Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    268

    BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    I'm sure many (all?) of you have seen the recent NDP announcement that the trophy grizzly bear hunt will be closed effective November of this year. This will mean that hunters can no longer remove the head, hide and paws when they harvest a grizzly bear. Does anyone know whether or not the BCWF has issued a press release or position statement on this proposed closure? I've looked, but haven't been able to locate anything. As a longtime member of the BCWF, I would expect the BCWF to be very active on this issue in opposing the proposed closure. If we can't remove the "trophy" parts from a bear, I expect the next restrictions will be on removing horns and antlers from other animals that we take. Thanks to anyone who can point me in the right direction.

    bcmulie

  2. Site Sponsor

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Central Vancouver Island
    Posts
    385

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Copied from a BCWF e-mail that was sent out:



    The BCWF Response to Provincial Government Announcement to End Grizzly Trophy Hunt

    The provincial government has announced they will end grizzly bear trophy hunting throughout the province and stop all hunting of grizzlies in the Great Bear Rainforest after November 2017.
    Hunting grizzlies for meat outside the Great Bear Rainforest is not included in the ban, but the government has said they will forbid a meat hunter from possessing the paws, head, and hide of a grizzly. This announcement is inconsistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which stipulates harvested wildlife should be used for legitimate purposes, including retrieving the fur and meat where usable. Requiring hunters or anglers to throw useable portions of their harvest away is wasteful and inconsistent with sustainable use.
    Harvey Andrusak, President of the BCWF said, “The province must maintain a science-based hunt to determine if there is a sustainable harvest which includes the opportunity for hunters to utilize all portions of any animal or fish harvested. We cannot be managing fish and wildlife on a one-off basis. All wildlife management must be consistent with science-based recommendations.”
    Biological data obtained from the hide and skull provides critical data to scientists. BCWF staff and executive met with government representatives yesterday to stress the importance of making sure experts maintain the opportunity to obtain valuable data from any animal harvested. The government has said they will meet with First Nations and all affected groups in the fall and the federation will be continuing to stand up strongly for science-based management of all wildlife species.
    The BCWF supports a regional roundtable approach, with specific conservation measures and social considerations discussed with residents, First Nations, commercial and recreational sector representatives before wildlife management policy is changed or adopted.
    We need your help! To be effective, members need to speak with their MLAs to educate them about this issue and stress the importance of maintaining hunting practices that do not waste any part of any animal taken. Find your MLA here
    BCWF Resident Priority Program manager Jesse Zeman participated in a panel discussion on CBC Almanac at noon on August 15, 2017, stressing these points and advocating for adequate funding for wildlife management in BC.
    President of the BCWF- affiliated Spruce City Wildlife Association Steve Hamilton was featured in this story in the Vancouver Sun.

    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.


    Mr. Conservation


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Ok!So where are the teeth? We're teetering on the edge here. What direction is the Fed going. Are we going after the NDP? Why haven't we used the MOU that was signed as a stepping point to drive a message from all hunters that we won't stand for this!?We've all seen the Raincoast initiative,are we content to sit back and let them steer the policy? Would somebody please post the Times Colonist article from last week.It gives a very clear direction as to what could be next!! Scary shit! It seems that the statement the BCWF issued is what I would have expected them to say after the cancelation announcement .BUT ! What's happening today ?This is a far greater issue than allocation was and yet silence ! Has there been a backdoor deal? If ever there was a time for all of us as a user group to stand united this would be it, or be prepared to kiss your children and grandchildrens opportunities away.In my mind everything else should be taking a back seat to this . There is a far bigger picture here!OUR FUTURE AS HUNTERS IS IN JEOPARDY

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    268

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Here's the Times Colonist article, huntaholic:

    Comment: Wildlife-management reform is long overdue

    TIMES COLONIST
    AUGUST 11, 2017 08:17 AM









    The underpinnings of contemporary wildlife management are political and ideological, largely at the expense of wildlife for the presumed benefit of people.
    Unsurprisingly, wildlife management in British Columbia is marked by an outdated mindset that primarily views wild animals as a “resource” to be exploited by recreational hunting or as troublesome creatures that need to be killed because their existence conflicts with human endeavours. Saddled by a myopic adherence to the debunked and inaptly named North American model of wildlife conservation, wildlife policy in B.C. is mired in a philosophically and structurally faulty approach.
    Simply, wildlife policies are focused on consumption and control, rather than conservation.
    As ethicist Michael Nelson and wildlife ecologists John Vucetich, Paul C. Paquet and Joseph Bump note in their critique, North American Model: What’s Flawed, What’s Missing, What’s Needed, the model’s primary tenet, i.e. recreational hunting being central to wildlife conservation, is based upon an inadequate account of history and an inadequate ethic.


