The Sunday Hunting Controversy

The Reading Eagle has pretty good coverage of the debate. NRA notes that a hearing is being held this Thursday, and is asking folks to contact their legislators. The main group lining up in opposition are the Farm Bureau. Despite the claim that farmers are opposed to this, there’s evidence that’s not as universally true as the Farm Bureau would have you believe. The reason for this bill is that hunting has been in decline in Pennsylvania for some time, with young people citing lack of free time, and older people citing lack of game.

I think it’s important to pass this because the number of hunters in the state can be viewed as a proxy for how much support the entire shooting community can command if politicians start thinking about displeasing us, so a decline in hunting can hurt people who are just shooters, and interested in the right to bear arms. There isn’t quite so easy a proxy for shooters, except for LTCs, which as of yet do not approach the number of hunting licenses issued in the state.

2 thoughts on “The Sunday Hunting Controversy”

  1. As I recall from my reporter days, the majority of Farm Bureau members are not farmers. They may sell insurance to farmers or have some other vague connection to agribusiness, but they do not have dirt on their hands. Nevertheless, the FB acts as though it is the voice of farmers.

  2. I find it interesting that the old timers are saying lack of game. That could mean: Lack of game out the truck window. Or it could mean lack of game. What does the Pa wilderness look like? Is this actually a problem? If the game isn’t there, why increase hunting? While hunting rights are tied to gun rights, it would be silly to make this some kind of 2A issue if it’s actually a game management issue.

Comments are closed.