In March of 2006, the government of Alberta imposed a ban on the hunting of grizzly bears for sport. The move showed a considerable lack of reaction when compared to a similar ban by British Columbia in 2001, and indeed a comparison of the actions in the two provinces sheds a lot of light on the ridiculousness of the whole scenario surrounding the decision in British Columbia.
The moratorium on grizzly bears in Alberta was not spearheaded by a coalition of environmental groups who believe in preservation at all costs. On the contrary, it seems as if some of the more famous, if less reputable, groups such as the World Wildlife Fund were totally in the dark about the decision. As late as October of 2006, the WWF was sponsoring update shows on many stations wherein Kelsey Grammar called the policy regarding the grizzly bear hunt in Alberta into question. It looks like the WWF missed the bulletin about the new policy.
The hunt in British Columbia was a different matter entirely. The ban came about on the eve of an election that was to see the annihilation of the highly unpopular New Democrat Party. In a last ditch attempt to gain some votes, Premier Ujal Dosanjh suddenly announced a moratorium on the grizzly bear hunt, a program that brought in huge amounts of money from foreign hunters and which was needed to keep the grizzly population in check. The move was quickly overturned when the Liberal party swept into power, and has been kept in place ever since.
Among the issues that stand out when reaction to the two provinces' policies from environmental groups is considered is how very little input and reaction there was on the Alberta front. Environmental groups suggested at the time of the B.C. ban that grizzly populations in the entire province were as low as 4,000 bears (this was in contrast to the government numbers of 10,000, which in turn were low compared to biologist counts which put the number of grizzlies at 12,000 or higher). Best estimates from all sides puts the number of grizzlies in Alberta at only 700, a figure that is staggeringly low when one considers that it includes the healthy grizzly populations of Banff and Jasper National Parks. One can only assume that environmental groups missed their research on the desperate situation of the grizzlies in Alberta, where about ten grizzlies were taken each year previous to the ban.
Another stand-out issue in the B.C. ban was the incredible callousness of pollsters and environmental groups alike when it came to publishing the truth in order to truly measure public opinion. When commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to poll people's reaction to the ban, COMPASS directors acted shocked when the numbers reflected a staggering majority favored the ban. While they did disclose that only 800 people from around the province (which has a population of over 4 million) were polled, they forgot to add how many from each area were included. They did disclose that five "areas" of British Columbia were included in the survey, but left out the fact that three of the five were major metropolitan areas whose population are made up mostly of people who had probably never seen a grizzly bear, much less ventured into the wilderness areas they occupied. Comments by survey director Conrad Winn further clarified his institution's approach to the study, as he suggested that the group only surveyed people who had recently moved to B.C from the east.
Wilderness hunting outfitters in Canada and outdoor enthusiasts breathed a sigh of relief when the Liberals came into power and immediately lifted the ban. The province currently sees 400 grizzlies a year harvested, with 60% being taken by resident hunters and the other 40% taken by foreign big game hunters, who make a major contribution to the province's economy. Bear experts suggest grizzlies continue to thrive in the province, with suggestions that in order to even keep the bear numbers even, the hunt would need to be doubled. With the current harvest, many believe that grizzly numbers will continue to grow, with the potential of more bear/human conflicts, livestock predation, and lower numbers of wild ungulates as some of the results. As grizzly bears are highly aggressive to their own species, more numbers of mature male bears might mean that less sows and cubs are left alive at the end of each season due to male kill rates (one study showed that in three weeks, one Alpha male was responsible for killing and eating nine other grizzlies in his range; three sows and their cubs of the year).
It is the responsibility of every outdoor enthusiast to protect the nature and the animals that remind of why we love the outdoors. As the ludicrous situation in B.C. demonstrated, however, all people truly interested in keeping the wild, 'wild' must approach controversial matters in an informed manner, with a willingness to learn from the facts.
The moratorium on grizzly bears in Alberta was not spearheaded by a coalition of environmental groups who believe in preservation at all costs. On the contrary, it seems as if some of the more famous, if less reputable, groups such as the World Wildlife Fund were totally in the dark about the decision. As late as October of 2006, the WWF was sponsoring update shows on many stations wherein Kelsey Grammar called the policy regarding the grizzly bear hunt in Alberta into question. It looks like the WWF missed the bulletin about the new policy.
The hunt in British Columbia was a different matter entirely. The ban came about on the eve of an election that was to see the annihilation of the highly unpopular New Democrat Party. In a last ditch attempt to gain some votes, Premier Ujal Dosanjh suddenly announced a moratorium on the grizzly bear hunt, a program that brought in huge amounts of money from foreign hunters and which was needed to keep the grizzly population in check. The move was quickly overturned when the Liberal party swept into power, and has been kept in place ever since.
Among the issues that stand out when reaction to the two provinces' policies from environmental groups is considered is how very little input and reaction there was on the Alberta front. Environmental groups suggested at the time of the B.C. ban that grizzly populations in the entire province were as low as 4,000 bears (this was in contrast to the government numbers of 10,000, which in turn were low compared to biologist counts which put the number of grizzlies at 12,000 or higher). Best estimates from all sides puts the number of grizzlies in Alberta at only 700, a figure that is staggeringly low when one considers that it includes the healthy grizzly populations of Banff and Jasper National Parks. One can only assume that environmental groups missed their research on the desperate situation of the grizzlies in Alberta, where about ten grizzlies were taken each year previous to the ban.
Another stand-out issue in the B.C. ban was the incredible callousness of pollsters and environmental groups alike when it came to publishing the truth in order to truly measure public opinion. When commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to poll people's reaction to the ban, COMPASS directors acted shocked when the numbers reflected a staggering majority favored the ban. While they did disclose that only 800 people from around the province (which has a population of over 4 million) were polled, they forgot to add how many from each area were included. They did disclose that five "areas" of British Columbia were included in the survey, but left out the fact that three of the five were major metropolitan areas whose population are made up mostly of people who had probably never seen a grizzly bear, much less ventured into the wilderness areas they occupied. Comments by survey director Conrad Winn further clarified his institution's approach to the study, as he suggested that the group only surveyed people who had recently moved to B.C from the east.
Wilderness hunting outfitters in Canada and outdoor enthusiasts breathed a sigh of relief when the Liberals came into power and immediately lifted the ban. The province currently sees 400 grizzlies a year harvested, with 60% being taken by resident hunters and the other 40% taken by foreign big game hunters, who make a major contribution to the province's economy. Bear experts suggest grizzlies continue to thrive in the province, with suggestions that in order to even keep the bear numbers even, the hunt would need to be doubled. With the current harvest, many believe that grizzly numbers will continue to grow, with the potential of more bear/human conflicts, livestock predation, and lower numbers of wild ungulates as some of the results. As grizzly bears are highly aggressive to their own species, more numbers of mature male bears might mean that less sows and cubs are left alive at the end of each season due to male kill rates (one study showed that in three weeks, one Alpha male was responsible for killing and eating nine other grizzlies in his range; three sows and their cubs of the year).
It is the responsibility of every outdoor enthusiast to protect the nature and the animals that remind of why we love the outdoors. As the ludicrous situation in B.C. demonstrated, however, all people truly interested in keeping the wild, 'wild' must approach controversial matters in an informed manner, with a willingness to learn from the facts.
SHARE