    Largely ignoring the biology and intrinsic value of all species, the model reinforces the narrow idea that nature is a commodity — a “resource” — owned and used by humans in pursuit of personal interests. This “management” perspective draws its support from — and sustains — the view that humans exist outside of nature, and that other species, apart from their utility for humans, are of little importance in the larger scheme of things. Human dominion and domination over nature are deemed to be the natural order.
    Predominantly driven by a recreational hunting agenda, the North American model is informed largely by values, attitudes and atavistic beliefs entrenched in the self-serving fallacy that killing wild animals for sport and control is essential to wildlife conservation.
    As explained in the critique, the model relies on a misinterpretation of history in which recreational hunting is disproportionately, and inaccurately, seen as the driver of North American wildlife conservation, while downplaying the contributions of monumental figures such as John Muir and Aldo Leopold, who pioneered broad-based approaches to conservation without focusing on hunting as its primary tool.
    The province’s recent proposal to privatize wildlife management illustrates the pernicious effect of the North American model on the mindset of government bureaucrats and politicians. In the run-up to the election, the B.C. Liberals announced plans to implement an extra-governmental agency that would be controlled by recreational hunting groups.
    This perverse scheme is the culmination of decades of undue influence by the recreational hunting lobby on the B.C. government; it was also inevitable under the model, where science and ethics are ignored in favour of self-perpetuating myth and anecdote.
    With its philosophical roots in the model, the grizzly-bear hunt is an egregious and persistent example of how B.C. wildlife management fails to address ecological, economic and ethical considerations. Using the province’s kill data to determine if B.C.’s grizzly management meets its own objectives, Raincoast Conservation Foundation scientists have found that total kills commonly exceed limits determined by provincial policy. Financial analyses have shown that grizzlies are worth far more alive than dead, and poll after poll indicates a clear majority of British Columbians have judged the recreational hunting of these large carnivores an abhorrent activity.
    Considering centuries of human privilege over the needs of the environment, what we need to manage is not wildlife but ourselves. Recognizing that many human activities have damaging effects on biodiversity and ecological communities, what should wildlife management in B.C. look like?
    Briefly, Raincoast envisions a compassionate conservation policy based on management for wildlife, as opposed to management of wildlife — a policy that takes into account the health and well-being of individuals and populations. Furthermore, we envision substantially more consideration given to maintaining the integrity of ecological systems upon which species depend.
    Although species might continue to exist and suffer long after natural ecological relationships have been altered or destroyed, such impoverished conditions are not sustainable and do not typify healthy environments. Finally, wildlife management needs to emerge from the shadows and adopt practices in keeping with modern science, as well as principles regarding the ethical treatment of animals.
    Without a significant shift in how we relate to and interact with wildlife, future generations will look back with stunned dismay at how our society could be so divorced from reality and morality. The hopeful news in B.C. is that with a new government there is the opportunity for positive change and a much more ecologically and ethically informed approach to wildlife management.
    Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Large-carnivore expert Paul C. Paquet is Raincoast’s senior scientist.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Alberni
    Posts
    14,203

    Thumbs down Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Let's just have a little look at the drivel written by Raincoast Exec Director Genovali (non scientist that he is)...

    The basis of his entire focus is founded upon his claim that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is "myopic, has been widely debunked and is inaptly named" and further "is based upon an inadequate account of history and an inadequate ethic."

    Nothing could be much further from the truth (like that ever bothered anyone of this ilk?).

    The North American Wildlife Conservation Model was established by Teddy Roosevelt and a handful of others (largely hunters btw) who recognized that many species of wildlife were rapidly disappearing. So, they set out to initially establish hunting regulations and conservation groups to protect habitat. What followed was the development of one of the most widely recognized successes world wide in terms of conserving both habitat and the wildlife populations they support. In fact, many aspects of this model have been successfully applied in rather far flung regions world wide. So much for insufficient history. So much for being widely debunked. So much for an inappropriate name. and so much for being "myopic" in any sense of the word.

    Today, this Model is based upon what is termed the Seven Sisters for Conservation:

    #1 – Wildlife is Held in the Public Trust
    In North America, natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

    #2 – Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife
    Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations.

    #3 – Democratic Rule of Law
    Hunting and fishing laws are created through the public process where everyone has the opportunity and responsibility to develop systems of wildlife conservation and use.

    #4 – Hunting Opportunity for All
    Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.

    #5 – Non-Frivolous Use
    In North America, individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense and property protection. Laws restrict against the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers.

    #6 – International Resources
    Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Working together, the United States and Canada jointly coordinate wildlife and habitat management strategies. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 demonstrates this cooperation between countries to protect wildlife. The Act made it illegal to capture or kill migratory birds, except as allowed by specific hunting regulations.

    #7 – Scientific Management
    Sound science is essential to managing and sustaining North America’s wildlife and habitats. For example, researchers put radio collars on elk to track the animals’ movements to determine where elk give birth and how they react to motor vehicles on forest roads.

    Raincoast and their ilk may really only find direct fault with numbers 3 and 4 due to the fact they include sustainable use within the guiding principles. They of course will not openly admit that, instead preferring to toss the entire system out as somehow being flawed. What they purport to support in contrast however, directly opposes several of the other principles, including most notably Scientific Management which they would merrily trade for emotion-based "management" in a heartbeat if they so could.

    So, as we can see, the very foundation of what Raincoast is driving for is based upon misrepresentation of fact (often alternatively termed LIES).

    More information regarding the North American Wildlife Management Model can be found here:
    http://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploa...nservation.pdf

    What follows is another attack - this time upon the proposed funding and government removed model of wildlife management within BC. In this attack, they start off by stating that "the B.C. Liberals announced plans to implement an extra-governmental agency that would be controlled by recreational hunting groups.".

    Another complete falsehood.
    When the model was proposed it was clearly identified that a neutral third party of qualified individuals would form the administration.
    That group would operate independent of Gov and user groups/stakeholders.
    This type of model ensures that no organization can influence or be prioritized in the decision making processes (including leftist NGO's).

    The only beneficiary under the proposal is wildlife, they are the sole priority.
    Simply put, wildlife is the winner, not special interest of any ilk.

    Yet somehow Raincoast views such a development as "perverse" and one wherein "science and ethics are ignored in favour of self-perpetuating myth and anecdote."

    Huh? Can anyone be more obvious in their attempts at misdirection (aka LYING)??

    What follows is an idealist suggestion of just how Raincoast would see wildlife management occur in British Columbia.
    Basically, it may as well have been directly cut and pasted from PETA's playbook.
    Yes, it IS that far removed from reality.

    So I do have a suggestion for them, and that centers on their own stated desire that "wildlife management needs to emerge from the shadows and adopt practices in keeping with modern science". That model already exists. Plans are still hopefully underway to make it so, despite the spin, outright lying, and employing of non-contextual arguments to suggest otherwise. And, I also suggest we leave the matter of emotion, ethics and self-centered "morality" to the likes of PETA, HSUS and other such notably rabid organizations where they rightfully belong.

    We MUST get organized, and FAST folks!
    The number and strength of our emboldened enemies grows daily...

    Worried!
    Nog
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNNhzkJ-UU&feature=related

    Egotistical, Self Centered, Son of a Bitch Killer that Doesn't Play Well With Others.

    Guess he got to Know me

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Alberni
    Posts
    14,203

    Arrow Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Latest Circular from BCWF:

    Future of Hunting and Fishing at Risk



    Last week in a hyper-political decision government decided it was going to close grizzly bear hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest and outside the area grizzly bear hunting would continue, but hunters could not possess the hide, head, nor paws of the bear, something government has defined as “trophy parts”. The government has also said this is only for grizzly bears and does not apply to other species. But it’s not really about grizzly bear “trophy hunting”, it’s about hunting.
    The BC Wildlife Federation has responded saying this approach is wasteful and inconsistent with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. Read the BCWF response HERE
    While there are points and counter points to grizzly bear hunting, what conservationists should bear in mind is that so-called conservation organizations which were only opposed to the “trophy hunting of grizzly bears” have now publically stated they will start to focus on eliminating black bear hunting. And if government continues to listen to them you can expect hunting bans on all predator species, followed by species such as sheep, goats and finally deer, moose and elk.
    The BCWF’s Jesse Zeman was a panel guest, along with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s Chris Genovali on the grizzly hunt, which you can listen to CBC Almanac HERE
    If you hunt and fish you should be concerned. The consistent application of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model has been abandoned for one species and others will follow. First Nations continue to have a constitutional right to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes. It will be indigenous people who decide what happens in their traditional territories.
    The government has announced a consultation period, which is simply a temperature check of the public response to this change. If you want to continue to hunt and fish the best thing you can do is write, email, and meet with your MLA. Write the premier, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations as well as the party leaders for the Green and Liberal Party. Find your MLA HERE
    Your message does not need to be technical. All you need to convey how important conservation, fishing and hunting are to you, and future generations. Be clear on what your position is around hunting and fishing, particularly as it relates to the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.
    If people who hunt and fish do not stand up for conservation or future generations you will see your rights continue to erode.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNNhzkJ-UU&feature=related

    Egotistical, Self Centered, Son of a Bitch Killer that Doesn't Play Well With Others.

    Guess he got to Know me

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    The latest release from the BCWF is interesting, especially the part "First Nations continue to have a constitutional right to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes. It will be indigenous people who decide what happens in their traditional territories".
    Sounds to me like one of the fed reps was paying attention....maybe yesterday.
    What we need to keep in mind here is that the NDP delivered on a party platform promise that was strictly emotion based.
    They threw all science out the door along with hunters.
    If this suggested policy on Grizzlies is allowed to carry thru other species will fall....just like dominoes.
    Horgan and Donaldson along with all local MLA's need to have it explained that no species of wildlife will be thrown away on an emotion/political supporter based whim.
    The one wild card we are packing right now is that not all FN's think the same as the coastal ones and government is probably about to get told to go pound sand on the new grizzly proposal.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Okanagan
    Posts
    924

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    It would be great to have some talking points about the Grizzly bear hunt to share with non hunters.

    How many bears vs harvested? Real world numbers, not estimates.

    If the bears were not harvested (shot by rifle or bow), what is the natural attrition on senior bears (assuming hunters are going after bigger, older bears)?

    How much foreign money comes to BC for the bear hunt, and stays with Government for (conservation) purposes to protect the resource?

    How much of a loss financially to BC will this cost? I know that there is some BS stat that says bear watching brings 10X the fees that hunting does, but I just can't believe that - when you hear what some bear hunts cost the US hunters.

    It would be great to have this info sooner than later.

    Thanks

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    268

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Thanks Mr. Conservation and IronNoggin - good info.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kamloops
    Posts
    4,309

    Re: BCWF Position on Cancellation of Trophy Grizzly Bear Hunt

    Quote Originally Posted by Lionhill View Post
    It would be great to have some talking points about the Grizzly bear hunt to share with non hunters.

    How many bears vs harvested? Real world numbers, not estimates.

    If the bears were not harvested (shot by rifle or bow), what is the natural attrition on senior bears (assuming hunters are going after bigger, older bears)?

    How much foreign money comes to BC for the bear hunt, and stays with Government for (conservation) purposes to protect the resource?

    How much of a loss financially to BC will this cost? I know that there is some BS stat that says bear watching brings 10X the fees that hunting does, but I just can't believe that - when you hear what some bear hunts cost the US hunters.

    It would be great to have this info sooner than later.

    Thanks
    There are on average 250 bears killed annually by hunters. 80 from guides and 170 from resident hunters. We do not have numbers of FN harvest because they don't have to manditory report...
    Around 40-70 are killed annually by trains, cars and conservation officers
    Harvest rates remain constant over the past 30 years when comparing number of males harvested vs number of females harvested. This is a very good indicator of the health of the population because: As bears age, and more males are targeted, then eventually there should be less mature male bears, which should lead to more elderly female bears being harvested. This does not happen though, more male bears continue to be harvested which means that their numbers relative to harvest rates are in balance and the population is at the very least holding steady.
    Grizzly bear hunting generates around $2.5M-3M annually between resident and non resident hunters. It is hard to determine the actual amount generated from resident hunters as only successfull hunts are recorded anywhere.
    WSSBC Monarch
    WSF Life Member
    2% Certified
    RMGA Member
    CCFR Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •