Sophia Allen
Lantern Staff
President Donald Trump signed a bill into law that repeals an Obama-era hunting restriction in Alaska using the Congressional Review Act on Monday, April 3. The original bill stated that it was illegal to aerial hunt, trap and bait wolves and bears. In addition, it stated that hunters could not kill the predators near their young or in their dens, among other kinds of predator control.
President Trump signed House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.) 69 on April 3. Upon Trump’s signing, the piece of legislation was passed, therefore becoming Public Law No. 115-20 later that day on April 3.
“Not only does this action undermine Alaska’s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government,” Alaska Rep. Don Young said.
Other representatives have expressed similar concerns, however, others were not convinced.
“This isn’t about states’ rights,” said Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington. “It’s not about prohibiting hunting. … It’s about how we can manage these wildlife refuges to the degree that agencies believe are necessary for the preservation of these wildlife heritage areas.”
She is very right about the fine line between denying people to hunt and allowing them to hunt species to extinction. People who need to hunt for food can hunt without consequence. Every animal needs to eat and nature will adjust accordingly. However, when people hunt for sport without using the animal that they kill is when the problem arises. The government needs to ensure freedom, but also protect the Earth, so finding the middle line is difficult.
This debate gets to the core of a long-running dispute, according to the Alaska Dispatch News. The state and federal wildlife managers continue to disagree about who should enforce what. For instance, the Board of Game wishes to protect wildlife populations for hunters, whereas federally, the government is in favor of biodiversity.
The maximum sustained populations of commonly hunted prey are mostly ensured through decreasing the populations of their predators. Several Democratic senators and environmental groups pursued the argument that the Alaskan Board of Game had gone too far in prioritizing the lives of prey.
“This isn’t hunting — it’s slaughter,” Brett Hartl, Government Affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity said. “Killing wolves and bears in this cruel, unsportsmanlike fashion is outrageous, especially in national wildlife refuges that belong to all Americans. Repealing these protections also undermines the critical role predators play in healthy ecosystems.”
On the other hand, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski stated that these objections come from activists who are not familiar with Alaska, saying “Opponents will allege that the repeal of this rule will legalize brutal predator control practices. The Senate should know that it is already illegal for hunters to use certain practices — gas against wolves, traps to bears. You can’t do this in national wildlife refuges in Alaska.”
While banning those certain measures does help, people could still do more. Most focus on elevating prey populations and seem to forget that predators are animals too, and if they go extinct they can’t return. If people are hunting animals, then they should strictly hunt for food.
This change in law is a bad measure because it will encourage hunters to kill animals for no purpose and to kill them inhumanely.