News Release: BCWF Welcomes Grizzly Bear Management Recommendations

[BCWF]

October 20, 2016 Surrey, B.C.

The BC Wildlife Federation is encouraged that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) publicly released recommendations made in the Scientific Review of Grizzly Bear Harvest Management System in British Columbia by an expert panel consisting of Mark S. Boyce and Andrew E. Derocher, of the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton and David L. Garshelis, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota in Victoria on October 18, 2016.

President of the BC Wildlife Federation Jim Glaicar said, “It is reassuring to see an independent review of the grizzly bear harvest management. The panel’s review confirms government and its stakeholders have been managing grizzly bear populations in a science-based, sustainable manner, which ensures the long term viability of the grizzly population. Further it is a welcoming observation that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) is implementing many of the panel’s recommendations.”


The review commissioned by the province concludes that hunting is not a threat to the sustainability of grizzly bears, but offered a number of suggestions to improve harvest management procedures, data collection and transparency of decisions related to hunting down to the Grizzly Bear Population Unit Level.



The BCWF agrees that deteriorating habitat conditions are the biggest threat to long term grizzly bear sustainability. We concur there is an urgent need for improved wildlife management planning to set population and habitat objectives at the Grizzly Bear Population Unit level, as well as increased research and monitoring, particularly on human bear conflict management in rural and urban interfaces including transportation corridors.



The review recommends better joint planning between government ministries such as the FLNRO and the Ministry of Environment to address the increasing pressures of expanding resource extraction and the associated road development and use that lead cumulative impacts on the landscape which jeopardizes the longer-term status of the species. The report also recommends monitoring of habitat including forage for bear, including salmon and berries that affect the productivity of bear habitats.



The BCWF is encouraged that the Province has incorporated this recommendation in their recent cumulative effects assessment of managing landscape seral stage distribution, road density and access management for grizzly bears.



The BCWF wants to see habitat impacts assessment expanded, with a formal framework implemented to better management within and between provincial, federal and state jurisdictions. First Nations were not mentioned in the report apart from harvest reporting. This is a major omission as First Nations are an essential partner in the conversation about wildlife sustainability.



To fully implement the review’s recommendations, the provincial government will have to substantially increase investment in wildlife and landscape management for bears and other species. It is critically important to the overall health of fish, wildlife and their habitat to ensure adequate funding is in place for wildlife inventories, harvest monitoring, and other supporting services.



The BCWF is recommending that the Province dedicate all hunting licence and surcharge revenue to wildlife management. Further, government should be collecting rent and dedicating a portion of it to fish and wildlife conservation. Activities such as ecotourism, wildlife viewing, mining, heli-skiing, oil and gas, and logging should all contribute to natural resource conservation

[adriaticum]

This is great news.

[bearvalley]

October 20, 2016 Surrey, B.C.
The BCWF is recommending that the Province dedicate all hunting licence and surcharge revenue to wildlife management. Further, government should be collecting rent and dedicating a portion of it to fish and wildlife conservation. Activities such as ecotourism, wildlife viewing, mining, heli-skiing, oil and gas, and logging should all contribute to natural resource conservation
This is what's needed to generate funds to properly manage wildlife.

[TreeStandMan]

Here's the full report: Scientific Review of Grizzly Bear Harvest Management System in British Columbia (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly-bear-harvest-management-2016.pdf).

[Seeker]

This is great news. My concern is that this will not deflate the ambitions of anti-grizzly campaigns in their attempt to stop the grizzly hunt. They don't play with facts, they play with emotions. And influence the emotions of millions of non-hunters. I guess as long as we have irrefutable evidence that hunting is not the end of the grizzly and we manage according to that data, at least we can stand our ground.

[Surrey Boy]

First Nations were not mentioned in the report apart from harvest reporting. This is a major omission as First Nations are an essential partner in the conversation about wildlife sustainability.

Whose side is the BCWF on?

[bearvalley]

Whose side is the BCWF on?
This isn't about picking sides.
Its more about keeping the grizzly hunt and possibly in the future maintaining other hunting privileges.
Of course you probably disagree.

[RadHimself]

ive seen more grizz in the last 3 years then black bears lumby,needles/fauqier area

[TreeStandMan]

Whose side is the BCWF on?
If the goal is conservation, this "us vs. them" mentality is wrongheaded, and only serves to perpetuate the very real problems that we've all seen.

First Nations are part of the context here in BC. If you'd looked at the report itself you'd know that it indicates First Nations hunting practices sometimes don't conform with the best practices of conservation. If relationships can be built native communities they could be made to be partners in conservation. Of course it would be a long and slow process, but having conversations and trying to find common ground will only move things in the right direction.

[Surrey Boy]

If the goal is conservation, this "us vs. them" mentality is wrongheaded, and only serves to perpetuate the very real problems that we've all seen.

The goal is access. Why conserve something I can't use?

[Rob Chipman]

"Why conserve something I can't use?"

The classic answer is that you do it for generations yet unborn. That's a values position and you either buy into it or you don't. From a purely self-interested position, of course, it makes sense to subscribe to that approach unless you're the richest guy in the world who can buy everything. If you're not that guy the time will come when you need other people's help, including people who will support you getting access to something that they will never use themselves. Some of those people will have values and opinions you don't like, or they'll look different from you and like different music. You gotta pick your battles and get over the little things that piss you off in order to achieve the bigger goal.

