Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada

[Ohwildwon]

Like I've said many times before, you can't hunt all big game animals and leave the apex predator alone..

This is a human ego/emotional issue...

In the end it is just another big game animal, no more or less important then the rest of them...

[Fisher-Dude]

I'd love to see where you got that number from. But even then you can't disagree that more and more people are getting into outdoor recreation. Whether it be ATVing, fishing, hunting, camping or hiking. Thus greater exposure to bears.

Highest hunter number level was 174,088 in 1981. http://huntingheritage.org/sites/def...inghunters.pdf

Current number is 105,000.

Want me to do the math for you?

[JSaw]

Highest hunter number level was 174,088 in 1981. http://huntingheritage.org/sites/def...inghunters.pdf

Current number is 105,000.

Want me to do the math for you?

I'm going to ignore your sarcastic insult and say thanks for referencing it!

[Rob Chipman]

"Question at hand is sustainability of hunt not if grizz hunt is immoral or the meat palatable."

I'd disagree, not because I think morals or meat are the issues, but because the other side has a vote, and they think that the moral aspect is a big factor.

The new NDP candidate actually disputes the science on the issue in an essay that calls the bear "the King". That's straight up anthropomorificationization (yeah, Dubya made me write that!) of the bear, and is completely anti-science. It's falling in love with charismatic mega fauna.

His other complaint is that the science says that the "hunt" is sustainable, not that the bear population is sustainable.

Those aren't my opinions - they're the opinions of the people who oppose the hunt. They are currently saying they agree that science is important, but they disagree with any science that doesn't support their positions.

We've seen that dynamic at work with climate change, and I think we need to conclude that simply appealing to a scientific approach doesn't resolve any issue. The most effective approach in climate change was to establish as a widely accepted belief that 99% of all scientists agree that man made climate change is real (disagree with the idea of AGW or not - that isn't the point. The point is that if you disagree you can be labelled a climate and a science denier, and your opinions are marginalized. There's a lesson there).

We've also seen (heard, actually, on the CBC interview) the kid from Raincoast responding to Jesse Zeman's science counter-argument that science isn't the best way to decide this, but morality is.

We need to figure out a good way to counter the moral objection. That counter argument exists (nothing is wasted, even if a human doesn't eat it, charismatic mega fauna isn't the "king" or any more majestic than the animals it kills, etc, etc). We need to get that message out there more.

Bear Valley makes sense when he says we may have to concede losing some of the hunt somewhere in the province. I think he sees the tactical reality. However, if we look at it as "win/lose" rather than "change/share" I think we're going to find ourselves in a long term losing battle where bears were just the start.

I also think we need to start welcoming disagreement. If someone has a differing opinion, even if it is a low information one, we're better to listen than to shut them down. If we listen we can respond and persuade or effectively marginalize.

If we shut them down or dismiss them? Well, if you don't know where that leads, ask Hillary if she's figured it out!

[wideopenthrottle]

once the bear pops are over capacity, hunters will not be allowed to "take the bear food (ungulates)" cuz the bears need it more than people do.....

[BgBlkDg]

Sorry, but, the term in your context would be "anthropomorphizing" and it is actually poor usage.

The term "king" has been used in reference to apex predators, specifically African Lions, aka "The King of Beasts" since Biblical times, so, the "antis" are simply following popular tradition.

I do agree with Mike, (BV) on his points, but, I do not have any confidence that such concessions on our part will satisfy the "antis" as MONEY is involved.........LOTS OF MONEY!!!

[Ajsawden]

Rob Chipman. Very well spoken. Very well executed argument. Very difficult reality to manage. It's damn near impossible to fight an 'enemy' that has no real standpoint. The moral standpoint is one that facts will rarely swing an opinion. Example: The argument that the hunt is sustainable but not the bear population is a direct ignorance of fact. A sustainable hunt directly correlates to sustainable bear populations. If bears go extinct, the hunt is not sustainable. If we can hunt x number of grizz per year until the end of time then the population is sustainable, period.

Sadly I have little more to contribute without getting all angry. I tried writing more but it was too negative to post. Cheers All, and happy hunting!

[J_T]

I agree that the science argument does not always work. Many of the non or anti hunting community want to talk about the social morals of hunting. So I agree, we need to be willing to go there.

Like others, I've maintained in part, the question becomes one of how do we see man, in nature. Is man a part of nature, his impact on nature, and if the answer is yes he is a part of nature and he has an impact on it, then we work to find agreement that man has a responsibility to understand nature and all that entails. This is the argument right now on climate change. Man (all mankind) has an impact on the climate so what is man going to do about it? Regarding climate change and wildlife, we then need to make wise decisions about these resources. If we equate wildlife management (it is not just hunters that impact wildlife) principles to climate change or vice versa, we might be able to find some common ground with the social moral group.

Step back. Let's not see Wildlife management as hunting. Let's see it for what it is. Finding balance. Managing mans impact on the resource. It is not about hunting, it's about managing the wildlife component. For the most part I don't hunt predators, but I feel we need to manage them and hunting and trapping are two key components in managing the balance.

We can make a health and social argument for hunting. Hunting is a great physical, spiritual and emotional experience. It's a wonderful mentoring tool for young people to emerge as responsible adults. These components are focused on the being in the out of doors. Not the killing.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^well said JT....

[Rob Chipman]

"Managing mans impact on the resource."

Right on. I've been puzzling my way through this lately. It's not really about managing the wildlife so much as our impact on them and the landscape. You nailed it.