Changes to Massachusetts hunting laws now being considered by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife would create new public safety hazards with no public benefit.
The prohibition on Sunday hunting should be retained. Hunting occurs across 73% of the calendar, or 264 days. During those three-quarters of the year, it is not unreasonable to set aside 1 of every 7 days to allow non-hunters (who comprise 99.2% of the Massachusetts population) to safely access forests and other open space areas, including their own property, without risk of harm or fear of being accidentally injured or killed. That still leaves 227 days, 62% of the year, for hunting.
The prohibition on crossbow hunting should be retained. Crossbows have a range of 1,500 feet, equivalent to a rifle, and fire a bolt at 400 feet per second or more. This far exceeds the firepower of modern bows and even some guns. Because of their ease of use and lack of regulations on their purchase, crossbows are more likely to be used by untrained hunters. Unlike firearms, crossbows can be easily acquired, with no background checks, so this change would certainly lead to more unregulated weapons in the commonwealth.
Setback limits for the discharge of weapons should not be changed. Decreasing these protections puts more of our homes in the crosshairs for a hunting accident and exposes more of our private property to trespass, either deliberate or inadvertent. Discharge setback limits were first adopted in 1967. At that time, the range for a hunting rifle was up to 750 feet and for a bow up to 100 feet. Today’s standard hunting rifles have ranges of 1,500 feet (100% increase over 1967) and bows of 300 feet (200% increase). If anything, we should be increasing the distance at which weapons can be discharged near our homes.
Reducing deer populations is often cited as a reason to weaken hunting laws. The scientific consensus, however, is that hunting does not reduce deer population in a sustainable way. Indeed, for nearly 50 years now, studies have shown that hunting has the opposite effect: following hunting seasons, lack of competition for resources results in a higher birth rate in the spring.
DFW notes some states have hunting laws laxer than those in Massachusetts. As we teach our children, though, just because your friend makes a poor choice does not mean you should make that choice. Rather than weakening our laws to resemble those in other states, Massachusetts should serve as a role model for hunting safety. We should be setting an example to which other states can look. Comparing rates of hunting injuries and fatalities across the Northeast, Massachusetts is, exponentially, the safest state in the region. Why would we emulate states with worse hunting safety records?
DFW’s proposed changes should be rejected so we can ensure we have forests that are safe for us all.
Matteo Pangallo lives in Shutesbury.