As most people probably agree, our governing institutions and many of our citizens have found it more difficult in the past decade to enter into real dialogue with the “other side” and compromise.
We have become paralyzed with our absolute opinions, and less able to hear people who we disagree with, including myself.
Whether to allow hunting in some of Northampton’s conservation areas is not the most critical of issues we are facing. However, we should try to compromise. In the past several months, there have been a number of letters to the editor and guest columns on both sides of the issue, and I assume some conversations between the city and the different factions.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a reasonably sized representative group of hunters, city officials, naturalists and conservation advocates sit down face-to-face and try to come to a compromise solution? How else can you clarify your opinion, present relevant statistics, and mutually explore common ground?
Possible discussion topics include: Are the three proposed areas really rarely used by hikers? Do statistics support the claim that non-hunters are almost never injured? Why aren’t the 50-plus state parks and wildlife refuge areas in western Massachusetts not sufficient for hunters to use instead? Are 217 days per year of allowed hunting necessary? Given the rise in Lyme disease, should the deer population be reduced? Who will be responsible for public education and enforcement if hunting is allowed? Can we learn from other Massachusetts towns, including Amherst, that allow hunting on a very limited basis during designated times of the year?
I am a Broad Brook Coalition member and not a hunter, but I would like to see both sides meet to hopefully come up with a compromise.
Jim Reis
Northampton