Province To End Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunting
Prince George, B.C. – As of the end of November, grizzly bear trophy hunting will no longer be an option in British Columbia.In addition , all hunting of grizzlies will be stopped in the Great Bear Rainforest.
There are an estimated 15,000 grizzly bears in British Columbia. Each year, approximately 250 are taken by hunters. While the trophy hunt will end, hunting for meat will be allowed to continue.
The applications ( Limited Entry Hunt) generate about $540 thousand a year. Minister of Forests, Doug Donaldson says the ban would have taken place earlier , but Limited Entry Hunt approvals were awarded in June, and guide outfitters had been allotted their hunts late last fall.
The grizzly bear hunt in the Omineca and Peace regions starts tomorrow. While different regions have different allowable times, the season for grizzlies ends November 30th. So this will be the final season to hunt grizzly bears.
Hunters will no longer be allowed to possess the hide, paws or head of a grizzly bear in an effort to ensure those who are allowed to hunt for meat are doing solely for the meat.
Minister Donaldson says the decision is a result of the grizzly population being at risk, and notes there will be a financial impact to guide outfitters and some communities “We recognize that there will be some loss of revenue in small communities from many aspects, however, we are of the full understanding the majority of people in the Province support the ending of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”
He says consultation this fall will look at the impacts, and how communities can transition or mitigate the impact.
Comments
This is the best news I’ve heard in a long time. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with people hunting if they are eating the meat. But to kill an animal just so you have bragging rights is disgusting!
Minister Donaldson says the decision is a result of the grizzly population being at risk
=======================
I’m also not a supporter of trophy hunting. That said, I’ve no issues with hunting if people are eating their kill.
That said, is the grizzly population at risk? Anecdotally at least, everything I’ve heard in recent memory seems to suggest that bear populations, including grizzlies, are very healthy in BC.
When I was growing up in PG you never heard of grizzlies in and around the immediate vicinity of PG, it was black bear country. Doesn’t seem like that is the case anymore. Of course that doesn’t mean overall populations are healthy, it could just be a localized observation.
What a load of bunk. Tree huggers are running the provincial government now.
I have never heard of anyone hunting a grizzly bear for meet other than shamans.
“meat”, not “meet”.
Have to agree with you there! An elk they are not, LOL.
My nephew harvested an old boar grizzly and turned it into a nice trophy mount and a freezer full of sausage and pepperoni. It happens every season. If you’re not in the hunting loop you won’t know what is going on with peoples harvests.
“however, we are of the full understanding the majority of people in the Province support the ending of the grizzly bear trophy hunt”
That’s just it. The majority of people in the province don’t even hunt. Are they going to replace the lost income of guides and small communities?
What are they going to pick on next? Logging? The majority don’t log either. This is what happens when special interest groups are able to shout longer and louder (money backing) than those affected.
Funny, the majority don’t support politicians either so maybe we should get rid of them too.
What are they going to pick on next? Logging? The majority don’t log either. This is what happens when special interest groups are able to shout longer and louder (money backing) than those affected.
=================
If the majority of people in the province don’t support it, then they aren’t the special interest group. It’s actually the grizzly bear hunters who are.
So with that established, are you in favour of allowing special interest groups more influence over policy or not? If so, would you extend that same courtesy to special interest groups who are speaking out against things you may not agree with?
“The majority of people in the province don’t even hunt.” This has to do with what? The majority of the people in this province do appreciate the beauty, majesty & awe inspiring power of a full grown grizzly. If you want to hunt them for sustenance, fine. If you are deficient in other aspects of your life that you need to hang a trophy on a wall, well… Those that think it is their innate right to hunt just to kill, lose the guns & bows, go out with just a knife & your wits, just to level the playing field. We’ll be reading about how that worked out for you.
Go whine on your favourite leaf licker website please.
So much for reasoned debate!
Sadly this killing of bears will not end till next year . Christy signed the death warrant for three hundred bears lives will be taken for the amusement of , what can one say , this year . The argument of , it’s only a small fraction of the population doesn’t wash . If it’s only a fraction of the population , why do it ? It’s barbaric . That’s why not .
Christy and gang own the deaths of every majestic Grizzly Bears deaths by trophy hunters this fall .How many of the victims would have been carrying the next generation ? History will never know . Snuffed out .
I have never hunted Grizzly myself, although I know several who have respectfully harvested bears. The animal was honored and respected, the meat was harvested.
If the taking of meat is the sticking point on the Grizzly bear hunt, I would propose the following change to the hunting regulations:
“To kill wildlife (with the exception of Grizzly
Bear, Cougar, or a fur bearing animal other
than a Black Bear) and fail to remove
from the carcass the edible portions (see
definitions section) to the person’s normal
dwelling place or to a meat cutter or the
owner or operator of a cold storage plant.”
