BC NDP on Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt Ban- Questions Answered

[Pemby_mess]

Fisher-Dude is right that politicians respond to dollar and vote pressures, but Pemby-mess raises an important point about the money. If we require wildlife, conservation and the wild landscape to pay their own way the result will be that they'll be out competed by other uses.

For example, if we justify salmon by their economic impact it's not hard to see corporate concerns contributing to the extermination of salmon (we can the dam the Fraser, dredge the mouth of it and go crazy with fish farms).


If we exterminate mountain caribou, mule deer and spotted owls we can log their habitat.

We need to concentrate on the vote aspect of Fisher-Dude's equation (while remaining aware of the dollar aspect). We can't expect that wilderness, conservation and hunting will generate as much revenue as some other corporate endeavours, but we also can't ignore money and expect to get a free ride.

Mostly agree, but I think we should spend some focus talking about what the indirect economic contributions are in having wild open spaces, with well protected wildlife and a plethora of recreation opportunities to go a long with it. I'm not including hunting in there specifically, but it is indeed important for the province to include it as a "unique value proposition" as the world gets more crowded, more degraded, and people seek higher attainment.

MEC is an organization with 300M annual revenue, just from the parks essentially. Look at the whole micro economy that it has spun off its inertia along the way. That isn't going to be reflected in the provinces balance sheet directly but I assure you, it matters. Let's go even more indirect - how much of BC's real estate value is because you can be in Wilderness 1\2 hour from your doorstep, in a world renowned metropolis, catch salmon outside the mall at park royal, and get a shot to hunt (or even just see, take a photo of, etc) a grizzly bear for a once in a lifetime experience.

I think If we look at the province like a business, Its really important to see the big picture of what makes us work. That goes beyond little trivial issues and provincial budget line items.

[Rob Chipman]

"I think we should spend some focus talking about what the indirect economic contributions are in having wild open spaces, with well protected wildlife and a plethora of recreation opportunities to go a long with it."

Absolutely. All I'm saying is that if we *only* measure the value in dollars the day will come when another activity creates more dollar value. There's lots of examples of this and it's currently creating a big problem with public lands in the US.

Running the province like a business doesn't mean everyone benefits, and it doesn't mean we preserve something long term. Defining what the big picture is and how it works is a subjective exercise.

You and I probably agree on the value of the things you cite, but as we build more and more towers and buildings in Vancouver that block out the previously free to all people views of the mountains and oceans and transfer ownership of those views to the purchasers of the new real estate I think you can see that if we only measure the value in dollars we'll end up regretting it.

[Pemby_mess]

"I think we should spend some focus talking about what the indirect economic contributions are in having wild open spaces, with well protected wildlife and a plethora of recreation opportunities to go a long with it."

Absolutely. All I'm saying is that if we *only* measure the value in dollars the day will come when another activity creates more dollar value. There's lots of examples of this and it's currently creating a big problem with public lands in the US.

Running the province like a business doesn't mean everyone benefits, and it doesn't mean we preserve something long term. Defining what the big picture is and how it works is a subjective exercise.

You and I probably agree on the value of the things you cite, but as we build more and more towers and buildings in Vancouver that block out the previously free to all people views of the mountains and oceans and transfer ownership of those views to the purchasers of the new real estate I think you can see that if we only measure the value in dollars we'll end up regretting it.

Yeah for sure, I understand that completely.

And I agree that when we start talking about values, it's certainly subjective. I recognize that my values as a tourism operator and recreational hunter are not often going to mesh with that of more powerful monied interests such as an oil company. But I do think the values of one industry should be given more scrutiny if they inherently infringe or eclipse the values of an other, and weighted accordingly. That sounds simple, but its not often done to the extent it should be.

I think having a clear, reasonable voice that speaks in ways the political majorities can understand, in a politically neutral fashion, is important to having our interests advanced. Unfortunately, that may produce a situation where our interests as hunters infringe on the values of others and we will have to take positions accordingly like perhaps giving up so ground to advance something else more important. Ultimately I believe this will be more successful than pushing political agendas, picking sides and viciously defending ground that doesn't really matter in the grand scope. Meat retrieval with GB comes to mind as I write this.

[Rob Chipman]

"But I do think the values of one industry should be given more scrutiny if they inherently infringe or eclipse the values of an other, and weighted accordingly." They should. But, who scrutinizes them? Often not the government, because they abdicate a role as referee in return for some other benefits.

"Unfortunately, that may produce a situation where our interests as hunters infringe on the values of others and we will have to take positions accordingly like perhaps giving up so ground to advance something else more important."

Fair enough, though, right? I have the right to do anything I want....until it conflicts with the rights of other to do what they want, and then we above to work it out.

Simple and timely example: grizzlies provide some businesses and some communities with monetary benefits through viewing, and there are people who want to pay for the experience. We can't shoot the grizzlies they look at if they're going to keep looking at them. Maybe we agree to not hunt grizzlies in those areas, and instead hunt them in areas that bear viewers don't utilize. Bear hunters give a bit, bear viewers give a bit. Both sides get what they need, even if they don't get everything they want.

