I've watched this thread for a few days now, and indeed tried to shy away from posting in it. However the circular "arguments" are so damn reflective of so many situations I have dealt with in my past, it seems I simply cannot help myself from adding my two pesos...
In my past I was heavily involved in the debates centering on the Sustainable Use of natural resources. This involvement went FAR beyond the application to local resources in terms of management, and eventually led me to become involved at an International Level (UN, CITES, etc). For years I sat on those Councils, and bore witness to the varying approaches both for and against.
From those experiences, I well understand there are two polarized "camps" in this regard. Those that manage (wildlife, wild lands etc etc) from a practical and SCIENTIFIC View, and those that REACT (chiefly oppose) from an "Emotional" (quite often touted as "ethical") standpoint. Many of the posts within this thread strongly confirm that conviction, and the types of "arguments" presented here are extremely reflective of this understanding.
The management of "Warm, Fuzzy, Charismatic, Brown-eyed, Mega Fauna" seems to always bring out the most polarized on both ends of the spectrum:
On one side you have the ilk of PETA, HSUS, WWF, amongst others, who wish to bring about the culmination of any harvest whatsoever involving the killing of any animal they deem "worthy" of their fanatical and self-righteous pursuit of blanket protection. Sensationalism is the order of their pursuits, appealing to the emotional compasses largely of folks that have no real idea of what actually occurs in the real world removed from their latte houses. Applying anthropogenic characteristics to the target in question is another of their tactics, and indeed does go a long ways with the "Bambi-ized" supporters they draw in so willing like moths to a flame. Unfortunately theirs is a world based on emotion, not science. And were management to follow their suggested lead, the natural world as we know it would soon suffer consequences beyond compare.
On the opposite side of the spectrum you have the Kill Them All mentality. Thankfully less organized, and largely considered too far out there to be given any real consideration.
In the middle you have Management. Based largely upon the best science of today, with a strong view towards attempting to maintain a "balance" in the natural world in spite of all that we Two-Legs do to disrupt that. A great many parameters are considered in this function - population dynamics, interactions within the system as a whole, and so much more - all with a view to keeping the ship on an even keel.
In the case of Grizzly Bears, nothing could appeal to the foremost camp much more - even surpassing the ever so controversial seal hunts and Inuit whale harvests. Of course, they are the epitome of "Warm, Fuzzy, Charismatic, Brown-eyed, Mega Fauna" and so are oh-so-easy to attach anthropogenic characteristics to in order to sway the emotions of their followers.
This of course is problematic for management teams. It matters not that Grizzly populations have, and by and large are growing under their current management regime. It matters not that hunting (but one tool in today's rather effective management regime) removes less than 2% of the population annually. It matters not that a 2% removal has been actually proven to be beneficial to the population overall. What matters, especially to the most fanatical in that particular camp, is that we completely halt the removal of "Yogi" by any means, and simply let nature take it's course.
There are a great many problems with the latter approach. While we must recognize that the "natural world" has been subject of far to many negative influences via human interference, that issue is simply NOT going away any time soon. Thus, it falls to us to try and maintain the best possible balance possible out there. And IMO, the best possible approach to doing so is firmly planted in the best science we have at our disposal. Certainly not one based on "emotion" or so-called "ethics" imposed by those with little or no understanding of the repercussions of their misguided desires.
Grizzlies are NOT "Yogis". They are the second largest carnivore in North America. Hunted populations show a decidedly adverse reaction to engaging in human interactions. Hunted populations in BC are growing under their current form of management, thus hunting very much is a form of Sustainable Use. Income from Hunting bolsters the coffers for both their own, and other species' management. And finally, today's restrictions and limited opportunities for Hunting are based on Science. As it should be.
This post is entirely unlikely to change the mindset of any posting here, regardless of your stance. However as a retired manager, I am Damn Happy that our current management regime here relies on Science and the principles of Sustainable Use over those of Sensationalism and far to often misguided Emotion!
Cheers,
Nog