Feedback re: NDP Grizz Hunt Changes - Nov. 2 Deadline!

Discussion in 'General Open Forum' started by IronNoggin, Oct 4, 2017.

  1. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Surprisingly enough, the Coalition Government is actually asking for input regarding it's suggested changes to the way the grizzly hunt is conducted here in BC.

    Specifically, they are seeking input on two policy documents outlining the proposed regulation changes required to implement the ban.

    As part of the consultation, input is being sought on:

    Changes to manage the ban in hunting areas that overlap the Great Bear Rainforest;
    Changes that will prohibit the possession of "trophy" grizzly bear parts;
    Changes that will manage prohibited grizzly bear parts;
    Changes to prohibit the trafficking of grizzly bear parts; and,
    New reporting requirements for taxidermists.

    The request can be found here:

    The policy documents here:

    And comments can be submitted here:

    The consultation period will conclude on November 2, 2017.

    You all know the Crazies will be all over this one.
    We best put our best foot forward and get our comments in for consideration as well!
    Be polite, concise and to the point folks!!

    I am working on a draft to submit, and will post that within a day or two...

    Many Thanks to all that can help! ;)

  2. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

  3. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Today the BC SPCA stepped into this fray, and most certainly NOT in the direction of scientific management! They have made a blatant email request to any that subscribe to them, asking all to send the following "feedback" into the consultation process:

    Dear staff of the Fish and Wildlife Branch,
    Thank you for soliciting public feedback and representing me and my fellow British Columbians on this important issue.

    I am writing to ask you to end the hunting of grizzly bears in B.C., both in the Great Bear Rainforest and province-wide. As a supporter of the BC SPCA, I stand by their submission.

    I support a ban on grizzly bear hunting because:
    1. Grizzly bears are too valuable – as a keystone species, their role and value in the ecosystem extends beyond the individual bear. Grizzly bears are blue-listed in B.C. and have low recruitment rates. Their removal through hunting will have cascading effects and result in significant changes to local ecosystems.
    2. There is uncertainty in the sustainability of the Ministry’s allowable harvest numbers. Scientific information about grizzly bear population estimates is disputed, and the effect of climate change and a devastating wildfire season is not being considered.
    3. Allowing a “meat hunt” will not deter trophy hunters. Some hunters may use the meat hunt as a guise for a trophy hunt, and hunters with non-meat motivations can still pose for photos with grizzly bears they killed and obtain a “digital trophy”.
    4. The Great Bear Rainforest is a unique ecosystem with significant cultural and ecological importance. I want to preserve and protect the grizzly bears and the ecosystem of the Great Bear Rainforest, respect indigenous laws and promote world-class ecotourism.
    I care about the management of grizzly bears in B.C. Please ensure conservation practices represent the compassionate values of British Columbians.

    This under the banner:

    The BC SPCA supports a total ban on grizzly bear hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest and province-wide, as outlined in our submission to government (PDF). A total ban will respect Indigenous laws of the Coastal First Nations, preserve the cultural and ecological importance of the bears and their ecosystem, and promote world-class ecotourism.

    Their full submission can be found here (only if you're ready to puke):

    Interestingly enough, this was circulated above the signature of one Dr. Sara Dubois
    Chief Scientific Officer for the BC SPCA. Obviously she now is tossing "science" out the window in this latest pursuit...

    This is just one example of what we are up against folks.
    PLEASE take a few minutes to get your thoughts in there to!

    Cheers & Thanks!
  4. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    The SPCA continues to hammer on this point.
    Today they circulated another Email Plea titled: "Have you asked B.C. to protect grizzly bear lives?"

    Getting down to the wire here Folks!
    If you haven't already, please consider getting your thoughts & concerns in ASAP!

    Cheers & Thanks!
  5. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Deadline Tomorrow Folks...
  6. tincan

    tincan Well-Known Member

    thx for the reminder @IronNoggin. Sorry but I strongly disagree with the trophy hunt of grizzlies.

