I'm not sure if this has been posted. It looks like the government is looking for public input on the grizzly ban. There is a link at the bottom of the article with an email address.
http://cfjctoday.com/article/590360/...izzly-bear-ban
Senior Member
I'm not sure if this has been posted. It looks like the government is looking for public input on the grizzly ban. There is a link at the bottom of the article with an email address.
http://cfjctoday.com/article/590360/...izzly-bear-ban
Site Sponsor
Member
Everybody take the time to respond to this call out!
Here's my response:
To the Green-NDP coalition,
The proposed legislation to eliminate the "trophy" grizzly bear hunt is misguided and short sighted for numerous reasons and I would invite you to reconsider its implementation.
At it's most basic level, it is a wasteful policy. By forcing hunters to leave behind the hide and skull, a greater percentage of the animal's usable parts will be left behind to rot than under the current regulations. Forcing hunters to abandon a useful portion of their game is unethical. To that end, I can support the requirement of meat removal, however assuming meat is the only usable part of an animal is no different than suggesting the hide and skull are the only usable portions.
Given that many hunters find the requirement to leave behind the head and hide as unethical, fewer people will choose to pursue grizzlies (which was clearly your intention to begin with). While this may accomplish your political agenda, it removes a valuable tool for wildlife managers and scientists who are responsible for ensuring balance in our ecosystem.
It has been demonstrated that bear predation has significant effects on ungulate populations. Given that humans have dramatically altered our wilderness landscapes, we have a responsibility to ensure balance. Grizzly bear hunting is one tool wildlife managers can use to keep things in a healthy state and you are effectively removing it.
Another issue is that of evidence based policy. While you make no claims that you are proposing this legislation because the grizzly bear is under threat, it must be pointed out that this hunt is sustainable in its current form. Harvest rates are well below the replacement threshold, ensuring that we will have a viable grizzly bear population for generations to come (we harvest approximately one fifth of one percent of the total population a year).
So if it's wasteful, unethical, effectively removes an important wildlife management tool, and the hunt is sustainable, why change the regulations? You indicate that it's because you believe "that trophy hunting of grizzly bears is not a socially acceptable practice in B.C. in 2017." The problem with that statement is that you never defined what "trophy hunting" is.
When I look at the comments on social media or listen to non-hunting friends discussing the issue it's safe to say that most non-hunters believe that bear hunting is hunting solely for the status of having a head and hide displayed as a rug or on a mantle somewhere. This is a gross mischaracterization of why the vast majority of hunters, including grizzly bear hunters, spend time in the wilderness pursuing game.
To paraphrase the owner of Arctic Red Outfitters in NWT, hunting solely for the hide and skull would be like buying a really good book, ripping out the last chapter and throwing the rest of the book away. When we return from a hunt, it's not the head and the hide we spend the most time talking about, it's the shared memories and experiences we had along the way.
The head and hides of animals we harvest are not "trophies," they are mementos--objects kept as a reminder or souvenir of a person or event--of the journey we take to get these animals. If we were forced to waste those parts, it would spoil the memory and the life of that animal and that is something I cannot support. You have clearly not taken the time to talk to many articulate hunters about why we do what we do and as a result you have created a false narrative of what "trophy" hunting is all about.
With all that said, who are you to tell me what is socially acceptable in BC in 2017? You claim to support diversity and on this issue we hold differing points of view, why not allow mine to coexist with yours? Given that hunting in its current form is demonstrably sustainable, why force your beliefs on others? The vast majority of people who oppose the practice will have virtually no contact or interaction with grizzly bear hunters or the bears we hunt so why do you even care how how we choose to live our lives? Why try and dictate it? And given that it's sustainable, if you do want to interact with bears, there will still be plenty to go around for all without implementing your legislation as proposed.
For all of these reasons, I ask that you reconsider your ban on "trophy" parts.
Sincerely,
Steve
HuntingBC Champ
Good letter.
Resident Hunter
Thoughtfully articulated analysis on your part. Well done. Just wish you had also discussed resource extraction and habitat lose as other major considerations to wildlife health and abundance.Originally Posted by cpwrestler
HuntingBC Champ
I have to ask here....how do you find the right "email address" for your areas mla??
Mine is George Heyman sadly (he won by a large margin sadly here in Vancouver), and I found his
"website", and there is a "contact" section....BUT....
How do I know he gets the letter/mail in person????
How do I know I have "his" email address???
Bushwhacker
To whom it concerns:
My name is _____________, a resident hunter and taxpayer, and if the NDP government follows through with the proposed Grizzly bear hunt restrictions, they are listening to emotions, not science. The current grizzly bear hunt under LEH (limited entry hunting) regulations is sustainable, and there are more reported grizzly bear sightings and encounters now, as they are increasing in population. The griz hunt is beneficial for ecosystems where there is current LEH seasons, as grizzly bears have reduced ungulate populations in many parts of BC. Apex predators need to be managed!
The current anti-hunting stance that the BC NDP government has taken thus far while being in power will not be tolerated, many hunters and outdoors people will be voting accordingly next election.
Sincerely,
Member
The original link has an email address where they are seeking input specifically on this issue. I'd start there, but reaching out to an MLA is always a good idea as well. I'm pretty sure MLA contact info is available on the various party's websites, then there's always Google.