FWIW, I'd work and spend money to conserve mountain caribou, even if I knew I'd never be able to hunt them, assuming I believed we had a shot, even a long one, at success. As one of the apex predators who can exterminate each and every one of the other species on this earth without even picking up a gun I think I've got some degree of responsibility to help preserve the ecosystem. Again, that's a values position. You either buy into it or you don't. It's a free world. Vive le difference.


"Whose side is the BCWF on?" I think BCWF is on the side of hunters, and through hunters, of conservation and wildlife. I think they realize that FNs are here to stay and have a great deal of influence. I think BCWF recognizes that we need to be on the same side of the table as FNs for any long term success.

I think it's pretty easy to make the case that if FNs are onside with hunters and vice versa, life for hunters gets easier. If that case is more reasonable than the case to be made for treating FNs as adversaries then logic dictates that if you value hunting you have to swallow your opposition to the current state of FN affairs. We can't have everything.

It's also important to understand that the grizzly bear hunt is not about science or harvesting. It's about politics. When the political question is settled the grizzlies will be cut loose and be allowed to go f*ck themselves.

The name of the report contains the words "scientific" and "harvest management". The people opposed to grizzly hunting don't give a sh*t about either. The report is important and valuable for actual conservationists, but it'll be dismissed immediately by people opposed to the grizzly hunt. It's a useless tool to convince those people.

It's a valuable tool to convince middle of the road people with at least partially open minds.

[Rob Chipman]

Further to the above, two things caught my attention today. One was a podcast with Randy Newberg, Shane Mahoney and Gray Thornton of the Wild Sheep Foundation talking about conservation.

The other was a poster on a telephone pole with a picture of a golden grizzly head and the title "Trophy". It's about trophy hunting for grizzlies in BC. Get it? A gold grizzly head is a trophy.

From the website for the movie:

"


http://www.brownpapertickets.com/g/e/795062-250.gif



Grizzly bears have a central relationship to indigenous and North American identity and culture and are an apex and indicator species for entire ecosystems. The killing of grizzlies for sport, called trophy hunting, is sanctioned in British Columbia and the Province claims is necessary to maintain a balance in nature and provide economic advantages, yet conservationists and activists say otherwise. With flawed science, political motivations and unbalanced economics, can we justify killing these animals for sport?

Following the film (35mins) join a discussion with a panel with the film maker and experts and activists:

Rosie Child, Spirit Bear Research Foundation
Brian Falconer, Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Tommy Knowles, Wildlife Defence League
Inder Nirwan, film maker, Lush Cosmetics

Musqueam activist Audrey Siegl will open the event."

It's a very clearly crafted message, even before the film starts. No winners. Unrealistic representation of a bear. Crosshairs (clearly a threatening and triggering image).

It stakes out the high ground immediately and makes it it's own.

It uses the triggering terms "trophy" and "sport" hunting.

It pits the government (who you can generally get everyone to hate a little bit) against "conservationists and activists".

It dismisses the province's science, and says the hunt is politically motivated. It says the economics are unbalanced.


Maybe I've got a tinfoil hat on, or maybe I can read the writing on the wall, but I think these guys are using grizzlies as a tool to achieve a different political goal. That's who we're up against as hunters. I'll wager they want to shut down not just grizzly hunting, but all hunting. I'll wager they want to restrict access to much of BC and want more control over territory for FNs. I'll wager they have very specific ideas about how we should all act and aren't going to be shy about trying to get their way.

We need to marginalize them or they will marginalize us.

All that said, listening to a guy from the Wild Sheep Foundation after seeing that poster raises a lot of questions.

Could someone ask "With flawed science, political motivations and unbalanced economics, can we justify killing wild sheep for sport?" I'm pretty sure an expert from Lush Cosmetics could manage to ask it.

I've also got to wonder: if all the science does is indicate that a harvest is sustainable, or if the only argument that we make is that the harvest is sustainable, how long can we expect to maintain social license to hunt grizzlies, and by extension, not only other predators but other animals? I'm no expert but it's my understanding that harvest of bears can lead to more bears and more prey animals (that's one of the reasons I shoot bears).

I think we need some science indicating that, and I think that science needs to be circulated. It's easy for someone from Lush to say "It's mean and heartless to kill bears for sport you nasty boy". It's tougher for them to say "I prefer that big strong male bears live, even if that means small cute bears and all sorts of other prey animals are ripped limb from limb and eaten alive". A good way to combat low information individuals is to provide information.

[604ksmith]

The goal is access. Why conserve something I can't use?

I think you need to think long and hard about that statement and your view on things.

[Surrey Boy]

I think you need to think long and hard about that statement and your view on things.

As a heterosexual white man, nobody has any empathy or consideration for my position. I need to put my interests first or they won't be represented at all.

[Rob Chipman]

^^^What I'm suggesting is that you achieve your own best interest by working with others. The more you can work with the more you can get what you want. You can't work with everybody, but at the starting point there is you vs. the whole world. You add allies who help you accomplish your goals. You may have to give a bit and help them accomplish theirs.

[Iron.Bender]

The goal is access. Why conserve something I can't use?

Things have to start somewhere. The other side of that coin is why have access if there is nothing there to access.