    I am writing to offer my support to end all grizzly bear hunting in BC. As a recreational fisherman and friend of many hunters I respect and understand and support fishing/hunting of sustainable wildlife populations for food. I am lucky enough to catch fish and other seafood year-round in BC and often trade fish that I catch for deer / duck that my hunting friends have. The 3 major issues that lead me to my support of banning all grizzly bear hunting in BC are:

    1) Grizzlies are an apex predator and serve a hugely important role in the ecosystem. As with all apex predators we should be extremely cautious in allowing their populations to decline to unsustainable levels. The world over we have seen huge losses/extinctions of animals and humans need to be much more cautious in harvesting all animals if we are to reverse this trend.

    2) Grizzly bear populations (especially localized populations by watershed, for example) are not accurately known or agreed upon and, hence, any harvesting policy is relying on insufficient/tainted data.

    3) Grizzly bear is not hunted for meat…. No matter what some hunters will tell us. I know and respect many hunters in my family/close circle of friends and none of them can tell me with a straight face that they enjoy grizzly bear meat or support the grizzly hunt because it puts food on otherwise hungry family’s table. The honest hunters I speak with admit that they support the grizzly hunt b/c they like the idea of killing a big animal and showing their buddies pics of it and/or hanging it on their wall. While I disagree and disrespect them for this attitude/opinion I do respect their honesty for telling it like it is.
  7. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    My name is Matt Stabler, and I am a retired Marine Biologist who has lived and worked within BC for over two decades now.

    I am writing to express my concern over the proposed closing of the grizzly bear hunts both within the so-called great bear rainforest and elsewhere within BC. The background papers you provided well indicate that these closures are not being imposed for conservation purposes, and that hunt as it is currently managed is indeed sustainable. That leaves the inescapable conclusion that our latest government has made the leap of abandoning science for the purposes of wildlife and wildland management in favor of emotion. This abandonment of the very principles of wildlife management is obviously being undertaken in order to cater to the ill-informed desires of the new government’s largely southern and urban voting base.

    The abandonment of proven wildlife management principles is neither logical nor progressive, and in itself presents a threat to the continuing success of scientific based management within our home Province. For this, and many other reasons I am adamantly opposed to the closure of the hunts Province wide.

    I also strongly disagree with the ill-conceived notion of forcing hunters to leave the head, hide and paws of grizzlies in the field. Such an act is extremely wasteful, abhorrent in fact to most who hunt and those in management. Introducing the requirement of meat retrieval already addresses the “trophy hunt” concern, and is something that hunters themselves initiated some time ago. The leaders of the new government stood by our side in the allocation dispute, and said they would work with us towards the meat retrieval rule and proper management of the grizzly bear species. Once elected however, they have twisted our words towards their own agenda, and come up with this nonsensical approach which clearly does not sit well with hunters, nor management teams across the Province.

    The notion of having one set of hunters leave the head, hide and paws behind, while allowing another (First Nations) to retain the same opens up the door for a rather significant upswing in black market dealings of the same. By restricting their ownership, you set a “price” for these items to the black market that some will not be able to resist. This is an extremely foolish and irresponsible action.

    Human / bear problems have hit a high in BC of late, notably so with the increasing number of grizzlies that had to be shot by Conservation Officers this past year. By removing the hunt, you remove the one instrument that creates a recognizable fear / respect for man in these animals. If this non-scientific approach is adhered to, one can expect the number, frequency and savagery of such occurrences to increase significantly. Does the Province intend to come up with a windfall budget to support the increased numbers of already over-burdened Conservation Officers such a development will require?

    Harvesting a small portion of their population has proven of benefit for grizzly bears as it greatly reduces significant mortality from starvation and predation of cubs, as well as prey species such as ungulates. This helps keep animal populations closer to their “carrying capacity”, rather than suffering through the long boom and bust cycles (and risk of extinction) that simply leaving the populations un-managed incurs.

    While grizzly bear populations do face limiting factors in some areas, hunting is not the cause of that. Even the Auditor General confirmed that fact when noting it is habitat loss that is the greatest threat to their populations. Scientific management would strongly suggest that efforts should be taken to address that very real threat, rather than dealing the necessity of science based policy, wildlife management and the hunters’ role in the balance and conservation of wildlife such a backhand blow.

    As a hunter, biologist and strong believer in Conservation, I am in disbelief of the misconstrued "information" circulated for the agenda of a few. Never in the history of conservation has a policy been put in place by emotions or social acceptance. Never has Science based facts gathered from this Province’s leading wildlife biologists been so blatantly disregarded to further a politically driven agenda. Abandonment of the very principles of Conservation and Wildlife Management is an abhorrent option, and especially so when one considers it is being done so purely for political gain.

