Petition: Protect Grizzly Bears By Banning the BC Trophy Hunt

Protect grizzly bears by banning the trophy hunt

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Photo Copyright Jim Robertson

Petition by Bears Matter Ltd.

Over 10,000 grizzly bears have been killed by trophy hunters between 1976 and 2012. More than one third (1/3) of grizzly bears killed by trophy hunters are female. In the Spring hunt female bears may be shot due to mistaken identity leaving their tiny 2-3 month old cubs to perish.

A recent report by the Centre for Responsible Tourism (CREST) in collaboration with Stanford University highlighted that bear viewing produces far more jobs and revenue than the grizzly bear trophy hunt, which costs more for the government to manage than it generates back in revenue. There is simply no scientific, ethical or economic rationale for the trophy hunt.

Honourable Premier Christy Clark, Provincial Government of British Columbia
Honourable Minister Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources
Honourable Minister Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training
Honourable Minster Mary Polak, Minister of Environment

As British Columbians, we live in a democracy where the government is duty-bound to heed the voices of the majority and not to pander to a small, vocal segment of the hunting community. As you are aware, opinion polls have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority of British Columbians oppose the trophy hunt of grizzly bears. We urge your government to issue a province-wide ban on the…

Read More and sign the petition:

22 thoughts on “Petition: Protect Grizzly Bears By Banning the BC Trophy Hunt

  1. British Columbia could do FAR more to ensure the health of its bear population by banning salmon farming and working to restore and protect stocks of wild salmon. Kept apart from the environment in pens and fed by removing herring and other feeder fish from the seas, farmed salmon are not part of the food web; they simply drain resources. Bears, orcas and lots else need wild salmon. The hunt? Harvesting an average of fewer than 300 bears per year – the current rate – appears to sustainable. Salmon farming and the destruction it does to the environment – including taking food out of the mouths of bears – is not sustainable.

    • Fish farming should end, but so too should the trophy hunting of 300 grizzly bears per year. Odd that you would take this opportunity to put in a plug for your pet peeve, while at the same time defending “the hunt”… unless you, as fishermen, have an agenda.

      • If your agenda is about hunting per se, we were confused that you presented this in the context of the overall health of the bear population because there’s no evidence hunting is adversely affecting bear numbers. If your agenda is about the overall health of the bear population, going after a sustainable hunt is a red herring, so to speak. Going after salmon farms, habitat destruction and so forth is striking closer to the root of the keeping bear populations healthy. We were confused by your post, it seem; you seem to be mixing a dislike of hunting in with science on bear populations, and the two don’t readily mix.

      • You may always be confused about this, but we on this anti-hunting blog site are against the killing of any bears for the sake of trophy–“sustainable” or not. Trophy hunting is not sustainable to the individual bear shot for someone’s ego. If you want to talk population dynamics, you have the wrong website. We don’t think any animal should be killed for sport.

      • Thanks for the clarification. As environmentalists, we view issues such as this through the lens of sustaining biodiversity. If B.C. loses its wild salmon – and current policy is putting Canada on this path – whether or not 2% of the brown bear population is culled through hunting will be a mute point. This is not a “fishing” issue. Forests, bears, orcas, seals, eagles and much more depend on healthy runs of wild salmon – a fact, we fear, B.C. is on its way to proving to the detriment of biodiversity.
        A handful of isolated bear viewing sites is not nearly enough to stem this tide. That’s why our position is to include law-abiding hunters as part of the coalition to protect and restore habitat. We don’t feel we can afford to alienate stakeholders who care about the common goal of keeping our wild places wild.
        There’s no question that hunters have been responsible for helping to preserve and restore vast tracts of habitat. That being said, we do recognize that some people finding hunting to be categorically repugnant. While we take a more nuanced view of hunting, we do hope that hunters listen to voices such as yours and ensure that they are abiding by laws and standards of ethics. Trophy hunting is a complex issue, and perhaps we can agree that at the very least, it tip-toes right up to the line of what can be considered ethical hunting. On the other hand, when we allow Any harvest of wild fish, game and plants, (and we think we should) then the issue of overall system balance comes into play, and harvest of top-end predators is part of that balance. Never lose sight of the fact that Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers went extinct Not because they were hunted, but because their forest habitat was cut down and converted into soy bean fields.
        Anyway, thanks for the opportunity for dialogue.

      • The vast majority of soy beans are grown for cattle stuck on feed lots. Never lose sight of the fact that untold species in this country and the world were driven to extinction exclusively by human hunting. The passenger pigeon, great auk and the Steller’s sea cow, to name a few.

        You’re welcome for the opportunity for dialog, but consider this fair warning: please don’t bother commenting here in the future; your comments will be removed, since this site does not post comments from hunters or their apologists. We’ve heard all your arguments before and are not interested in hearing from anyone who thinks trophy hunting can be considered “ethical hunting.” As you’re aware, some people find hunting to be categorically repugnant. That would be us. If you have any other questions, please read:

  2. “Trophy hunting … tiptoes right up to the line of what can be considered ethical hunting.” Really!

    Now if you had said that with respect to subsistence hunting by some far-northern tribe of primitives having no access to supermarkets or a crop-growing season, I might have had to reluctantly agree. But trophy hunting or sport hunting or recreational killing, whatever you choose to call it, is an altogether different matter. If someone truly believes that trophy hunting ambiguously straddles the line between ethical and morally debased behavior, that killing for fun is more-or-less the same as killing out of survival necessity, then I don’t think that person has his head screwed-on straight. You might want to remember that all genuine animal rights advocates are, ipso facto, resolute environmentalists and natural allies in fighting degradation of wild lands, even if the reverse is seldom the case. But if you are prepared to lie down with trophy hunters in pursuit of your goals, expect to get fleas. One need look no further than the entente eagerly sought by certain environmentalist groups in the northern Rockies of the US advocating for wolves with sport hunters. Deals made with the devil by credulous do-gooders seldom turn-out well for the former.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s