|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By bear biologists Wayne McCrory,
Dr. Paul Paquet, Dr. Lance Craighead and Erica Mallam
Why the BC Grizzly Bear Hunt Should End
by Wayne McCrory, Dr. Paul Paquet, Dr. Lance Craighead and Erica Mallam
This late winter / early spring, while grizzly bears still slumber peacefully in their winter dens in the hidden mountain ranges of their British Columbia strongholds, a protracted scientific and political controversy rages.
We are now among the many scientists who say no grizzlies should be killed in BC by sport hunters because some BC grizzly populations are already at great risk of extinction. The "precautionary principle" that all biologists should adhere to also dictates that the grizzly hunt should end.
Other scientists claim it will be fine if some 200 to 300 of the BC grizzlies that emerge from their dens this spring are greeted by hunters’ bullets. According to the latest scientific review funded by the BC government, this is not a bad thing. We are even led to believe by the same review that the Liberal government is exemplary in its efforts to conserve grizzly bears. Although critical of the way the hunt is managed, the biologists who wrote the report conclude that it is acceptable to continue killing bears with few changes in management practice.
For four years, several of us were members of the former grizzly advisory panel, charged with the task of implementing the provincial government’s grizzly bear conservation strategy. Our hard work and recommendations were largely ignored. Not liking what we had to say, the provincial government disbanded our panel and formed a new one, perhaps in the hope of getting more "acceptable" recommendations.
Unfortunately, this new panel of bear scientists from outside the province fell into the same trap we did. They have been used by the government to create an illusion of scientific rigor for continuation of politically driven management that will only lead to our grizzlies becoming increasingly at risk. Why are we scientists endlessly writing new reports, creating new analytical models, and debating each other? Primarily to support a small minority of the hunting community that kills grizzly bears for status symbols. All this effort for a hunt has cost taxpayers enormously for endless scientific reviews, a million dollars paid in compensation to guide/outfitters for lost grizzly kill quotas when the recent moratorium was implemented, and a very expensive court case to restrict public access to key information about the bear hunt.
The truth is that the debate will not be resolved by forming, then disbanding and then recreating panels of scientists to try to determine what a "sustainable hunt" should be for BC grizzlies. The reality of how many grizzly bears live in BC cannot be determined from mathematical models, subjective guesswork, and intricate formulas. A grizzly hunt cannot be managed dependably on guesswork. The only solution is to stop killing grizzlies and conduct an on-the-ground census to determine if there are enough grizzly bears left to hunt. The previous NDP government, in its dying days, and supported by a petition from 68 scientists, put in place a moratorium on hunting grizzlies until reliable numbers could be determined. The moratorium on hunting grizzlies was one of the first policies the Liberal government overturned, to our dismay.
The former Grizzly Science Panel that we sat on was comprised of 12
bear biologists, including several from government. We addressed and
created guidelines for all aspects of bear conservation but these
were mostly ignored or rejected by government. We put a great effort
into the design of maps that delineated eight proposed no-hunting
refugia for grizzlies in the Kootenays, only to have the Wildlife
Branch claim these maps were "lost" and then later to admit they were
deliberately destroyed.
Frustrated by continued attempts to undermine panel recommendations,
we issued the Minister of Environment a report card with largely failing
grades. Three of the government biologists on our Science Panel received
reprimands. We made the continuance of the grizzly hunt contingent
on significantly improving protection of habitats.
This never happened either, and our panel was disbanded in 2000 after
being branded "intemperate".
The new panel, all respected scientists, clearly identified the many limitations of trying to manage a BC grizzly hunt. So far, so good. But then they tell us the grizzly hunt is acceptable at near current levels. In their report, this new panel also repeatedly endorses many of the eight-year-old policies of the 1995 Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy a strategy that has never been implemented.
Although our panel (including government biologists) gave the Minister of Environment a failing grade for implementing the Grizzly Bear Strategy, the new panel calls the current government’s management approach "robust" and "among best in North America". This is out of touch with reality but not too surprising, given the overall low ecological standards wildlife managers in North America seem to aspire to. The very sad truth is that government efforts to conserve grizzlies has deteriorated dramatically and continuously since we issued our report card.
The new panel in their generous endorsements and lack of in-depth review of circumstances in British Columbia, have lowered the bar for grizzly conservation well below where we started in 1995.
All that the current government has done for grizzlies is to re-open
the grizzly hunt.
Meanwhile: habitat protection guidelines have been eliminated or diluted:
12 of 14 species-at-risk scientists have been removed, budget cutbacks
have eliminated most policing that protects grizzlies from poaching
and other illegal activities, vast areas of public lands and grizzly
habitat are being handed over to large timber companies and unregulated
commercial tourism developments, parks are being privatized, meaning
less oversight of some of the last remaining habitat of grizzly bears.
In short, the Liberal government’s grizzly bear policy is to kill
them, degrade their prime habitats, then destroy their remaining wilderness
refuges, and in a perverted twist worthy of George Orwell, try to
convince the public the government is protecting grizzly populations:
for ethical reasons and because of the many scientific uncertainties
surrounding sustainable hunting, we believe it is time to end the
grizzly hunt in BC.
Grizzly bears are too vulnerable to be managed by guesswork and well-meaning
panels of scientists. The whole grizzly issue is an eerie reminder
of the East Coast cod debacle where endless scientific debates continued
until the cod were decimated.
Polls have consistently shown that most of the public wants to end
the grizzly hunt. We urge scientists to join this massive opposition
on ethical grounds. We do not oppose hunting of faster-reproducing
animals like deer and elk, but can no longer support the killing of
vulnerable and at-risk grizzlies for rugs and heads mounted on walls.
Justification for sport hunting is even more questionable when wildlife
managers lack the information necessary to protect populations being
hunted.
Like the renowned BC white kermode (spirit bear), the glacier (blue)
bear, and the grizzlies in the lower 48 states, our BC grizzlies are
very special animals that should be fully protected now.
Related stories:
April 2003: BC's Approach to Grizzly
Bear Conservation
December 2002 Government
hiding data on grizzly killings
January 2003 Letters to the
editor - "Barely speaking"
 Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
