COMMENTARY : Hunters’ Court Win Could Be Far-Reaching

California hunters who were late in realizing what they were losing may not understand what they won when a Sacramento Superior Court ruled last week that the bear hunt starting Saturday is legal.

It wasn’t just bears at stake. Animal rights backers are shooting at bigger game: all hunting.

But after this setback, they may be reluctant to try the courts again. The Department of Fish and Game, after five consecutive defeats, has learned how to play the legal game, producing documents that support hunting as a legitimate game management tool--and, more to the point, satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act.

Wayne Pacelle, national director of the Fund for Animals, said afterward: “I think going to the legislature is the answer. We realized from the beginning that the courts had limited authority on the subject.”

Nevertheless, the exercise was good for Fish and Game, which finally had to develop wildlife data it should have had all along.

Judge Cecily Bond said the DFG’s document wasn’t perfect but was adequate. She obviously had read all of the documents and briefs and had her mind made up well before the hearing. She started reading her decision as soon as the last lawyer sat down.

The DFG hired an attorney from outside, rather than assigning in-house counsel already burdened by routine matters. The lawyer, Mark Wasser, said of Bond before the hearing: “I don’t know if she’s a pro-hunter or an anti-hunter. But in my experience before her, I know she looks at the law.”

In her final remarks, Bond suggested that next year the DFG consider prohibiting the use of dogs, raising the minimum size of legal game from 50 to 100 pounds and shortening the season from 79 days. But she still approved the season.

So perhaps hunting has seen its last day in court. It was the wrong venue, anyway. The anti-hunters were trying to use legal technicalities to win a battle rooted in personal convictions. Even they and their own attorneys were on different wavelengths.

Pacelle didn’t say that he still thought the DFG’s document was inadequate. He just said: “It’s a tragic day for bears. In 10 days they will be exposed to the dogs and bullets of the state’s bear hunters, purely for their recreation.”

But the legislature isn’t the answer, either. Which of those elected officials, especially in the state’s northern and central areas, where hunting is a stronger ethic, would be willing to alienate the awakened hunting lobby?

Field demonstrations don’t work. Earth First! and other groups have been trying to break up the last few bighorn sheep and tule elk hunts, with only nuisance success.

The proper way is the way they stopped the hunting of mountain lions: a ballot initiative based on emotional appeals to the morality of hunting.

Isn’t that what all these people are talking about?