Is meat retrieval an interest that hunters can give up because it infringes on the values of others? Maybe, if we're being completely pragmatic. But let's be clear that we're doing something that has no intrinsic value just to satisfy the emotional values of someone who hasn't really thought the issue through (leaving grizzly meat to rot in the bush is really not a waste, and if you argue that it is you'll end up tying yourself in knots). As a hunting community we can agree to do it, but we really have to evaluate why we're doing it and what we're getting in return. (FWIW, I don't oppose meat retrieval, but I recognize that the only real argument I can make to someone who opposes meat retrieval is "Just do it to shut those other guys up").

All that said, we're going to have to find a lot of places where we can compromise, but we're also going to have to figure out how to communicate our message better so that we can compromise less while pissing off fewer people.

[Pemby_mess]

Yes all good points Rob. I think with the meat retrieval thing, although I understand that it really doesn't go to waste, I think the point has already been made, that it serves to take away the concept of "trophy" as it relates to bears and as used by the activists that want it shut down completely; irrespective of the primary motivations behind a bear harvest. I'll concede that forcing meat retrieval will likely produce actual waste in that many hunters that continue to pursue grizzlies will possibly end up throwing it into the landfill in which it truly will be wasted.

That being said, If the public is giving bear hunters an out, by forcing two options: meat retrieval or complete closure of the opportunity, the choice is quite clear pragmatically. Caving here, gives all hunters stronger ground to stand on in other areas of debate. The ideal is that we use all parts of the animals we take, and the closer we stick to that, the more the general public can identify with and support our other positions.

In terms of the bear viewing conflict, it objectively looks quite silly not to make room for the activity by closing down a few high density bear refuges for it to take place unencumbered by hunting. The areas in which it is viable commercially are small coastal inlets. I don't think working with, rather than against the stakeholders there is going to significantly effect hunting opportunities in the negative, but it has the potential to win allies if the effort is put forward properly and with consideration for all involved. The political risk is small, while the potential benefits high.

[bearvalley]

Rob Chipman & Pemby-mess....good points put forth by both of you.

Like I've said before the grizzly hunt is sustainable and the hunt is a useful component in wildlife management.
Not province wide but there are regions were the grizzly has been identified as a major contributor to the reduction in ungulate species.

Enough of that...there's pages and pages on here as to the merits of the bear hunt and if it's right or wrong to leave the meat, etc, etc.....
The same with the debate on term "trophy hunt"....its been worn out by misconception and the classification of hunters.
In the words of Fred Bear.." a hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be".

I beleive we need to put forth a message as to why we hunt and what we are putting back for our privil to hunt.

A lot of hunters today are out there for the experience of being in the wilderness and the chance to hunt as they have dreamt of hunting for years.

Some never pull the trigger...they are satisfied to have had an opportunity and passed on it.
To quote Bear again..." if you consider an unsuccessful hunt to be a waste of time, then the true meaning of the chase eludes you all together."

These are true sportsmen and also the first to be derogatorily labeled "trophy hunters."

On grizzly hunting versus viewing, I tend to agree that there are areas on the coast where the grizzly hunt should be dropped in favor of the bear viewing industry.
The high value bear viewing areas in BC are limited and in some localities bear viewing is economically viable.
Not everywhere.

We know that the real players in the grizzly bear tug of war is not the entire public.
We've got the resident hunters and guides in one corner...Raincoast and the rest of the bear viewing industry in the other.
The mainstream anti hunting groups are tagging along to suck up cash and the uneducated public is being used as pawns.
Politicions are playing the field for votes.

If we are going to hammer out a workable deal with the bear viewing industry.....say we give them part of the coastal resident LEH hunt ( Raincoast already owns a chunk of the non resident allocation )....what do we want in return.

We better have a plan before the deck of cards comes out or we are going to be stuck with an empty hand.

[Whonnock Boy]

Great discussion.

Funding.... Funding that can be invested into fish, wildlife, and habitat in other areas of the Province to grow wildlife, including Grizzly bears. Encourage Black Bear harvest, and offset their population with Grizzly Bears. Wildlife and habitat wins, and in turn, everyone does. IMO...

....what do we want in return.

We better have a plan before the deck of cards comes out or we are going to be stuck with an empty hand.

[Bonz]

the anti use that trophy term to get away from the actual science behind a hunt purpose of carrying capacity. if we use science as our main backer, and we have that ive been reading, then nowhere in that science does it mention anything about this being about food.

ive actual shown that to a few general public on diff news articles, and it actualy woke them up to some truth. then id go to explain about culls. and the massive cost to that person, or other general tax payers. and when i say that same science is use for human populations to, they sorta take a diff view of it. its something they can relate a bit more to, since thats more to do with their lives in a city.
so i basicly say this will be done, no matter what people think or shut down. it will either be by us at our cost, and our payment to do the gov work is our meat, or, the gov will do this, and it will cost way more and you pay.

[303savage]

• Yes. This is not about being opposed to hunting. This is about being opposed to the grizzly bear trophy hunt and only the grizzly bear trophy hunt.

What other reason is there to hunt grizzly bear? People don't hunt them to eat them do they?

[kevan]

Absolutely correct. The NDP will betray BC hunters once elected, guaranteed.

The NDP will also betray the BC residents when they are elected.