One can only conclude that British Columbia's Minister of Tourism and Small Business Naomi Yamamoto was poorly briefed by her handlers with regard to the grizzly bear hunt issue after reading about her recent misinformed, head-scratching speech on Salt Spring Island.
Having B.C.'s tourism minister put forth the notion that the proliferation of tar sands, pipelines and oil tankers, along with the escalation of a host of other industrial scale resource extraction activities, would somehow be compatible with a robust tourism industry based on the natural beauty of the province is dubious to say the least. But for Yamamoto to suggest that bear viewing is compatible with the trophy killing of bears, and then disproportionately claim that the grizzly hunt is a chief economic driver for the province, is inexplicably out of touch.
Contrary to Yamamoto's assertions, there is no ecological, ethical, or economic justification for continuing to trophy kill B.C.'s grizzly bears.
The ecological argument is clear; killing bears for "management" purposes is unnecessary and scientifically unsound. Although ongoing attempts are made to dress up the province's motivations in the trappings of their proverbial "sound science," they are clearly driven by an anachronistic ideology that is disconcertingly fixated on killing as a legitimate and necessary tool of wildlife management.
Dr. Paul Paquet, senior scientist at Raincoast Conservation Foundation, a large carnivore expert, and a co-author of a 2013 published peer-reviewed paper on B.C. bear management, states: "We analyzed only some of the uncertainty associated with grizzly management and found it was likely contributing to widespread overkills. I'm not sure how the government defines sound science, but an approach that carelessly leads to widespread overkills is less than scientifically credible."
The ethical argument is clear; gratuitous killing for recreation and amusement is unacceptable and immoral. Polling shows that nine out of 10 British Columbians agree, from rural residents (including many hunters) to city dwellers.
In their 2009 publication "The Ethics of Hunting," Dr. Michael Nelson and Dr. Kelly Millenbah state that if wildlife managers began "to take philosophy and ethics more seriously, both as a realm of expertise that can be acquired and as a critical dimension of wildlife conservation, many elements of wildlife conservation and management would look different."
During her Salt Spring appearance, Yamamoto attempted to downplay widespread public concern about the grizzly hunt by dismissively stating "it's not like a bear gets killed every day." Given that an average of 300 grizzlies and 3,900 black bears (according to the B.C. Wildlife Federation) are killed for trophies in B.C. annually, the minister's statement is not only flippant, but callous to the disturbing amount of carnage inflicted on bears in this province each and every year for the most trivial of reasons: recreational trophy hunting.
The economic argument is clear, as well; recent research by the Centre for Responsible Travel (CREST) at Stanford University identifies that bear viewing supports 10 times more employment, tourist spending, and government revenue than trophy hunting within B.C.'s vast Great Bear Rainforest.
Notably, the CREST Stanford study suggests the revenue generated by fees and licences affiliated with the trophy killing of grizzlies fails to cover the cost of the province's management of the hunt. As a result, B.C. taxpayers, most of whom clearly oppose the hunt according to poll after poll, are in essence being forced to subsidize the trophy killing of grizzlies.
For Yamamoto to suggest that banning the grizzly bear hunt would jeopardize the province's ability to "generate the extra revenue to pay for healthcare, education and all those things that people are demanding" is astoundingly off base.
The 2014 CREST Stanford study reaffirms what Coastal First Nations, the eco-tourism industry and conservation groups like Raincoast have been pointing out for years; keeping grizzly bears alive generates significantly greater economic benefits than killing them via trophy hunting.
In 2003, Raincoast and the Centre for Integral Economics released the report "Crossroads: Economics, Policy, and the Future of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia," which compared revenues generated by grizzly viewing versus grizzly hunting. Even more than a decade ago, when the bear viewing sector of the ecotourism industry was in its nascent stage, viewing grizzlies was bringing in approximately twice the amount of annual revenue as compared to grizzly hunting.
Our analysis showed that in the long term, it makes more economic sense to shoot grizzly bears with cameras than to shoot them with guns. Over the course of a grizzly's lifetime, the bear can be viewed and photographed hundreds of times, generating tremendous economic wealth for our province. However, a grizzly bear can only be shot and killed once.Suggest a correction