BC Wildlife Act Changes Challenged

From the day I posted British Columbia Wants More Hunters I have been waiting for the day the animal rights would spout off their usual anti hunting rhetoric.

Well I did not have to wait very long. Yesterday I visited Muskoka Outdoors, the superbly written blog by fellow Canadian Bill Anderson, I read in his Full Choke News about various so called conservation organizations that challenge the new proposal for changes in the 25 year old BC Wildlife Act . Among these changes is a proposal to increase hunter numbers in the Province and it is exactly this that the antis find objectionable. What’s new!

The Vancouver Sun, a heavily anti hunting, animal rights slanted newspaper. Whose editor, so it is said, chooses his staff for their pro animal rights anti hunting stance, published a long article in which – surprise, surprise – the animal rights have their say and nobody else.
The subtitle of the article is very telling of where it will lead.

“Groups want greater emphasis on protection, rather than more hunters killing more animals”

That right there is pure hype. The emphasis of the new Wildlife Act is not on more hunters “killing” more animals. Raising the number of hunters in British Columbia is just one part of the total proposal.

This subtitle is followed by this paragraph.

“A coalition of conservation groups took aim Friday at the B.C. government for proposed changes to the 25-year-old Wildlife Act that put an emphasis on killing rather than saving animals.”

Interesting how in the wake of environmental awareness and the much hyped up global warming animal rights groups morphed effortlessly into “conservation” groups.

Here is another untruth in the article, aimed at oblivious city folks, in a vain to make hunters look bad.

“The coalition is angry that the province wants to generate 20,000 new hunters in B.C. by 2014 -- with an emphasis on more young hunters -- and continue the unpopular grizzly bear hunt.”

The fact is that because of hunters and real conservation organizations such as the BCWF (BC Wildlife Federation), Ducks Unlimited Canada, Wild sheep Society of British Columbia, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation plus many other dedicated hunter and conservation organizations, wildlife populations are on the increase not only inBritish Columbiaall bot all over North America.

The much lamented grizzly bear has rebounded to a healthy and strong population thanks to the efforts of hunters and their dollars. Today we see grizzly bears here in British Columbia where they have not been seen in many years. Similar successes are visible all over BC, be that the increase of a 42% waterfowl population, increasing elk, deer, wild sheep, mountain goats and upland bird numbers. BC has a healthy and thriving wildlife population and one of the moist diverse anywhere in North America. This conservation success is directly related to the dedication of hunters. Hunters generate annually over 100 million dollars from licenses, hunting goods and services, money that will flow back into wildlife and habitat conservation. Add to this the fact that the majority of hunters are members of at least one or more hunter wildlife conservation organizations, where they spend more money plus volunteer work in conservation programs, and it becomes obvious even to a city dwelling-nature-removed person that hunters are important to wildlife and habitat conservation.

But to understand this important link between hunting and conservation city people need to be told. Of course animal rights and anti hunting groups are not going to do that. Instead they lobby for public hearings on the matter. This is an old trick that the antis try to use very often and in some jurisdiction they succeed with that proposal. Public hearings turn out almost always in favor of the animal right and anti hunters. Why? Such hearings are held in large towns and cities where, as stated above, city folks live. The majority of the human populations live in towns and cities not in rural areas. People that have no understanding of how conservation works and have been raised on “Flipper”, “Lassie”, “The Lion King” and other such reality removed junk that they now view as natural reality. It is easy for animal rights and anti hunters to sway such ignorant people to their agenda.

Animal rights and anti hunters avoid, wherever possible, to sit down with real conservationist and hunters to work a plan out. The reasons are obvious, Animal rights and anti hunters do not have a plan on conservation. They are more interested in their political agenda than in wildlife and habitat. That becomes glaringly obvious wherever animal right have succeeded in controlling conservation. It always turns out devastating for wildlife and nature, plus costs the taxpayers millions. Compare that with the conservation programs hunters come up with. Wildlife populations thrive in a healthy environment and it costs the taxpayers very little money. All the finances are generated from hunting by hunters, a relatively small percentage of the population, but the results of hunter funded conservation can be enjoyed by ALL, even the anti hunters.