Would be changed to NOT exclude Grizzly. It is well known that Grizzly bear meat is in fact OFTEN quite palatable. Change the law so that the hunter MUST take the majority of the edible portions. Thus the moral dilemma faced by people who do not want the hunting of Grizzly bear to continue on grounds that it is not for sustenance is concluded to mutual benefit. If a person harvests a Grizzly and takes both the hide and the usable meat, how is that different from other hunting activities of “lesser” species such as rabbits, deer, etc?
“Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) refers to an inherent weakness of direct democracy and majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot.” – from wikipedia
Will the well-meaning folks who are passing this bill also make a stand for whales, dolphins, elephants, tigers? I hope so. But will they make a stand also for their own fellow man, the subsistence hunters who somehow “randomly” are not successful in their Limited Entry applications year after year, while those draws are awarded to out of province hunters purely in the interest of profits? Is it more unpalatable to hunt for trophy and food than it is to allow hunting for PROFIT?
These words came to mind, perhaps they are familiar from other situations.
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
– Martin Niemöller
Maybe this part is an afterthought, but to the poster above who says “Those that think it is their innate right to hunt just to kill, lose the guns & bows, go out with just a knife & your wits, just to level the playing field” – recall the FUROR last year when an Alberta hunter tried to do just that – he used a spear to try to take a bear. Do you recall the moral outrage that flowed from the the media at that time? So which is it that you would prefer? That the Hunt be fair? Or that it be humane? They may not be the same.
Or perhaps you would prefer that everyone instantly discontinues any actions which were not approved in advance by yourself.
That’s a bit of a wall of text, sorry.
Ultimately I think it is important to consider other points of view. The world is not an easy black/white moral judgement. If you believe a certain thing, it is quite possible that others may believe something not the same.
We need to stop thinking about “Us VS Them” and instead try to find some common ground. The contentious nature of so many issues these days seems suspicious to me by its very nature. When did we stop debating things, fact checking and considering other people’s points of view?
“This is the best news I’ve heard in a long time. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with people hunting if they are eating the meat. But to kill an animal just so you have bragging rights is disgusting!” – the most millenial thing I have read all day. Many people DO in fact eat the meat of the Grizzly they harvest. So where does that place you on the moral measuring stick with respect to the person who may have harvested a Grizzly at some point in their life? Someone who has the right to vote may have just removed another person’s rights.
The greatest weapon of our time is disinformation. Facebook is not a news source, it is at best an echo chamber, and at worst weaponized information which is turning us against each other. Turn it off.
I saw the video of the “hunter” that killed the black bear with a spear. Perhaps you should take a look at the video, first, he was not an Albertan hunter, he was American. Second, he baited the bear with dead meat to draw it in, hence all the outrage not from just the media but from hunters as well. I have nothing against hunting for sustenance ( re-read my post). I am very much opposed to hunting for trophy only & I stand by my comment. If you want to call it sport, level the playing field.
Apologies to Albertans, the nationality of the hunter wasn’t really the point to be honest. Baiting is legal for some reason in many jurisdictions (not BC as it happens).
My point that the hunter attempted to be “more” fair in terms of leveling the playing field during that hunt, and was vilified for his efforts.
The problem with this change in my mind is that the bears were not wasted. With other game you have to take the meat – if hunting Grizzly surely it shouldn’t be different? Just change the law to include that reasonable requirement.
The law already requires that grizzly meat must be taken. What’s being changed now is that ONLY the meat can be taken, the paws, hide and head must now be left in the woods to rot.
“Minister Donaldson says the decision is a result of the grizzly population being at risk”
So if the biologists are right, and there are about 15,000 Grizzly bears in B.C. and the stats are that 250, on average, are harvested per season, then that represents 0.016667% of the grizzly bear population.
And surely more than 250 new grizzlys are born every year.
I suggest that Minister Donaldson is not telling the truth, whether he has been given inaccurate information, or if it is simply the party line. I would further suggest that the decision was made in order to please the NDP/Green voter base
(i.e. folks in Vancouver and Victoria)
I’m not in favour of trophy hunting where meat is not harvested, but many are.
My reaction is mainly to the apparent B.S. being fed to us on this issue.
It looks to me like a fairly significant revenue stream will not be benefiting B.C. taxpayers next year.
metalman.
I suggest that Minister Donaldson is not telling the truth, whether he has been given inaccurate information, or if it is simply the party line. I would further suggest that the decision was made in order to please the NDP/Green voter base.
