RAINCOAST wants BLACK BEAR HUNTING BAN

[bearvalley]

RainCoast execs are earning $80,000+ per year, lol... They won't let that gravy train come to a screeching halt.

Just out of curiosity I wonder what some of the Feds key staffers are pulling out of our funds each year. I hope there aren't any real surprises....maybe just theyre just getting their expenses covered and donating their time for the betterment of wildlife. Interesting thought........

[BCHunterFSJ]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

[TreeStandMan]

Open access is a great thing and more journals should follow suit.
It is also ranked 17 out of the 84 commonly submitted to Biology journals.
Which is pretty fantastic as most academics rarely have the opportunity to published on the top 7 or 8

Yes, I understand how academic publishing works, and yes, open access is often (not always) a very good thing. Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.

Despite this, the most important fact remains: much of the material that Raincoast has published is bad science, with questionable data sets, small sample sizes, and ridiculous methodology. There's selection bias everywhere with inadequacies passed off as "preliminary research." These are folks who disagree with hunting, full stop, and their questionable scholarship is essentially an exercise in public relations. I'm not an expert in biology or wildlife management, but one of my graduate degrees is in information science, and I know how to evaluate academic information, and calling it poor research is a compliment, because as with this most recent article, it's not even science, just opinion.

A large part of the problem is that, because of systematic under funding, we don't have good science here, although I think "Scientific Review of Grizzly Bear Harvest Management System in British Columbia" was pretty good. It's hard to turn that stuff out though, while Raincoast's style of article can be turned out way easier. What we need is some proper data, funding for research, a reaffirmation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation--a model which Raincoast rejects--despite that it's responsible for us having wildlife today.

[bearvalley]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

They issued one.
Its funny that it hasn't been posted on here.

[Wild one]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

With the recent issues being brought forth with the grizz hunt and now this attempt at impacting black bear hunting they might be a little overwhelmed and need a little time to respond

I have faith there will be some form of response from the BCWF but it takes a little time to put a solid response together. For this reason as hunters we got to have some faith and give the BCWF a little time.

Myself I would respect a solid offence that takes a little time over a fast slapped together one full of holes

[Whonnock Boy]

Call up the guide that's running the show at the office and ask him why?

They issued one.
Its funny that it hasn't been posted on here.

[bearvalley]

Call up the guide that's running the show at the office and ask him why?

Haha....here we go with your personal issues.
Goat Guys been logged in here since the NDP made the call....why doesn't he tell us why?
Or maybe you....since you seem to want to be second in command.
I've read the response and have a question....if and when a hunter kills a grizzly and packs out the head, hide and paws (as the BCWF statement says should be done).....does the hunter get to keep the head, hide and paws?
Or is the hunter packing out 150 lbs to be handed over for scientific evaluation, etc, etc....and forfeit the right to keep the head, hide and paws.

[Wild one]

I really hope it's a well thought out response and hope to see it soon

[IronNoggin]

So what is the BCWF take on all this????
Have they issued any kind of response on these bear issues?

BCWF Response:

RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT TO END GRIZZLY TROPHY HUNT

The provincial government announced today that they will end grizzly bear trophy hunting throughout the province and stop all hunting of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest.

The BC Wildlife Federation supports sustainable hunting in British Columbia under conditions consistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. One of the tenets of the model is non-frivolous use, which allows hunting under only strict guidelines for food, and fur. This tenet prohibits the killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns, or feathers.

The BC Wildlife Federation has and continues to support changes to the Wildlife Act which would require all edible portions of grizzly bears are used. In Europe, brown bear meat is considered quality table fare. Grizzly bear diet is similar to that of black bears; black bears have long been considered quality table fare in BC.

President of the BCWF Harvey Andrusak said, “It is positive that the government is maintaining the hunt for meat. We will represent our members’ interests as the government consults us on the practical details of this ban.“

Media is reporting that the province has said they will forbid a hunter from possessing the paws, head, and hide of a grizzly.This is inconsistent with conditions in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Leaving the hide and skull undermines the collection of scientific data used to manage grizzly bears. Currently those parts are used to age and sex the animals harvested, providing critical data to scientists which is the basis for any decisions about grizzly harvest.

The BCWF believes that we should be using as much of any wildlife taken as possible and will be advocating with government to maintain the interests of our members. Hunting is a very small part of grizzly bear mortality.

The BC Wildlife Federation will continue to support recovery efforts for grizzly bears in areas where populations are under threat and to advocate for increased funding and science for wildlife management in BC.

My first question would be to be to curly top - where did you see this posted about wanting to stop the black bear hunt? Always nice to see a link/direct quote to confirm.

Raincoat's Executive Director Chris Genovali agreed that banning black bear hunting is already on their agenda. He actually expresses disappointment black bear hunting was not banned in their mythical forest at the same time as the grizzly was.

At 22:15 of this broadcast: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/...tenttype=audio

Nog

[jassmine]

Yes, I understand how academic publishing works, and yes, open access is often (not always) a very good thing. Biology Letters, however, is not a high quality journal. I'm not sure about the source for your ranking (maybe Web of Science, which I don't have access to), but SCImago shows Biology Letters has less than 3 citations per document over two years, its number of cited documents is falling and the number of uncited documents is rising, and its total number of cites has declined yearly over the last three years. Its H index is 83, which is hard to benchmark without comparing it to other journals with similar publication histories, but this seems low to me given this journal has been publishing since 2005.

In what scenario is open access not a good?
In the world of biology which I am in (conservation/ecology/evolution), Biology Letters is a very good journal.
By Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report it is ranked 17 out of 84 in "Biology".
I'm not sure you are aware of the Impact Factors for journal ecologist or wildlife biologist typically publish in but a 3.33 (Biology Letters 5 year score) year average is pretty darn good.

The journals Conservation Biology (4.3) and American Naturalist (4.7), the pre-eminent journals in this field only receive roughly one extra citation. Noone that I know at my stage (+/- 5 years) has published in journals above this, with very few having made it into a journal of this impact. The only person that actually has made it in our department to a bigger journal "Science" was actually some work done by SFU folk on wildlife management.
Artelle, K. A., Reynolds, J. D., Paquet, P. C., & Darimont, C. T. (2014). When Science-Based Management Isn't. Science, 343(6177), 1311-1311.


Though you might take it as defending their group, I'm just laying out the facts about the field of ecology. Below is some data from an older study on Ecology Journals