Assabet River NWR Final CCP - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft CCP/EA November 26, 2003
Respondents are particularly angered by the idea of hunting on a refuge, which they perceive
to be directly in conflict with the purpose and definition of a refuge. One typical respondent
describes shooting wildlife on a wildlife refuge as “oxymoronic.”
Iniquity
A strong sentiment running through the comments is a sense that there is something
inconsistent, unfair, and hypocritical about permitting hunting on the EMNWR while
prohibiting activities such as dog-walking, jogging, and picnicking on the basis of their
wildlife impacts. As one respondent writes, “It makes absolutely no sense to me that hunting
will be allowed in the refuge, but dogs on leashes and bike riding will not be allowed. How in
the world are dogs on leashes and people on bicycles considered dangerous to wildlife, yet
people with guns are okay?” Or as a conservation group writes, “Inconsistent or arbitrary
management of public use could lead to confusion and resentment. Why could someone who
is hunting grouse have a dog (unleashed!) whereas non-hunters must leave their canine
friends at home? Can a birdwatcher take along a sandwich, or is that considered picnicking?
If the pace of a jogger spooks wildlife, then why can someone cross-country ski?”
Many respondents assert that quiet recreation opportunities are rare, but that adequate
hunting is already available.
Hunting and Public Safety
Many respondents argue that expanded hunting will threaten the safety of area residents and
other recreationists. It is easiest to consider these comments in two categories: threats to
people, and displacement of recreationists.
Threats to people
Many respondents, including many local residents, argue that a) they will feel unsafe if
hunting is permitted on the Refuge, and b) that people or animals will be injured or killed by
friendly fire. A typical comment: “I was brought up learning how to handle a gun, including
shotguns, and remember going deer hunting with my father in Lincoln, Lexington and other
towns west of Boston—albeit over 50 years ago. . . . Without prejudice one way or the other
about the justification for hunting, I think the CCP fails to address the important issue of
public safety and the dangers resulting to adjacent schools, roadways and homes in the
Refuge area. Clearly, MetroWest is already too overbuilt to allow for the extended hunting
proposed in the CCP.” Or: “I do not want to be shot hanging clothes in my back yard.”
To protect visitors to other conservation lands, some respondents suggest that hunters be
prohibited from using public access points to other lands (such as Foss Farm and Greenough
Conservation lands). Local abutters and area residents are particularly concerned about stray
or mistargeted bullets, and raise concerns regarding a number of specific sites such as the
Maynard public school campus and the southern portion of the Sudbury unit.
One respondent raises concerns regarding the resources local law enforcement will expend as
a result of increased hunting: “As the Chief of Police in the Town of Billerica I am concerned
about proposed hunting on and around the Concord River. This has been a safety and noise
concern for residents of west Billerica for many years. I feel that this proposed change will
increase these problems. Please take into consideration that this end of the refuge is a
Summary of Comments 19