    That being my position, I would like to offer an alternative. You can't go far wrong with science/fact based policy as long as it is factual, honest and properly communicated. The government has the voice, and the media will cover it. Honesty, and science based management will win respect and votes. It is well recognized the hunt is more than sustainable. The meat removal addresses the “trophy” aspect quite well. There is no reason other than political manipulation for the draconian closures being proposed at this point in time.

    I, and a great many others, consider this issue to be a certain indicator of whether governance will be coherent and do the right thing, or stimulate the masses with PR to exploit emotion and do the wrong thing for the sake of popularity. If they choose the latter and continue with this nonsensical approach to wildlife management, I will do my utmost to ensure they are defeated in the next coming election. And I will not be alone in that pursuit.
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    windsurfer, Sculpin and Hookin'up like this.
  8. scott craven

    scott craven Well-Known Member

    Good letter !
    Just goes to prove politicians will say what they need to get elected and then do whatever the masses dictate afterwards.
    Hate to say it, but there were quite a few forum members anxious to get rid of the Liberals for the current gov't.
    Another example of "be careful what you wish for".
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    Hookin'up and Pippen like this.
  9. Fish Camp

    Fish Camp Well-Known Member

    I have pics on Grizz on Sonora island south of green sea ten years ago .There headed this way to Quadra and Elk bay .There comming.Camping in safe V.I. may not be safe anymore thanks to grizz finding new territory.I would like to have a tag for grizz to show support for conservaion. If encroched by a grizz while hunting deer on vancouver island what do I do?
  10. halimark

    halimark Well-Known Member

    Just returned from my 2017 compulsory inspection for a successful fall grizzly, and proud of it. With the new proposed rules this will not be required, as a tooth sample, DND from hide, sex, health, age and exact location of kill will not be able to be provided, what a waste of a scientific opportunity. Yes provided my thoughts and feedback in an email. Fingers crossed on hopeful changes that we can all live with.

    tincan. I do hope you are not a fisherman or hunter, the arguments you stated for the cease of grizzly hunting could be applied to many salmon species, ground fish and many game species we currently harvest here in BC. What species has legal sport hunting ever reduced the world over? Science proves sport hunting of grizzly increases their populations. Are any salmon/moose/deer/species managed by watershed? I am surprised you admitted to bartering with sport caught fish. I do think it is currently an illegal practice except for FN pers.

    In these days of attacks on our sports I do believe it is imperative that we all stand as one for the sports we love. The North American Wildlife Model that we currently practice is the undisputed best science and has the biggest benefit of all flora and fauna in BC and proven worldwide (CITES CoP17). Remember Grizzly is only the first species, the rest are next if certain vocal groups continue to sway Governments to change policy based on emotions there will be no hunting or fishing for us when older or for our children.

    We must be united to continue our sport.

    Sculpin and IronNoggin like this.
  11. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Well Said HM! [​IMG]
    And Congrats on the Grizz!!

    Last Day Folks!!

  12. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    They need to follow the science on this and not emotion imo. And more money and resources (if necessary) should be put into making sure the science is correct, up to date, and unbiased politically. As halimark (and IronNoggin) mentioned, the hunters can and should be a big part of helping make sure the science is correct and shouldn't be dismissed. If sustainable as science at this time tends to believe it is as far as I know, myself I see no reason why the hunt shouldn't be allowed to continue as long as it's regulated properly with the proper oversights..
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
    Sculpin likes this.
  13. halimark

    halimark Well-Known Member

    Thanks guys, a very emotional subject for me as I am not a normal outdoorsman. Africa X4, just spent 8 weeks straight hunting in BC from top to bottom with every tag. What a time I had, now 3 weeks for island deer. Today with the data available for wildlife management I cannot understand the huge step backwards our current government is willing to take, risking our wildlife based on emotion and unsupported facts (actually lies). I would like the proven data of how much money all who say no hunting of any species are willing to donate to manage that species or any of BC wildlife. Look at the stats for the anti's, they are willing to spend millions in court and on lawyers to stop hunting but donate nothing to any wildlife model. That strikes me as sad, yet its rarely talked about. Most non hunters are ignorant of the facts. Every outdoorsman in BC should be a member of the BCWF, they do outstanding work, standing up for hunters and fishers. You also get the required insurance for the few timber companies that require. Well worth the $50. Lets hope the government has a somewhat change of policy, thinks thru their policy and put science and bears first. Scares me on what else they will decide for BC. Now to getting back outside.

