On December 18th, 2017, the NDP/Green coalition government of British Columbia closed the hunt for grizzly bear all across the province, except for hunting by First Nations.
It was a decision that had nothing to do with science, nothing with wildlife management. It was a decision based solely on a perceived public opinion that grizzly bear hunting is unacceptable. Unacceptable how? That is unclear.
In the summer the BC government announced plans to close grizzly hunting for “trophy”, meaning that the meat would have to be recovered and the hide, skull and claws would have to be left in the field. There was to be a period of public consultation. It appears that the hunting community’s indignity focused around the incomplete utilization of a resource, that leaving inedible parts of the animal in the field would be disrespectful, a waste in fact; and of course around the science of wildlife management.
Reportedly the government received some 4000 emails, of which 3/4 expressed a negative opinion towards hunting grizzlies altogether. That was enough for the government to change their plans, from allowing the hunt for meat collection only, to closing down the hunt altogether.
What can we learn from this? Because learn from this we should if we are to avoid the same thing to happen again in the near future.
It’s not about the science!
In case you hadn’t figured it out yet, politicians use science only when it supports their ideology, or when they think they can gain popular support (read votes). The government admitted that the science was solid, that hunting grizzly bears is sustainable, and still they closed it.
It’s not about wildlife management!
No matter how often we say we hunt because we need to manage wildlife, people are not buying it. The average voter at best has a hard time understanding the concept of killing animals to save animals. More often, the average voter doesn’t care. The non-hunting public does not accept the image of the altruistic hunter who goes out to do his part for conservation when he loads up the truck with gear and heads for the fields or mountains.
Hunting is not a right!
Hunting lives or dies by the acceptance of the general public, or rather, by the perception of acceptance of hunting by a really small group of elected officials. You can claim it is your right to be allowed to hunt as often as you want, but last time I checked I didn’t see it listen in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Hunting is your “right” until the next elected government tells you it isn’t. Then you have the right to speak out against it and it is your right to vote for the other guys. But hunting is not your right.
They are much more dedicated than we are!
When it comes to exercising the one right that we do have, freedom of speech, the people that are vehemently opposed to hunting are much more active than we are. Look at the numbers. 4000 emails, 3000 of them oppose hunting (of grizzlies this time, just wait and see what comes next). Of roughly 100,000 hunters in British Columbia, just 1% could be bothered to send an email.
So, what do we do?
There are a few take-aways from the observations above.
We need to come up with a rationale for hunting that goes beyond wildlife management, one that can be understood and accepted by non-hunters (forget about the anti-hunters, they will never be convinced). I don’t know what that story looks like. I do know what it doesn’t look like.
It is not “hunting is my right, it is legal, so get over it” attitude. It is also not the animal carcass shown on Facebook or Instagram, unceremoniously deposited on the garage floor, with blood and gore oozing out. It is not the photo of four of five does piled up in a truck bed. None of that does any good to help secure the future of hunting. None of that will be understood by the non-hunter. Remember that anything you put on the internet can and will be used against us. There is no such thing as privacy.
It is also not the argument that we hunt for the sake of wildlife management. Many individuals and organizations are up in arms right now reiterating the science, once more elaborating on how the grizzly hunt is sustainable, how grizzly need to be hunted to help the numbers of other wildlife, or to curtail human-grizzly interactions. It is a non-argument at this point. The politicians have thrown out all those arguments in favour of what they feel is the voters’ opinion. They even admitted to it.
Unless we get better at rallying the troops, and stand together as hunters irrespective of our how we hunt or what we hunt or where we hunt, we will lose these battles every time. Let me put it differently: until YOU get involved, educate yourself, and get active socially and politically, we will lose. It doesn’t matter if you do not hunt species X, or you do not hunt with weapon Y. Stand together for hunting, or risk losing it.
What is your story?
Everybody has his own story when it comes to hunting. Mine started on a different continent, with different traditions, centered around family, valuable time spent together, working to improve habitat, looking after a small lease 12 months of the year, and shooting some of the surplus in a few short months at the end of the years; sharing meat with friends, cooking a hare for Christmas, training and working gun dogs, and being outdoors in weather that keeps most people inside. When I think of those days, I do not remember the shooting, I remember the people.
Right now hunting for me is about finding the simplicity and satisfaction in hunting with a traditional bow, spending time in the mountains alone or with good friends, staying fit while the body protests, providing food for my family and others if ever I can succeed in getting close enough with the bow, stories shared by a campfire although some have been told a few too many times already, and waking up with the desire to look over the next ridge, to see a new valley. What is yours? Let’s hear it.