When it comes right down to it, New Hampshire doesn’t need a season for hunting and trapping bobcat, as the state Fish and Game Department has proposed.

Allowing the animals to be taken falls squarely into the "want" category. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department wants it, and some sportsmen would like to see it.

Even then, it’s clear that residents of the state are pretty well divided on the issue of whether to bring back the hunt after a hiatus more than 25 years.

A vote in February by the state Fish and Game Commission reflected that division. Commissioners decided, 5-4, to proceed with the bobcat season. Supporters of opening up a bobcat season cited the small number of cats that could be taken – only 50 out of an estimated 1,500 bobcats in the state – and noted that states surrounding New Hampshire have bobcat seasons.

Passions have run high on both sides, and the opposition, especially, has been intense. Critics have questioned the need for the season, the science behind the decision, and whether the commission took into account all of the public comment.

Ultimately, the state’s plan to allow a hunting and trapping season for bobcats was done in at least temporarily by Canada lynx, a tuft-eared predator that shares habitat with the smaller bobcat.

Lynx also happen to be a protected species. And since they can get caught up in bobcat traps, states cannot allow incidental harm to the lynx without a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which New Hampshire doesn’t have.

Consequently, when the matter came to the state Legislature’s Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules last week, members agreed that the proposal was a violation of federal law.

The committee effectively put the hunt on hold and sent it to Fish and Game committees of the House and Senate to review the proposal.

The bobcat issue will undoubtedly be back, but the state should proceed with caution when it comes to instituting a hunt, for several reasons.

Proceeding with a hunt in defiance of public sentiment and in the absence of widespread support is unwise. At best, it makes it appear that the only public comment Fish and Game officials are really willing to consider is that which agrees with positions they have already staked out.

The Fish and Game Department does not exist in a vacuum. Ultimately, it exists with the blessing of – and for the benefit of – those residents of the state who love the outdoors and cherish the state’s abundant natural resources and wildlife – some of whom hunt and fish, some of whom don’t.

More problematic, perhaps, is that going forward with a hunt without the backing of the public may cause some non-hunting landowners who have been supportive of hunting in the past to post their property because they oppose the bobcat hunt.

If that results in more land being posted to the detriment of those sportsmen who hunt deer, turkey and other less controversial species – it’s hard to see how that would be a good thing for the state in the long run.