Re: Rebeka Breder trying to ban Wolf an Bear hunting
It's a tough discussion to have because anti-hunters (as opposed to non-hunters) are often pretty irrational and like to move the goals posts. That saying "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't come to by reason" applies.
Jesse did pretty well in that interview. He wasn't in complete control of who said what and when, and I would assume he was expecting a more rational opponent, but I think we did fail a little bit on the science side of black bear populations, and we can do better. I think he made the points about following science and what BC hunters' motivations really are, so that's a positive.
Still, I'm chalking that interview up as a win. First, he did a better job than I could of and second, Rebeka Breder didn't help her cause much with her statements.
(Sidebar - the same week that the wolf trapping SM brouhaha and this radio interview hit the news there were also multiple news stories about cougars strolling through the residential streets of Coquitlam, killing pets and following teenagers. My latest understanding its that COs dispatched one juvenile cougar and are looking for the mother. Latte sipping people were on Global News saying it's unacceptable that people can't walk their dogs in the backyard without living in fear of a cougar attack. None of us on this forum celebrate wildlife death that comes from urban/wildlife conflicts, but it's pretty clear that some people in the 604 aren't looking at things through rose coloured glasses, and that news does get air time, and it's always good when real life makes the news).
But the issue is also complex because hunters haven't talked it through enough on our own side. We're still at a stage where we don't agree on a lot of basic things, and we need to work through them and come up with some solid responses.
Are animals sentient?
Is it ok to kill sentient beings?
Why do we hunt?
Why do we call it "sport hunting"?
Where did that term, and trophy hunting, and recreational hunting, come from?
Are they appropriate terms to use today or have they been completely weaponized?
Who is our target audience for these things?
We want to follow science, but does that mean there is enough science?
If there isn't enough science, isn't that a problem itself?
I'm sure there's more to add to that list, but I think it would be worthwhile for as many of us as possible to get on the same page on those questions. We're starting to get there (look at the recent post here about why we hunt as an example), but I think we need to keep talking about these issues and then get coherent, effective consensus answers. Motivation for hunting is just one example: there can be more than one motivation and we can still be on the same page if we reach a consensus that we hunt for....multiple good reasons.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey