Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat

[Ohwildwon]

Is this the, 'thin red line'?

As educated human beings, isn't leaving mother nature, to her boom and bust cycles unethical in itself?

Let these animal populations rise beyond carrying capacity, only to die of starvation and disease?

Isn't controlling the population, an intelligent ethical response to the way's of mother nature?

If not, why not?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/hunters-to-protect-our-social-licence-we-have-to-stop-killing-animals-we-dont-eat/article37701186/

[Red_Mist]

Just read who the opinion piece is by and that says enough.

[Bugle M In]

Well, I guess it is a point of view.
And that's the direction where we are headed, so heads up everyone.
Once Preds are off the "hunting list", it's on to goats and sheep I suppose.
It won't end until "hunting is deemed illegal" by some.
The internet, "Pandora's box".

[brownmancheng]

where is BCWF in all this? they should be much more vocal and in the public eye. They need to fight this rhetoric head on via social media and other mainstream venues, instead they update their website bi annually and drive around the province doing slideshows.

there are many false statements in this article that the globe and mail should be fact checking. at least we should have someone that can counter this and set the record straight.

I definitely am starting to see issues with the stakeholder roundtable all user pay system here. the writer hints to it that if non hunters want input they may have to financially contribute and buy guiding territories (something they have already done)

getting pretty worried the organization that is supposed to represent us is selling us down the river.

[warnniklz]

cougar is god damn tasty. end of story

[New Bow Hunter]

Where I hunt, I have never seen any eco-tourists. So that statement only holds water in certain areas.

[butthead]

cougar is god damn tasty. end of story

Beaver is good along with cougar

[Salty]

Well paid Raincoast Foundation staff have a right for an opinion too, absolutely, but sorry it won't hold much water to me.

[butthead]

you know the sad this is that they are gona win this.
they are organized for years and well trained.
us (the hunter) well all we can do is wait for opening day.
getting caribou area closed to snowmobiling for a couple of caribou
there slowly closing off every thing in the wild to us.
think about the roads you found totally impassible this year while out hunting?
one byte at a time they have slowly consumed us.

[Rob Chipman]

brownmancheng:

The BCWF is a great organization, but it has it's limits and it's about time we recognized them.

They are uncompetitive on social media. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. A solid social media presence requires several people working in shifts to get out a consistent message. BCWF (as far as I can see) has neither the resources nor the talent for that. I'm not criticizing them. I'm just pointing out that they are not equipped to respond well on social media. Someone else is going to have to do that.

The media isn't going to fact check jack shit. Perhaps they should, but look out your window. They don't. There's a good reason for it. They're losing money and their old business model doesn't pay. Add into this the fact (yes, the irony of this statement isn't lost on me) that we live in a post-fact world. Opinions are much more valuable and pay much better than facts. As soon as you start looking (and Chris Darimont's article offers proof) you'll see it.

Additionally, because old fashioned media can't make money they're happy to take opinion pieces written by people who are being paid by someone else. It's free content. If we want to counter that we need someone (or a bunch of someones) who can write usable content.

You are right to see some issues with involving other people as stakeholders. It is a fact that hunting conservationists are missing a hell of a good game, and that many anti-hunters are paying close attention. Notice the headline: Raincoast is casting itself as a hunting entity that wants to preserve social license for hunters.

Also, lets recognize that in terms of money, many NGOs are much better funded than BCWF or any other conservationist hunter group.

Is there a bright side? Absolutely. We have a better story to tell. The problem is that we need more people to tell it, and we need to get it to the right people (both the general public and decision makers/thought influencers).

You've heard the phrase "managing to zero", right? Awesome phrase, awesome concept. You know who hasn't heard it but who understands it immediately every time I bring it up? Every MLA I talk to. They don't know about it until I bring it up.


Now, I've said BCWF is limited and can't fix everything. You know what they can and have done, and done very well? Connected diverse people from across the province who are working on the bigger picture. That will continue. There's probably somewhere around 100,000 licensed hunters in BC. We outnumber a lot of NGOs already. All we need to do is get into the game.

[warnniklz]

The reason I like forums for hunting better than places like Facebook, is you can tell the whole story with picture aids. Facebook is just pictures and rapid fire comments. I like instagram for hunting and fishing pictures too. It's hard for anti's to pick people and go after them. When you search hunting pictures or I guess hash tags, there's so much content, it's like a zebra effect.

[Bugle M In]

The issue isn't BCWF, if you ask me.
Yes, it is mostly comprised of hunters, done by hunters, nut don't forget the one word in their title ..."Wildlife".
Yes they advocate for hunting, and try to do what they can, but it's one group.
How many Anti groups are out there????
Hunters are the problem, they think that come next season, they will just go out hunting, like it's a god given right.
Sorry folks, times are changing, and if you don't spend time advocating for hunting, you will lose it eventually, and
watching how social media is "spinning it against us" should be plain as day by now.
Not surprised at the article, but I am disappointed how it is being portrayed.

[S.W.A.T.]

These groups are way more funded then bcwf that is part of the problem

[horshur]

why does it matter what a persons motivations regarding harvest of grizzly is for vain reasons? Taking it away so that grizzly are killed for nuisance, livestock, safety reasons still results in a dead bear. It also results in hide and skull destroyed which otherwise would be appreciated. At least the vain person regards the bear higher then the paid assassin who after killing it then throws the once noble creature in the town dump...to rot with all the rest af society's throwaways. No story, no rug to don a wall. No pictures. No history. Forgotten forever.

[horshur]

The article is a ploy to divide hunters...if certain segments of the community don't get took in hand...us "real hunters" will lose out. Darimont is a snake.

[limit time]

Nope..........

[mooseknuckler]

In the article Darimont claims he is a hunter, but he’s definitely not the type I’ve ever shared a campfire with...

[Ohwildwon]

In the article Darimont claims he is a hunter, but he’s definitely not the type I’ve ever shared a campfire with...

He's anything but a hunter.

More like another, Raincoast sociopath fraud, living off the prevails of his chronic lies, like the rest of them...

[Greenthumbed]

Wow! This guy is something else! Did he really insinuate that he is a hunter???
Grizzly bears down. Now on to cougars. Unreal!

[Singleshotneeded]

Even if that pinko tree hugger does hunt deer for the clean natural meat, and I've heard of some...we REAL hunters know and understand that science-based hunting is the best thing for the animal populations and for our ability to enjoy the sport and be able to take home some game. The important thing is the numbers and the health of the population, if there's a good thriving population then it's in the animal's best interest that we harvest the surplus so they don't over-populate and die of starvation and disease, which is a hell of a lot less humane than a well aimed bullet. Deer can over-populate, black bears, and cougars too...man has taken the best fertile valleys where the deer and other ungulates used to winter, and their hills and mountains can only sustain a certain number in winter. We took a hand in the game, and it's now our responsibility to manage their numbers to keep their populations healthy, and hunting is the best tool for that. We have to get that message out to non-hunters and make sure new hunters get it too, so they can explain what they do to folks that want to know before they form an opinion: for or against us. By the way, we know about trichinosis affecting bears at times, but I've had the pleasure to eat cougar meat a few times now, and always found it delicious- who told that moron tree hugger you can't eat cougar?

[Bugle M In]

I think we have a few on this site like the writer, claiming to be hunters.
Guess they were handed down some guns due to inheritance, and may have hunted way back when with granddad.
He should post pictures of the "big game" he has taken in his articles, before I buy into that autobiography of his.
Sounds like someone else on this site.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I don't hate many things in this world but that man is at the top of the list.

[glennw89]

Hunters must take every opportunity to express their views - the future of hunting depends on it.

Submitted this to the Globe and Mail this morning. If you wish to express your own opinion, send it to:

Letters@globeandmail.com

NHassan@globeandmail.com (Opinion editor)

Good morning. After reading Mr. Darimont’s anti-hunting opinion piece in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, I hope the Globe and Mail allows differing viewpoints to be published in the Opinion section. There are many wildlife management professionals and conservationists who would be keen to present an alternative perspective.

Typical of an anti-hunting position, Mr. Darimont’s opinion piece is characterized by charged emotional language – the “frenzied dogs”, the hunter “lording over” the fallen cougar, etc.


Mr. Darimont alludes to diseases that can be acquired by humans as a result of consuming the meat of predators, but fails to provide any examples or evidence to substantiate his position.


Mr. Darimont uses the economic example of ecotourism revenue generated by grizzly bear viewing in certain regions of coastal British Columbia. He does not provide any evidence this economic activity can be “scaled up” to a provincial level.

Mr. Darimont’s position is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the self-declared superiority of his personal ethics and impose them on society at large. Science should dictate wildlife population management, distinct from Mr. Darimont and the vagaries of his “social license”.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[markathome]

Great letter Glenn - thanks!

[Walksalot]

People have a knee jerk reaction to this kind of published material which is an article filled misinformation and emotion. They don't have any idea what a responsible wildlife management strategy consists of, they just sit back in their arm chair and climb on board. Maintaining a balance between predator and prey animals does not enter into the equation. They run on tunnel vision and trying to reason with these people is an exercise in futility.

[Ride Red]

People have a knee jerk reaction to this kind of published material which is an article filled misinformation and emotion. They don't have any idea what a responsible wildlife management strategy consists of, they just sit back in their arm chair and climb on board. Maintaining a balance between predator and prey animals does not enter into the equation. They run on tunnel vision and trying to reason with these people is an exercise in futility.

