Few hunters, even “big game” hunters, are bloodthirsty savages. That is the opinion of one Question letter writer this week, and we agree wholeheartedly.

We’re glad, however, that not every citizen feels it necessary to have bear meat on the table when it’s available, nor do we think everyone who samples the meat of some wild animal, and likes it, should therefore desire it as a dietary staple and set out to become a regular hunter. It’s not for everyone, nor should it be.

The issue arises as a result of a Question cover story from two weeks ago (“Hunting incident sparks call for change,” May 25). In the article, one local resident reported having seen a hunter aiming a rifle at a bear along Highway 99 between Whistler and Pemberton. The sight of the hunter so close to the highway surprised her, as did the later revelation that, based on the analysis of the B.C. Conservation Officer service, the hunter had done nothing illegal. As a result, the citizen and the executive director of the local Bear Smart society voiced the opinion that under the circumstances, allowing hunting as long as it’s 15 metres or more from the highway’s centre line puts the public at risk and that the no-hunting zone should be expanded.

We agree that perhaps that the rule should be reviewed and a change considered, in the context of the fact that the current regulation was likely put in place long ago, when traffic along the highway was far more sparse than it is today. However, we don’t think it’s necessary to consider expanding that zone to the degree suggested by one of those interviewed: She called for the no-hunting zone to match the one that exists between West Vancouver and Squamish — 400 metres west of the highway (most of which is less than 400 metres from Howe Sound) and one kilometre to the east — to be extended northward toward Pemberton. If a change is to be considered, we would think 100 metres on either side of the road would be more than sufficient.

We also take issue with the contention that extending the no-hunting zone would significantly improve safety for non-hunting recreational users — hikers, bikers and the like. Presumably, most trail users venture far more than 100 or even 400 metres from a roadway and, in fact, prefer hiking or biking as far from major highways as possible.

Certainly, public safety is an issue in areas where there’s a high concentration of both hunters and non-hunting recreational users, as was illustrated by the incident outside Pemberton a few years ago, when a hunter shot the pet dog of a couple as they were hiking in the woods. As a result of that incident, efforts were made by government and groups representing both hunters and non-hunting recreational users to increase public education through signage and the like, and an agreement among both hunters and non-hunters to exercise extra care when venturing outdoors during hunting season.

Unquestionably, the hunting of threatened or endangered species should be prohibited, as it is in most cases. But historically, in all other instances, the regulated hunting and trapping of game both large and small have proven to be effective tools in the management of animal populations. While expanding the no-hunting zones near busy roads is perhaps a measure for the public and policymakers to consider, it seems to us that enforcement of existing rules, education and responsible behaviour on the part of both groups are likely to prove the most effective approach in safeguarding the public.