Board of Game ‘edible meat' decision delayed
Jill Burke |
Nov 23, 2009
At its fall meeting in Nome this month, the Alaska Board of Game postponed action on a proposal to narrow the definition of "edible meat" in the state's hunting regulations. An Arctic advisory committee wants hunters to be able to leave meat they suspect is diseased, and hence "inedible," behind. "Local traditions and common sense dictate that a hunter does not bring meat home that may be detrimental to his family," the committee argued in filing the proposed change. The committee's request surfaced earlier this year after eight men from the village of Point Hope were criminally charged with wasting edible caribou meat during a July 2008 hunt. Alaska State Troopers claim dozens of caribou, including cows with nursing calves, were left to rot on the tundra near the village in "the worst case of waste they had ever seen." Some of the accused hunters have claimed they chose to leave the meat behind because it appeared diseased. After butchering, some of the hunters found the animal had "yellow fat," or a "bubble on the liver," according to court records. Alaska's hunting laws require hunters to bring all edible meat out of the field. The only exception is a section of meat damaged by the killing method. The law does not allow hunters the discretion to determine that meat is unfit for any other reason, including disease. The Arctic advisory committee believes the law is too rigid and creates a health risk by forcing a hunter to potentially butcher and haul diseased meat back to town. Disease, it writes, includes "bacterial and viral infections, poisoning, fractures, cancer, parasite infestations, wounds and malnutrition." "Traditional foods are often consumed raw, dried or fermented and are butchered without the use of protective gear, and in common areas," the committee notes in its proposal, citing specific concerns for the potential exposure to bacteria, intestinal worms and rabies. Thus far, it appears the proposal largely lacks support. "We felt the proposal was put in place because of the Point Hope issue last summer," said Mike Crawford, chair of the Board of Game advisory committee for the Kenai/Soldotna region. At the meeting held earlier this month in Nome to take testimony on the issue, Crawford told the board his committee doesn't support the idea at all, mainly because of the potential for abuse. And he's not alone. "Wanton waste is arguably the most egregious and morally unethical hunting crime," wrote Alaska State Trooper Lt. Bernard Chastain in a letter to the board urging a "no" vote. Changing the definition of edible meat, he reasoned, "will make wanton waste and fail to salvage statues and regulations nearly unenforceable." There would be no way to create a universal impression among all hunters about what is and is not diseased meat, and no way for investigators to travel to each kill site to take meat samples, Chastain wrote, leaving troopers unable to "successfully prosecute criminals who leave meat in the field." Yet the arctic advisory committee argues if left unchanged, the current "edible meat" definition will continue to force hunters "to be guilty of breaking a regulation that does not allow leaving meat in the field that is inedible due to disease." The Alaska chapter of Backcountry Hunters thinks that's a poor argument. "When there are genuine cases of wildlife with a disease such as brucellosis, that can indeed pose a risk to humans, the solution doesn't lie in a blanket allowance to leave all meat in the field; the solution lies in educating hunters how to gauge if an animal may be diseased before shooting, and how to protect themselves and their families after the fact if they do shoot a diseased animal," the organization wrote in a letter of opposition. The Alaska chapter also worries that if the proposal passes, unethical hunters will be able to "skirt" the intent of Alaska's waste laws and thereby risk an increase to the number of wasted game animals. "This proposal from the Arctic Advisory Committee goes against everything we believe hunting should stand for," Backcountry Hunters wrote.
|