Sad but true.

[LBM]

why does it matter what a persons motivations regarding harvest of grizzly is for vain reasons? Taking it away so that grizzly are killed for nuisance, livestock, safety reasons still results in a dead bear. It also results in hide and skull destroyed which otherwise would be appreciated. At least the vain person regards the bear higher then the paid assassin who after killing it then throws the once noble creature in the town dump...to rot with all the rest af society's throwaways. No story, no rug to don a wall. No pictures. No history. Forgotten forever.
I can never really understand your posts but if I get what your saying this is what has to be shown, pictures of these bears,cats etc that have there heads and feet cut off and are throwing in the dump or over the bank for this is what happens to the majority of animals deemed as a problem, but the general public does not no that. In most cases if they don't see it killed they think they are being taken away and let go. Now with the closing of some seasons and possible more there is a good chance that this will be happening more and more which is really more of a waste.

[Seeker]

Just submitted.


Dear Globe and Mail,

Responding to the article by Mr. Chris Darimont of The Raincoast Foundation titled “Hunters: To protect our social license, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat”.

He does not speak for hunters. His claim to be one is laughable. His statements are rhetorical lies intended to sway public emotion in order to push his own personal agenda; to protect all predators. For example, words such as “Bloodied-lifeless” and “trophy”. It’s appalling that he even used the words “small-penis” to strengthen his argument. Wow. People belonging to my Fish and Game Organization eagerly pursue cougar and bear meat and to say it is inedible is again an outright lie. I beg of people to see this man for what he is; a man willing to manipulate the public using lies to push his own personal agenda. By doing so he is challenging my right to choose what I eat.

[brownmancheng]

Here was my response

Dear Globe and Mail,


Responding to the article by Mr. Chris Darimont of The Raincoast Foundation titled “Hunters: To protect our social license, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat”.


This article is laced with misinformation portrayed as truth. Many of this writers statements are not opinion based, but flat out lies. He claims hunters do not eat large predators and they are not suitable for eating but this can not be farther from the truth. Although much of the general public is not aware, Cougat and Bear meat is actually healthy, nutritious and delicious, In fact they are favourites of many of my friends and family.


It is great that the Globe and Mail allows readers to submit opinion articles and content. I believe it is important for this publication to ensure factual information is being published. The majority of the public trusts something they read from a reputable source such as yours to be accurate and vetted.


Mr. Darimont has forged this article to sway public opinion with misinformation and deceit. The fact it lists his affiliation with UVIC lends credence to the article and falsely validates the information.


Please review the article in question and avoid publishing false propaganda in the future. Continued publishing of these types of pieces lowers the high standard we have come to expect from such a reputable source such as the Globe and Mail.


Thank you for your consideration.

[brownmancheng]

brownmancheng:

The BCWF is a great organization, but it has it's limits and it's about time we recognized them.

They are uncompetitive on social media. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. A solid social media presence requires several people working in shifts to get out a consistent message. BCWF (as far as I can see) has neither the resources nor the talent for that. I'm not criticizing them. I'm just pointing out that they are not equipped to respond well on social media. Someone else is going to have to do that.

The media isn't going to fact check jack shit. Perhaps they should, but look out your window. They don't. There's a good reason for it. They're losing money and their old business model doesn't pay. Add into this the fact (yes, the irony of this statement isn't lost on me) that we live in a post-fact world. Opinions are much more valuable and pay much better than facts. As soon as you start looking (and Chris Darimont's article offers proof) you'll see it.

Additionally, because old fashioned media can't make money they're happy to take opinion pieces written by people who are being paid by someone else. It's free content. If we want to counter that we need someone (or a bunch of someones) who can write usable content.

You are right to see some issues with involving other people as stakeholders. It is a fact that hunting conservationists are missing a hell of a good game, and that many anti-hunters are paying close attention. Notice the headline: Raincoast is casting itself as a hunting entity that wants to preserve social license for hunters.

Also, lets recognize that in terms of money, many NGOs are much better funded than BCWF or any other conservationist hunter group.

Is there a bright side? Absolutely. We have a better story to tell. The problem is that we need more people to tell it, and we need to get it to the right people (both the general public and decision makers/thought influencers).

You've heard the phrase "managing to zero", right? Awesome phrase, awesome concept. You know who hasn't heard it but who understands it immediately every time I bring it up? Every MLA I talk to. They don't know about it until I bring it up.


Now, I've said BCWF is limited and can't fix everything. You know what they can and have done, and done very well? Connected diverse people from across the province who are working on the bigger picture. That will continue. There's probably somewhere around 100,000 licensed hunters in BC. We outnumber a lot of NGOs already. All we need to do is get into the game.


Great points Rob.

