my shot at an email in case it helps anyone get theirs off:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing in opposition to language in the most recent game management plan:
“Consider later hunting start dates (e.g., after Labor Day) in areas where black bear viewing is popular and conflict between user groups is likely to occur to balance competing uses.”
This sentence is enormously problematic. It invents and foments the concept of conflict between hunters and nonhunters. I've hunted for decades and have never once had a conflict with a nonhunter - in fact all interactions have been cordial and friendly. Any rare conflict that may occur can be handled through existing legislation IE it is already illegal to harass a citizen engaged in the lawful act of hunting, and no ethical hunter is going to do anything to infringe on any other citizens nonhunting outdoor recreation.
The idea of conflict here is a false narrative being used to further the agenda of antihunting commissioners to restrict/reduce/ban bear hunting.
The real problem here, though, is the language that suggests limiting the recreational opportunities of one group so as to preferentially optimize the recreational opportunities of another group. This is blatant discrimination and will certainly lead to litigation if acted upon.
The public outdoors should remain open to all recreational groups - I exhort you to remove this language and reject any further language in kind.
Thank you for considering,
