It should be noted that this is a crosspost from CGN, so apologies to anyone that's already come across it. I felt it may be more appropriate to share here as the Cougar hunt is being targeted in British Columbia.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle37701186/
In light of this recent article which another member has shared for discussion on this forum, I decided to write an article back to the editor of the Opinion section of The Globe and Mail. My hope is that it gets published, not for my own sake, but for the sake of shedding light on the truth of this matter.
I will attach the email to of the Opinion editor below, and my hope is that anyone who who feels they are aligned with my stance might copy the text and email it as well. We cannot gain traction by sitting in our private forums and bashing the actions of those working against us, without stepping out and acting ourselves.
G&M Opinion Editor:
NHassan@globeandmail.com
My Piece:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Professor Chris Darimonts recent piece:
Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat.
Dear Professor Darimont and The Globe and Mail
We live in a time when information is readily accessible at a pace beyond our ability to process, and many folks choose simply to skim over headlines and opening paragraphs before coming to conclusion. I am of the belief that the integrity of journalism is of utmost priority, and I am certain that the editors of a publication such as The Globe and Mail would likely agree with this statement.
Mr. Darimonts eloquently penned piece is not only troubling, but also erroneous in parts.
As the professor of an esteemed Canadian University, I imagine he is familiar with the “poisoning the well” fallacy. In the first paragraph, he presents his stance strongly against predator hunting, though not based on fact, but instead by directing the readers subconscious.
“He posted images of his smiling face lording over a cougar he had legally killed in northern Alberta.” To which he followed up by stating, “After a chase, the exhausted cougar took short-lived refuge up a tree as frenzied dogs barked below. Some time later, Mr. Ecklund arrived at the tree with his weapon.”
To address the highly contentious, deeply misunderstood and complex issue of predator hunting with such slanted prose from the author is likely as far from ethical journalism as anything run by the Trump campaign. To my understanding, ethical journalism seeks to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. By simply removing the emboldened italic words in the quotes above, his story paints a entirely different picture to your readers. I do appreciate a well written piece as much as the next, but to begin your second sentence by inserting a word deeply rooted in colonialism into the mix, you are starting on the wrong foot. To the latter three words I have highlighted, I will say this; What special insight to the circumstances of Mr. Ecklunds hunt do you have? Do you know for certain that the cougar was in fact exhausted, or perhaps you are privy to the amount of time said feline spent in the tree? It is possible that these statements are accurate, of course, but as neither myself nor Mr. Darimont took part in this hunt, it would be incredibly bold to make such claims.
As I continued to read through the piece I had hoped -- perhaps foolishly -- that these bold and italicized words would not dictate the tone of the article. Alas, I was let down as he changed gears from troubling to downright erroneous in the third paragraph, stating this of the British Columbia wildlife management system: “wildlife-management system that normalizes the killing of animals that are not eaten.” I am beyond curious to know where Mr. Darimont pulls this information from, as the suggestion that Cougars are not eaten by hunters is outrageous. Ten minutes on the phone with any number of Fish & Game clubs throughout the province would prove this statement inaccurate. I cannot count on all of my digits the number of times I have heard someone come away from a wild game dinner hosted by a Fish & Game club stating that Cougar was the best wild table fare they had tried. He carries on to state in paragraph five that “Proponents of predator hunting understand the nature of the opposition, and are desperately trying to adapt. That is why, no doubt, Mr. Ecklund made the point to show off a photo of his cougar stir-fry. Most people were repulsed, understanding intuitively that the meat of large carnivores should be avoided.”
The implication that hunters displaying meals they have cooked from the game that they harvested is simply a desperate attempt to appease and soothe public opinion is absurd. Once again I question where the source information comes from. While I am fully aware that this is categorized by The Globe and Mail as an “opinion piece” I feel strongly that one must still adhere to code of ethical journalism, and write with integrity. At any point is this article does he state “I am of the opinion that”? I think not, in fact throughout the entire article the word opinion does not appear once.
And this is where the issue of ethical journalism becomes clear. One of the hats that Chris Darimont wears happens to be that of Science Director for the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the same foundation that is fervently working towards the ban of hunting cougars and black bear along our coast. The same foundation that published data that was not reproducible in any of our government studies in regards to the Grizzly Bear populations throughout the province. I suppose with this knowledge it should come as no surprise that this article would not be without bias. This bias is peppered throughout the article, most notably in his eleventh paragraph when he coyly suggests “As individual recreationists or ecotourism clients, they could, for example, pay for access to wildlife-rich areas. “They could consider contributing to the purchase of guided hunting territories, a conservation economic strategy pioneered in B.C.”
What Mr. Darimont conveniently fails to mention is the fact that the very foundation works for as the Director of Science -- Raincoast Conservation-- is the same foundation that is spearheading the purchase and closure of Guide-Outfitter concessions in the province.
Let it be known that I am not without bias myself. I am a resident of British Columbia, a hunter, a member of a number of hunting based conservation organizations, and a professional hunting guide. I have no desire to hide the intentions behind my words. I am fortunate enough to spend upwards of 150 days a year in the rich wilderness of this province I call home. I can assure you that my desire to hunt is only outweighed by my desire for these animals to continually live and thrive in untouched, wild places.
British Columbia, while imperfect, is wild, it is beautiful, and it is diverse. Diversity in its ecosystems, in its wildlife, and in its human inhabitants is the reason so many of us are proud to call it home. I deeply value and respect differences of opinion, it is those differences and the conversations that ensue that help us to understand, connect with each other, and ultimately evolve in our practices and beliefs. I firmly believe in the idea of speaking truth to power, and to this I take stance against what Mr. Darimont has wrote. I am at odds not with his position against hunting cougars, I have many friends and hunting partners who do not choose to take part in all aspects of hunting. I do however, and will continue to speak out against those who chose to push their agendas by means of misinformation, and slanderous terms. The inaccuracy of this article is an insult to the rich history of hunting in British Columbia, an insult to the many men and women who donate their time and money to habitat and species protection throughout the province, and an insult to the intelligence of our residents as a whole.
In a world where news publications are rapidly pitted against each other and calls of “fake news” are yelled from the bleachers, let us all have some transparency.
Sincerely,
Nolan Osborne
Reply With Quote