Member
The interesting thing about their legislation is that they are explicitly building their case on emotions, not science. They know that it's not science based and they don't care. Instead of JUST saying "it's supported by science" we need to articulate why it's not ok for the NDP/Greens or any political party for that matter to define what is "socially acceptable in 2017," especially when they don't understand what hunting means to us. We also need to explain what the science says and why it's an important management tool.
HuntingBC Champ
posted in the OPEN CHAT form as well
Feedback on NDP grizzly changes, cutoff Nov 2
Member
My submission, with a CC to my MLA, Jane Thornewaite.
First let me say how disgusted and disappointed I am as a BC citizen, a conservationist, and as a hunter, that our new provincial government is making wildlife policy based upon what is considered socially unacceptable by a group of anti-hunters, mainly represented in the Lower Mainland, or on social media, instead of science established by professional biologists.
The grizzly bear hunt is sustainable under current management policy based on the LEH system.
And it is very obvious that some areas need more aggressive management than others.
Imposing artificial restrictions, disguised as continued support of sustenance hunting, in the interior and northern regions is simply wrong. Lets be honest about the real agenda which this slippery slope leads to and that is the ban of all hunting. The party(s) in power do not have the stones to go directly to that level in one step, so this charade is going to continue as a death to hunting by a thousand cuts until we can get back to science based wildlife management.
And lets not get distracted by the inequalities and the divide being created by the current government between First Nations and resident (non FN) hunters with recent ATV and LEH moose closures. The message to resident hunters being sent by the current government seems quite clear.
From personal experience hunting in the Peace region, I can, with certainty, tell you that grizzly populations are not only sustainable, they are thriving. And they are reaching dangerous levels. There is less ungulate wildlife and more predators than ever before. While elk hunting in September, we were threatened with aggressive grizzly behaviour on two different occasions. Both times we backed out, with guns loaded and ready to fire. Fortunately the bears chose not to engage further, however, it is becoming increasingly apparent that their fear of humans is reduced. This is a dangerous situation evolving in our backcountry, and reduced hunting pressure on these predators is , in my opinion, going to result in unsuspecting eco-tourists who think they are in a petting zoo getting seriously hurt or worse.
Hunting, for me, is not just based solely on sustenance, nor is it based solely on harvesting a "trophy". To me, I eat what I hunt, but at the same time, every animal I take is a personal trophy, and a significant accomplishment.
Long after the meat is consumed, the horns, the skull, the teeth, the claws, the pelt all provide lasting memories of a successful hunt, and offer proof of the hard work I put in, the planning, the preparation, and the skills I have honed. I make a huge investment, both financially and in my efforts to prepare for and execute a hunt. I deserve the fruits of my labour. These proposed regulations are denying me that opportunity. Further, it is not only a waste, it is completely disrespectful to the animal.
A trophy is not defined by Boone and Crocket, or Pope and Young, it is defined by the accomplishment , and this means something different to each hunter. How is a bear trophy any different than an elk, or a moose, or a cougar or a wolf?
To address some of the specific policy points, if the policy changes have the desired result that the real hidden agenda is advocating ( stop grizzly bear hunting in its entirety), then the recovery of scientific data from hunter kills will be meaningless as the sample size will be too small to provide meaningful results. I'm sure the biologists will agree with this. Why would I, as a hunter, be motivated to recover animal parts that I cannot keep? If it has no value to a hunter, it is going to stay in the bush, where it will be of value to other wildlife such as bears, wolves, coyotes, birds, etc. And if you make it mandatory for a hunter to recover parts for confiscation that have no intrinsic value, then how likely is that hunter going to report anything at all.
The worst possible outcome is to motivate hunters to not report.
I think that the proposed restrictions will result in reduced legal harvesting, but it will not stop illegal harvesting. If someone decides they want to poach a bear for its trophy parts, the last thing they are going to do is report the kill and recover parts for inspection and confiscation.
If anything, I think that the proposed policy changes will simply drive the grizzly bear harvest underground. With value removed from these animals, their populations will suffer and succumb to poaching just like what is happening in Africa. At least if our biologists know about a kill, they will have improved data to contribute to improved management decisions based on science.
With proposed policy changes the biologists will get more data from roadkill on the train tracks than they will from legal harvests.
A question that should be asked of our provincial govt is: Since you've already stated that science no longer matters, then why would we collectively ( hunters and Wildlife biologists) waste any resources in collecting the data?
What the anti's don't understand is that legal hunting does more for the conservation of wildlife populations than they realize. If I can freely harvest a big mature nasty grizzly boar from an area, then there will be a corresponding increase in ungulate fawn/cow/calf and black bear survival in that area. More importantly for the grizzly population, fewer grizzly cubs will be consumed, leading to a healthier population of younger bears that make it to maturity. It would be very educational if all the lower mainland and social media anti's ( Miley Cyrus and her friends) that have never seen a bear in real life were made to understand how many poor little fawns, calfs, and cubs get killed by a mature boar.
Bottomline: the proposed policy changes are going to have a more detrimental effect on the wildlife in our province than the current LEH program based on science.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote