The North Carolina Green Party has stated their position on Hunting and Fishing in their Party Platform.  It makes for interesting reading.  Before you blow off their platform as being too different or radical from your views, understand that the future of hunting will be controlled by people that do not hunt, such as these people. 

In some places, the Green Party is labeled as "anti-hunting". Are they "Anti-hunting"? This may make you think.


What is important is that they do represent a change in that hunting should be so controlled that it is welcomed, not merely tolerated by society.  It is a stated position taken by a political party that has showed growth in its membership.  "The Green Party is the only political party in the U.S. growing in membership, over 27% in the last four years." - a quote from their website. 

The NC Green Party platform is in bold.  Our opinions are in green.

Hunting and Fishing

* 1. Wildlife advocates, non-hunters, and anti-hunters should receive proportional representation in wildlife management agency oversight.

Wildlife is here for all citizens, so all citizens should be represented.  Hunters should not be the only ones represented on the NCWRC. 

* 2. The state should establish refuges for the protection of both habitat and species, not for the production of game animals.

It should be noted that they are speaking about refuges, not game lands.  To a certain extent, our game lands are managed to maximize the opportunity for a hunter to harvest game.  This encourages the management of game lands to increase the number of game animals.  Are game lands managed for the "production" of game animals?  I will agree only in that their habitat is enhanced.  I mean, that is all that you can do.  I doubt that wild animals are artificially inseminated.  I am not aware that the state of North Carolina has a state refuge, anywhere.  We have Federal Refuges, not state.  The main difference is that refuges are managed differently than game lands.  Hunting is the central focus in the utilization of Game Lands.  Refuges focus on land use and conservation first, with hunting and fishing existing within those guidelines.  In other words, hunting is the main focus on Game Lands.  On refuges, hunting is not the main focus and it exists within more stringent guidelines.

* 3. Current laws which hold that hunters may enter private land not posted against them should be reversed. Any hunter wishing to use another's land should receive permission to do so. Any landowner who wants to welcome all hunters should post signs to that effect.

This is just plain old common sense and should be implemented immediately.  This idea falls right in line with hunting while intoxicated.  Why has it not already been done?  The only person(s) against this is someone intent on trespassing or who wants to condone someone who does. 

Enacting this into law would quickly and automatically address what is a growing concern regarding the balance of "rights" between hunters and private property owners.  It is correctly stated that a landowner must post his property to keep people off his or her property.  Why should the law allow someone to go onto the property of another (with a firearm) unless the landowner takes action against it (by posting)?  Shouldn't our law protect the property owner and put their wishes/needs over someone using a hunting instrument?  An even stronger argument is over legal liability of the property owner.  Certainly, no property owner needs to be concerned about liability if someone is injured on their property while hunting, right?  Of course they do, unless the property is posted, in which case a posted sign can be easily removed.

Currently a posted sign makes someone illegal if they are trespassing.  Thus, there is a strong motivation to remove the sign.  If this were reversed then having a sign up "welcoming" hunters onto the property, then there would be no desire to remove the Posted sign as it would make someone legal, not illegal.  Most counties have a local law requiring written permission to hunt on their property.  Every one of these could be scrapped along with the Registered Lands program of the NCWRC.  Just the thought of scraping numerous state laws and replacing them with one law is exciting.  This would be common sense in action.

* 4. The state should not promote "new game species," and no new hunting seasons should be established.

In an attempt to stop "hunters" from hunting an animal that should not be harvested, this deserves some merit.  An animal should not be declared a "game" animal just because someone wants to hunt it.  However, the second part of this statement, I disagree with.  Just a few years ago (15?) the NCWRC implemented a new hunting season on "Resident Canada Geese".  It was in response to a problem that was not always present but arose and was addressed.  This is a good indication on how a new hunting season can be implemented for the good of all concerned.  Just to say "no new hunting seasons" is a little too broad and vague. 

* 5. Public funds should not be used for the promotion of recreational hunting.

Agreed, but do they?  The NCWRC is not funded from the general tax revenue fund of North Carolina.  Taxpayers do not fund the NCWRC.

* 6. Rather than declaring a special hunt for every perceived problem with wildlife, non-lethal and educational approaches to human conflicts with wildlife should be considered.

"Considered"?  I believe that this is already being done.  The most popular alternative is relocation.  I agree with relocation but until someone convinces me on what to do with the "trapped" animals, I will consider the best alternative to be "lethally controlled".  Don't turn animals loose on my property.  Every problem animal situation is different.  Trap and relocate a deer?  Are you kidding?  They are everywhere.  An archer with a finely tuned bow and arrow can remedy most wildlife problems.  It is more humane than other proposed alternatives, including relocation.

As our human populations extend deeper into wildlife habitat, more "conflict control" between humans and wildlife may be necessary.  I do note the supposed Green Party's assumption:  animals were here first and it is humans that are moving into wildlife territories.  They should not be "controlled" just because humans are moving in. 

I came across this Green Party Platform as I was researching the internet for something unrelated to hunting and fishing.  If you read other content contained in this website, you will see that we do advocate control of hunting by the government, responsibility among hunters to other hunters and non-hunters, and further, I advocate reform at the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.  If somebody had told me that the North Carolina Green Party had hunting views similar to my own, I would think they were "incorrect".  After reading these views, they are not so farfetched.  I doubt that these ideas are currently under consideration by our state legislature.  Should these simple views be considered for changes in the law?  

As always, your opinions are welcome and may be publicly stated in our forum.

Disclosure:  This website is not affiliated with nor does it endorse the North Carolina Green Party. Furthermore, the author of this article is not a member of this political party.