    Sculpin and IronNoggin like this.
  14. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    I do hope that everyone understands that while it is great to voice your opinion here, the message HAS to be taken to the government TODAY!!

    Takes but a moment Folks!
    Let them know!

  15. bigdogeh

    bigdogeh Well-Known Member

    message sent.
    IronNoggin likes this.
  16. Sculpin

    Sculpin Well-Known Member

    The Grizzly hunt is healthy and sustainable. It always has been in British Columbia. It is post's like this out of pure emotion and opinion that actually do more harm to the Grizzly bear population with misleading information. Let's stick to the science and great work that hunters have done along side real scientist's to keep the Grizzly bear population healthy and thriving in this great Province of ours. There isn't a problem with the Grizzly bear population in British Columbia. There never has been.
    trophywife and Pippen like this.
  17. UkeeDreamin

    UkeeDreamin Well-Known Member

    If sticking to facts and science, many grizzly bear breeding populations in B.C. have been severely depressed historically and some have been historically extirpated. Today some breeding populations are thriving, many are stable, and their range is expanding back into historic areas but some populations continue to experience mortality (natural, road/rail kill, harvest, etc) that exceeds recruitment and thus some populations remain at risk.

    What is true is that modern wildlife management includes, many would argue relies on, harvest through hunting - both of prey spp like ungulates and predators such as wolves and grizzlies. A critical question on this issue is whether there is the science and mgmt modelling in place to support a shift away from the current management regime? This is particularly critical if you continue harvest of the prey spp but end, or significantly curtail, predator hearvest which fits current models. Not dissimilar to imbalances that occur in fisheries when focus/effort/harvest rates shift drastically between higher tropic level fish like salmon and halibut to prey spp like herring and anchovies, or vice versa.

    One thing that is a universal truth is that equilibrium will re-establish regardless of the management approach taken. Just like the myth of needing significant commercial harvest to maintain the health and sustainability of salmon runs has been debunked, the same is true of wildlife harvest. The equilibrium of the ecosystem will definitely shift and the fear is always that it will shift in a manner that is unfavourable to one user group or another.

    I believe one of the key points Iron Noggin and others have been communicating is that those shifts may be as unfavourable to the groups lobbying for a ban on trophy hunting as to hunters themselves. It is pretty safe to assume that the active ENGO groups don’t want their beloved pets in interface subdivisions eaten by predators, or their favourite trails and campsites closed due to aggressive bears or a host of other likely responses to an equilibrium shift should a drastic change in mgmt occur. The key point Nog and others are making is that it’s easy for an urbanite to make a gut decision with only part of the story I.e. the dramatized death of a “Hollywood” spp w/o the facts about the other consequences should that harvest cease.

    Sadly, the internet age impedes folks from becoming fully knowledgeable about issues - folks want tweetable sized bites of info in their “busy”lives and don’t take the time to fully inform themselves and we also are all guilty of subscribing to forums and news outlets that confirm our established biases rather than a balanced take. Politicians rarely want to do the right thing at the expense of their future political careers and so we’re at the whim of the public majority’s mood of the day. I don’t imagine this will change any time soon and Canada is becoming more urbanized so we’ll continue to see a shift in the “values” that drive our politicians.


  18. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    That might be the most thoughtful, well written and unemotional post I have seen on this site, regardless of subject. :)
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  19. Thunder21

    Thunder21 Active Member

    The biggest problem we have in BC is that the majority of the human population is down in the lower mainland and Victoria. When things like this pop up it's very easy to be out-voted by all the liberal hipsters and social justice warriors. I would bet most of these people against the hunt have never been further north than Cache Creek. Maybe we should show some video of a big male chewing the head off of its own cubs or a couple pictures of the hunter up in Hudsons hope that had his face torn off a couple years ago. If educated biologists determine the population is healthy and can handle a hunt every year than I am all for it. If even a fraction of the money and time wasted in court cases fighting over these rediculous things were put into habitat restoration and conservation we would be in a way better place.

Share This Page