Re: “Populism driving politics on grizzly-bear hunt,” comment, Dec. 30.
I recognize that this is a difficult time for trophy hunters in B.C. Change is never easy. However, this does not mean we invent alternative facts to support rhetoric.
In his opinion piece, Alan Martin has made multiple factually incorrect assertions to support the continuation of grizzly-bear hunting. In an effort to correct misinformation, I would like to point out the following:
First, a B.C.-based independent polling company (Insights West) conducted a public survey in 2015 that found that 91 per cent of British Columbians who responded opposed the trophy hunting of grizzly bears.
Second, following the 2017 provincial election, the new government conducted a public-consultation process between September and October. The purpose was to solicit comments from all British Columbians regarding the management of grizzly bears. More than 4,000 responses were recorded. Of these responses received by government, more than 78 per cent opposed the continued hunting of grizzly bears.
Therefore, a factually correct presentation would be to state: “A public survey found that 91 per cent of British Columbians polled oppose the trophy hunting of grizzly bears. Additionally, following a public consultation process, some 4,000 comments were received by the government of B.C., of which more than 78 per cent opposed the hunting of grizzly bears.”
From these two points, a general argument is made that the hunting of grizzly bears is no longer socially acceptable by broader B.C. society.
Third, the B.C. auditor general never stated that hunting was not a threat to grizzly-bear sustainability. Although the auditor general recognized that habitat loss was the most critical factor affecting grizzly-bear populations, in no way is that meant to imply that hunting grizzly bears is a sustainable practice. To infer such a contention is to gravely misrepresent the findings of the review. Overall, the auditor general found that serious improvements to grizzly-bear management were required.
Martin cites a dictionary to define the term “populist” and argues that the new NDP government is simply siding with the flavour of the day in order to gain votes and political support. Respectfully, I disagree.
I suggest instead is that we are witnessing a change in societal values. I further argue that this change has led the new government to consider social values, scientific arguments and the recommendations made by the auditor general — that the most appropriate dictionary word to describe the recent policy decision is not “populist” but rather “responsible” and most certainly “rational.”
Environmental management should be governed by the values of our society. And to be sure, these values will change over time. While we use science, experience, history and knowledge to inform government policy direction, ultimately, it is the values of the society we live in that progress over time and change the manner in which we are governed. Call it democracy.
Having said all this, I agree with Martin on one point: Inclusive of urban expansion, habitat loss, rail and highway mortalities, dwindling salmon stocks and conflicts with humans, the plight of B.C.’s grizzly bears is far from restricted to the actions of hunting alone. However, where we differ is that I see hunting as a cumulative effect on a species that is already under immense pressure to find a new home and food.
We can control the cumulative effect of hunting with the simple action of not pulling the trigger — if we do shoot, use a camera and kill only time. Our trophies should be memories and pictures. The only thing left behind in the bush should be our footprints in the sand, not a bloody, skinless and headless carcass.
Bryce Casavant is a former B.C. conservation officer who made headlines in 2015 when he refused to kill two bear cubs. He is a doctoral candidate at Royal Roads University, studying public trust and wildlife co-existence in B.C.