Opinion » Letters

 Is money the reason?

San Luis Obispo

by

comment

Regarding “Bear hunting plan draws fire” (April 2), there is an inconsistency between the California Fish and Game Commission report and the CEQA analysis regarding bear hunting. One of the reasons given for not choosing “No change” or “Increase the in-season bear harvest” is that notification to hunters when the limit is reached is “costly and unnecessary.” Yet the paragraph under “Early season closures” states, “This has occurred only twice in the last six years.” Under CEQA, the answer to the question regarding “Cost or Savings to State” is “None.”  Which is it, “costly” or “none”? Is it for safety? In the report there was no serious concern for bear overpopulation. Neither were sightings and highway encounters listed as concerns.
 
With sufficient prey in the other southern counties, there is no need for bears to expand north. In addition, the report acknowledges there is relatively little public land on which to hunt in San Luis Obispo County. Is the impetus for private persons to make money by allowing hunters onto their property? Is this an appropriate reason upon which Fish and Game should make a decision?

-- Betty Winholtz - Morro Bay

-- Betty Winholtz - Morro Bay

-- Betty Winholtz - Morro Bay

Add a comment