Tag Archives: anti-trophy hunting

Bears Matter: Pacific Wild Press Release,Government to Consult on Grizzly Bear Ban

Go to Pacific Wild’s FULL Press Release fr Oct 3, 2017 directly by clicking HERE

IanMcAllisterGrizzlies

British Columbians are being given the opportunity to provide input on new proposed grizzly bear regulations.
On Aug. 14, 2017, the B.C. government announced that effective Nov. 30, 2017 it will end trophy hunting of grizzly bears and stop all hunting of grizzly bears in the Great Bear Rainforest. The decision allows a residential hunt to continue.
Until Nov. 2, the public can provide input into 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 two policy documents can be reviewed at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw
Members of the public may send comments to the Fish and Wildlife Branch at: grizzly.bear@gov.bc.ca  or for Template by clicking HERE

 

Bears Matter Invites YOU to SeaLegacy’s Campaign to Stop Grizzly Killing in B.C.!

The half-hearted grizzly hunting moratorium in B.C. is not enough. We need to end hunting of all grizzly bears, forever

NicklenGrizzlies

At SeaLegacy, we are not going to be sidetracked by the B.C. government’s half-hearted decision to put a 2018 moratorium on the grizzly bear hunt, and we will continue to rally support until the government takes the killing of these majestic bears seriously.
In a months’s time, from the close of 2017’s hunting season on November 30th, the government of British Columbia is claiming to have banned all hunting of grizzlies within the Great Bear Rainforest of the mid central coast. While we recognise this step in the right direction, they have left a gaping and unnecessary loophole that is bound to be exploited: grizzly bears can still be hunted for meat.

This move is a glaring attempt to stay true to their campaign promise while still allowing trophy hunters to kill apex predators in B.C.’s territory. The government claims there are approximately 15,000 grizzlies in B.C. and hunters kill about 250 every year.
Natural Resources Minister Doug Donaldson has stated, “Hunters will no longer be able to possess the hide or the head or the paws of the bear, so we feel quite confident that this announcement will mean the end of the grizzly bear trophy hunt through the province.”
At SeaLegacy we know these immense, solitary creatures are more fragile than most people believe, requiring 4,000 square kilometres each as territory.
They are an umbrella species whose health can help determine the health of an entire ecosystem. To hunt them is anything but noble, and we want to add our voice to the loud chorus of British Columbians and citizens of the world who understand their value beyond a hide on a wall or a meal on a plate. After a recent week of filming brown bears in Alaska, SeaLegacy co-founder Paul Nicklen recalled his time working with these great brown bears.

Read More, See Stunning Photos and Take Action by going to https://act.sealegacy.org/s/stop-the-trophy-hunt

Stopping BC’s Bloody Sport Grizzly Killing by Martyn Brown

August 20, 2017  By Martyn Brown, The Georgia Strait

Pls read full article – 14pages: https://www.straight.com/news/953686/martyn-brown-stopping-bcs-bloody-sport-grizzly-killing

Stop the Grizzly Killing Facebook BC- Grizzly Hunt starts Aug.15,2017

STGK PostAug15'17                                                              BC to ban the “Trophy Grizzly Bear Really?
No, Grizzly killing season starts today, August 15, 2017                                                Today the government sanctioned grizzly hunt resumes. Bears will still be killed for bragging rights and trophy photos. This abhorrent behavior will soon be justified by re-branding Grizzlies as food, a ridiculous loophole. Shame on you British Columbia. This is just lipstick on a pig.

Please Like and Share this page: https://www.facebook.com/StoptheGrizzlyKilling

B.C.’s Trophy Hunt Ban a Good Step but Loophole Puts Bears at Risk

August 15, 2017
VANCOUVER — B.C.’s cancellation of the grizzly bear trophy hunt is a good step but a loophole that allows hunting the bears for meat is cause for concern, according to the David Suzuki Foundation. The province-wide ban goes into effect on November 30, following this year’s hunting season. It will not prohibit hunters from killing grizzly bears for meat outside of the Great Bear Rainforest.

“We really hoped provisions to ban the hunt in the Great Bear Rainforest would apply to the whole province,” said David Suzuki Foundation Ontario and Northern Canada director Faisal Moola. “The government’s decision means hundreds of grizzly bears will be spared, and that is welcome news. Their pelts, paws, heads and other body parts will no longer be displayed by foreign or local hunters as trophies.”
Bear experts have long known that keeping grizzly populations healthy means protecting their habitat and ensuring humans do not needlessly kill them.

“Although this decision will help reduce the numbers of grizzly bears killed by humans, the provision allowing them to be killed for meat means bears will still be killed,” Moola said. “Grizzly bears are a federally ranked species at risk and it is unclear how a grizzly bear food hunt could be regulated and enforced to ensure hunters do not needlessly shoot bears.”

The David Suzuki Foundation has campaigned for an end to killing of grizzly bears for close to 15 years. It has published numerous scientific studies on the controversial practice, mobilized thousands of B.C. residents in opposition to the trophy hunt and last year successfully convinced B.C.’s auditor general to open an investigation into trophy hunt management and other grizzly bear policies.

A century ago, 35,000 grizzly bears lived in British Columbia and flourished from Alaska to Mexico and east across the Prairies. Today, only about 15,000 grizzly bears inhabit B.C. and have been eliminated from the Lower Mainland, the Okanagan and around Fort St. John.