I do however feel it is time BCWF does take the next step and join the digital age. There is no doubt they have it in their budget. A quick google search of previous years AGMs reveals there income has well over doubled in the last few years. It also says they have used that money to invest in staff, I do question if it was the right departments/ staff.

I have said before it is an organization that has a good reputation and has a good public image, but, if it does not follow WSSBC and change its method of operation it is doing a great disservice to the public and all its members. I would love nothing more than to support it as we are in dire need of such an organization.

[brownmancheng]

Is there not a way to hold MS. Harper to account for her comments regarding Mr. Ecklunds appendages? With all of todays sexual harassment commentary I find this type of comment unacceptable. If a man was to make a public statement towards a Woman he would likely be chastised

[scttcanuck]

Good evening,

As per the Globe and Mail’s marketing campaign to “Support Quality Journalism,” the publishing of yesterday’s Chris Darimont’s “Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat” leaves me with several questions as to what is appropriate commentary within an opinion piece. Within an opinion piece published in the G&M, is the author allowed to make false statements or express their personal superiority? Many of Darimont’s comments were just that.

Darimont employs the claim that Wildlife Managers often use “questionable science” in their population-level estimates to abdicate for his stance on social Wildlife Management. Never does he defend that comment with facts within the commentary.

When Darimont claims people understand evolutionarily and culturally that meat of large carnivores should be avoided, he ignores the fact that many aboriginal groups worldwide eat meat from carnivores (seals, canines etc). I myself have eaten cougar meat many times. Does Darimont assume that he is more evolved and culturally superior to me and many aboriginal people throughout the world?

Mr. Darimont’s position is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the self-declared superiority of his personal ethics and impose them on society at large. Science should dictate wildlife population management. Sharing the emotionally charged and unsupported rhetoric of an anti-hunter pushing the ideology of the Raincoast Organization Is not quality journalism.

Please consider this on subsequent publications,

[boxhitch]

Unacceptable / No kidding
He is attacking a lifestyle because it doesn't follow his beliefs. Being a hunter is a whole lot more than just meat-on-the-table.
Many so-called hunters don't even get the whole picture and they are quick to sell out one faction or another.
Taking trophies is as much of hunting as sitting around a campfire with friends and family planning the next days chase.
Too many urbanites think hunting is just about jumping in the rice burner and going out for fresh food, and express the need for instant success.
If hunters can't stick together on all issues then we're just lemmings heading for the cliff.
And when someone makes the conscious effort to attack a lifestyle , they should be called out as the bigot and dogmatist that they are.

[scoutlt1]

Unacceptable / No kidding
He is attacking a lifestyle because it doesn't follow his beliefs. Being a hunter is a whole lot more than just meat-on-the-table.
Many so-called hunters don't even get the whole picture and they are quick to sell out one faction or another.
Taking trophies is as much of hunting as sitting around a campfire with friends and family planning the next days chase.
Too many urbanites think hunting is just about jumping in the rice burner and going out for fresh food, and express the need for instant success.
If hunters can't stick together on all issues then we're just lemmings heading for the cliff.
And when someone makes the conscious effort to attack a lifestyle , they should be called out as the bigot and dogmatist that they are.

Amen. The likes of Darimont need to be exposed, and castigated, for the despicable pieces of sh*t that they truly are.

[dana]

Boxhitch, it is nice to see you on the same page as me. The question remains though, there are many of those biggots right here on this site that have been dominating for years. Are you ready to call them out. Dividing hunters, has been the game. Elitists looking down their noses at Joe Sixpack, knuckledragger. Do you see where I am going with this? I know you know of whom I speak.

[Frosty]

Good evening,

As per the Globe and Mail’s marketing campaign to “Support Quality Journalism,” the publishing of yesterday’s Chris Darimont’s “Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat” leaves me with several questions as to what is appropriate commentary within an opinion piece. Within an opinion piece published in the G&M, is the author allowed to make false statements or express their personal superiority? Many of Darimont’s comments were just that.

Darimont employs the claim that Wildlife Managers often use “questionable science” in their population-level estimates to abdicate for his stance on social Wildlife Management. Never does he defend that comment with facts within the commentary.

When Darimont claims people understand evolutionarily and culturally that meat of large carnivores should be avoided, he ignores the fact that many aboriginal groups worldwide eat meat from carnivores (seals, canines etc). I myself have eaten cougar meat many times. Does Darimont assume that he is more evolved and culturally superior to me and many aboriginal people throughout the world?

Mr. Darimont’s position is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the self-declared superiority of his personal ethics and impose them on society at large. Science should dictate wildlife population management. Sharing the emotionally charged and unsupported rhetoric of an anti-hunter pushing the ideology of the Raincoast Organization Is not quality journalism.

Please consider this on subsequent publications,


I like it! Very well written. Reach out and write more! Thanks