish and Game regulations prohibit shooting from on or across a road. A state statute also prohibits discharging firearms within a state highway right-of-way, and a federal dictate covering that section of highway prohibits firing within a quarter mile on either side of the road.
It sounds as though the kill violates those regulations. But even if it was legal, it was not right.
Yes, a bear is a bear, and it is valuable as prey for hunters every bit as much as it is entertainment for wildlife viewers. But there are appropriate ways to draw the line between hunting with cameras and hunting with bullets, and this was not it.
This killing was disrespectful to the onlookers, created a dangerous situation for the crowd with the possibility of a wounded bear on the loose and created the possibility of a dangerous situation for traffic if the bear, the hunters or the onlookers ended up on the road.
What’s more, it was disrespectful to the bear. Who knows what influence the people had on the bear’s behavior or its decision to cross the highway. Hunters may get lucky in the field, but they shouldn’t traffic on a situation like this, created or contributed to by people enjoying the bear for an entirely different reason. Especially not when the kill is carried out with “you got a problem with that?” swagger.
Being disrespectful and unsafe does not honor the Alaska tradition of providing for oneself by the bounty and mercy of nature.
This killing wasn’t an honorable hunt. It was a disgrace.

Subscribe via RSS

Subscribe via email