Grizzlies are highly sensitive to human impacts such as loss and fragmentation of their forest and mountain habitats by clearcuts, roads, oil and gas pipelines and other industrial infrastructure. Female bears reproduce later in life and often produce only a small number of cubs that survive into adulthood. Grizzlies travel long distances to find food, putting them at risk of coming into contact with hunters, roads, towns and other human encroachments into their habitat.
Unlike B.C.’s plan, the Alberta government has maintained a moratorium on all grizzly bear hunting since 2006. Grizzly bear hunting is also banned in the continental United States. B.C. grizzly populations remain healthy in many parts of the province, but independent analyses have found widespread overkilling of bears in some areas and at rates that exceed government limits.
– 30 —
Media contacts:
Faisal Moola, Director of Ontario and Northern Canada

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/news/2017/08/bcs-trophy-hunt-ban-a-good-step-but-loophole-puts-bears-at-risk/?utm_campaign=grizzlyTrophyHunt-mediaRelease-en-15aug2017&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=page-link

Disserving the Public Trust, The Ethos of State Grizzly Bear Management

June 14, 2016  By David Mattson

Most people are familiar with the term worldview. In academe, scholars such as David Naugle (“Worldview”), Jim Sire (“Naming the Elephant”), and Mark Koltko-Rivera (“The Psychology of Worldviews”) have helpfully summarized the history of this pedigreed concept and its relevance to understanding the human condition. For me, worldview is central to understanding otherwise inexplicable human behaviors—including the verbiage that comes out of most peoples’ mouths.

What is a worldview? Intuitively, one could simply understand it as a “view of the world” that people carry around in their heads. But what does that mean? By all indications, worldview is the portal through which we make meaning of the overwhelming smoosh of sensory experience, which then dictates how we each orient to the world. Worldview is fundamentally semantical and semiotic in nature—configured and represented through internalized stories that we tell about the world and ourselves in it, saturated with emotion-laden icons and symbols. Worldview distills and integrates values, impulses, attractions, fears, and even terrors. Worldviews are typically illogical, incoherent, and resistant to change, largely because they are so intertwined with our identities and social networks. Worldviews are powerful stuff.

But worldviews are not some sort of concrete thing that we can unambiguously measure like we can, for example, the diameter of a tree. Nonetheless, because worldviews so powerfully configure what we say and do, it is actually quite easy to use any number of indices to build a reliable picture of this phenomenon for individuals or communities. Analysis of written texts is one approach. Analysis of repeatedly deployed symbols and images is another. And surveys that elicit peoples’ responses to carefully crafted questions are another yet. All of which is to say that social science does provide a box of tools that allows us to usefully describe worldviews.

Nature-views

Various scholars have gone even further to describe typologies by which we can categorize how people view the natural world and themselves in it—what I call “nature-views.” Academics such as Mike Manfredo and Tara Teel at Colorado State University came up with a relatively straight-forward system comprised of four categories or bins. Steve Kellert of Yale University came up with a more nuanced schematic comprised of between eight and nine categories (see his “Value of Life”). Whatever the typology, a major dimension consistently emerges along which most peoples’ nature-views can be arrayed. At one extreme is a view that nature—and animals therein—is/are to be dominated and used. At the other extreme is a view that emphasizes intimate, aesthetic, even anthropomorphic connections.

And, Again, Grizzly Bears

All of this is relevant to understanding what goes on with state-level management of our wildlife and, in turn, anticipating what will happen to Yellowstone’s grizzly bears if Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections are removed and the bears turned over to the tender mercies of state wildlife managers. And, likewise, relevant to understanding why these managers and the Commissioners who oversee them are frothing at the mouth to start trophy-hunting grizzlies once authority is surrendered to the states by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)—the same people who are seemingly obsessed with power, control, and meting out death (see my essay on Divvying Up the Dead).

In my previous essay of this three-part series I emphasized governance problems in our current management of wildlife by the states, along with the extent to which this management is enslaved to a very narrow demographic (i.e., white guys) and an equally narrow set of special interests organized around hunting—which is to say, killing stuff. But here I emphasize the worldviews that inform the despotic and corrupt system I described.

And, just to be clear, none of what I say should be construed as an interest in doing away with hunting. That is not my intent or motivation. In fact, I’ve spent most of my professional career studying—and admiring—animals that kill stuff. But at the same time, I strongly believe that not all worldviews are equal, nor are the moral and ethical systems embedded in these worldviews equal. Some worldviews and the nature-views therein yield toxic results. Others do not. As simple as that, and to believe otherwise is to descend into a quagmire of relativism that is guaranteed to yield nasty outcomes for humanity.

Nature-views, Hunting, and Carnivores

So, what are the worldviews that motivate the dominant paradigm of wildlife management? A full description of these views would be overwhelming—and diverse they are—so instead I focus here on modalities, dominant themes if you will. The point being that those who are invested in and benefiting from status quo wildlife management adhere in varying degrees to a number of nature-views. But this does not negate the fact that some views are dominant, especially when it comes to driving how state wildlife agencies manage large carnivores including, potentially, our Yellowstone grizzly bears.

I’ll start with one particularly interesting research project that I supervised, undertaken by Liz Ruther, inquiring into peoples’ attitudes towards mountain lions, including their relevant behaviors. We asked a random sample of adults whether they would support various measures to protect or conserve mountain lions, including whether they would support a ban on killing juvenile lions, limit the killing of females, or support measures to conserve important lion habitat. On the behavior front, we asked whether they hunted, had killed a lion, or carried a firearm in the woods for protection—versus nothing at all or a non-lethal deterrent such as pepper spray. But of particular relevance here, we also asked people a number of questions designed to help us explain attitudes and behaviors. In particular, we asked questions that allowed us to score people on the basis of how strongly they adhered to a particular nature-view—among others, a belief in dominating and using nature.

To read more go to: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/14/disserving-the-public-trust-the-ethos-of-state-grizzly-bear-management/