Read for yourself how much out of touch with reality these groups are. Devon Page, a staff lawyer with Sierra Legal - another anti hunting group - has proposed the following.

“No further increase in hunting effort without scientific studies proving a sustainable harvest.”

Such scientific studies are made every year and form the base from which bag limits for game species are worked out.

“Increased funding for wildlife management, including enforcement against illegal hunting.”

Hunters generate annually over 100 million dollars through the purchase of hunting licenses, hunting products and services. In addition to this, hunters spend further millions and volunteer work hours in various hunting conservation organizations. Increasing hunter numbers will bring even more money in to the government coffers for wildlife conservation programs. Compare that with animal rights groups that spend nothing or less than 2% of their millions on actual conservation programs. While all the animal rights can do is talking and pointing unjustified fingers, the hunters but the money where their mouth is. Hunters in corporation with the government and wildlife conservation have devised a good working program to catch poachers and the courts do not look kindly upon them. Stiff fines, jail and even prison plus confiscation of firearms and lifelong loss of hunting privileges are very common sentences handed down to poachers by the judges. I wish they would be as hard to other criminals too.

“An end to the province's pro-hunting bias and greater emphasis on sustainable wildlife activities such as ecotourism.”

Thanks to hunter efforts BC has healthy and thriving wildlife populations in a varied environment that makes ecotourism possible and very attractive in our Province, outfitters have been offering ecotourism for many years, long before this became the latest fashion. Animal rights limp badly behind the times and fashion trend here. Even with ecotourism the wildlife still needs to be managed to ensure a healthy population that can be carried by the available habitat.

“Banning the "inhumane" practice of hunting with dogs, as Washington state has done.“

It is not legal in BC to hunt with dogs, other than tracking dogs and for upland bird hunting. In neither of these cases dogs are used to kill animals. A tracking dog makes finding a shot animal faster and upland bird hunting dogs are used to flush birds, not to kill them.

“Stewardship programs that proactively minimize wildlife conflicts on private lands rather than allowing private hunting on such lands with hunters allowed to keep the game they shoot.”

We have seen what the effects and huge costs to the taxpayers these” stewardship programs” are. The costs are tremendous and the effect is zero. Relocating wildlife has not worked. In the past we have seen relocated bears wandering for hundreds of miles back to where they used to live. Besides what’s so humane about tranquilizing a bear high up in a tree and watch it hitting every branch on the way down as it falls out of the tree before it hits the ground really hard. There is scientific evidence that relocated animals suffer tremendous trauma that often will kill them slowly. Another smart idea - not - antis come up with every ones in a while is to let professional animal control officers kill off surplus animals. Commonly this is done from helicopters and you guessed it, it cost a fortune.

Like I said before, animal rights and anti hunters care more about the political agenda than wildlife conservation.

Another disturbing solution the animal rights come up with recently is to buy off huge chunks of public land and then closeit to all human access. Once the land is theirs the antis leave the habitat and wildlife to its own device without any management, maintenance or conservation plan. Ingrid Newkirk, President of the notorious PETA, explained how that type of conservation works. “Animal overpopulation will be regulated trough starvation and disease.” To her this seems a lot more “humane” than having surplus animals culled by hunters with a well aimed shot. Another of her ingenious solutions would be to catch wild female animals and implant them with the animal version of the anti-baby-pill.

This insanity has been tried out a few years ago on the suggestion of the animal rights with horrifying results. Less than 10% of the animals survived the traumatic ordeal. The antis called this cruel form of animal suffering a “resounding success”. The taxpayers were understandably not as happy with that "success" because they had to pay 4'000+ dollars per deer for this example of politically correct insanity. It truly would be a very sad day when the animal rights and anti hunters would be put in charge of wildlife and habitat conservation.

Tags: British Columbia, BC Wildlife Act, Conservation, Animal Rights Activists, Anti Hunting