==============
My gut tells me this is accurate.
Exactly. We always ate what we hunted too. Metalman, I think you hit the nail on the head. Its the B.S. they try to feed us for the decision that irritates me the most.
“then that represents 0.016667% of the grizzly bear population.”
Common error, you have to multiply the decimal by 100 to get percent. The actual percentage is 1.6667%
250 divided by 15,000 is .016667 x 100 = 1.6667 perent
And the NDP/Greens kill off another traditional, long running resource industry in BC. It’s what they do.
How many LNG pulled out of BC under clarks watch? So I guess the liberals hated developing new business.
Because the billions from LNG is nothing compared to half a million from trophy hunting..lol
Because nickel and diming us to death is the NDP way
The Libs were trying to bring in LNG industry. They were opposed tooth and nail all the way by all the usual suspects such as NDP, Greens, Environuts, First Nations and the economically illiterate.
It wasn’t the Libs who killed LNG, it was their opponents, who now control the government. This trophy hunt ban is just the start.
Just a half million from trophy hunting, huh? Yes that is the revenue from applications. Did your thoughts just stop.
Consider the revenue to guides? The spinoff to local businesses?
These folks spend a heck of a lot of money when they come here.
Did you forget.
Ah well, I see BC is closing some doors on business and investment, we’ll have to wait and see which taxes will increase.
Me, I eat what I kill. Don’t care for any bear meat. From being out in the bush I see a huge increase in Black bears, and the wolf population is increasing big time. Where there never were Grizzly, now there’s plenty.
Grizzly eat Black bears, perhaps it’ll all even out.
I see even Andrew Weaver is opposed to this new policy. I agree with Weaver, let’s make policy based on science rather then emotion.
Are we opening up a can of worms here by not controlling the population of one of the province’s apex predators? Will there be enough salmon to feed them and us?
“Will there be enough salmon to feed them and us” Who knows…DFO doesn’t know that is for sure. They missed the boat on the Skeena Sockeye by 100% so far and the run hasn’t all come up yet. They predicted 400,000 and we are presently at 741,000 and change. I think it will get close to 850,000 to 950,000 by the end of the seasonal run. Most political decisions are not made on science,fact or because it is best for the environment. Most political decisions are based on “Will I get re-elected or plain old money and greed”
If political decisions were made for the right reasons there would be know problem. If mankind as a species made decisions for the betterment of the environment, the people, and the planet we live on instead of money it would be a far better place to live.
If you want to find out why political leaders of any country do things follow the money trail. With a little history and investigative reporting you will find out who benefits from the decisions.
I wonder what these people who are opposed to trophy hunting and state that you must eat what you kill do when they kill a mouse? Do they fry it or bake it in the oven? :)
I’ve never killed a mouse so I don’t know. Please tell us all what your practice is. :-)
My cats hunt the mice, not I. They are eaten raw. :)
A bit of a false equivalency don’t you think? Or, are you actually a trophy mouse hunter?
It’s hypocrisy at it’s finest isn’t it? Where is the line? A mouse is too small? How about that squirrel that’s chewing all the wires in your attic? Or one of your famous Ontario raccoons? At what point does an animal garner enough PR to have it’s life spared?
People who say you shouldn’t kill an animal unless you eat it should hold themselves to their own standards.
“let’s make policy based on science rather then emotion.”
Not to single out any one commenter, but an observation in general. When decisions are made on the basis of science, we often get deniers who say the science is wrong and should be ignored, despite agreement from over 90% of scientists in a speciality. I am, of course, referring to climate change, an area in which scientists say to do one thing and non-scientists with no expertise at all say to ignore the scientific information and do nothing because the scientists are wrong. A little bit of doublespeak between that and trophy hunting, don’t you think?
Hmmm, you seem to have been misinformed. The “deniers” don’t say the science is wrong, they say the science is right, and the warmists are ignoring it for their own financial and political purposes.
No doublespeak at all.
Misinformed? Really? I have frequently read on News250 from deniers that while they now concede that there is global warming, after initially denying it for several years, they still to this day refuse to accept the vast majority held and peer endorsed, scientific opinion that human activity plays a major role in it. Science says human activity is a major cause, deniers say the scientists are wrong.
Sounds like doublespeak to me
I am not sure what the kick is from having a dead animal on the wall. I could understand it in the old days with muskets etc because there was a skill to it and they used every bit of the animal..why..because they had to to survive…
now with trail cams.. salt licks.. gps.. quads .. new rifles etc its now just killing for killing..
What’s wrong with that?
Comments for this article are closed.