250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 3:59 pm

Grizzly Trophy Hunt Decision Will Hurt Rural BC Says Guide Outfitters Association

Tuesday, August 15, 2017 @ 5:50 AM

Prince George, B.C. – The decision to ban trophy hunting for grizzlies in B.C.  will have a ripple effect in rural communities says the head of the BC Guide Outfitters Association.

“This is a blow to small business” says Scott Ellis, President of the B.C. Guide Outfitters Association.   “I have members already phoning me and they are basically telling me, they are out of business.”

The Guide Outfitters Association estimates  non resident  grizzly bear hunters generate  revenue of between $1.32 and $2.75 million a year.  That is in addition to the more than $500 thousand  collected through the Limited Entry Hunt applications and the  tags that  are  purchased  if an LEH application is successful.

“This ( ending the trophy hunt) was  an election promise and an emotional  decision to , quite frankly,  please those in Gordon Head and Vancouver” says Ellis ” We are really  disappointed, and no amount of compensation is going to  make this right.”

He says  there  hasn’t been any  discussion about possible compensation,  “We haven’t had any meaningful discussion  with the new government.”

Ellis says this decision is further evidence of the urban- rural split  in British Columbia “It absolutely  highlights the problem.  You shouldn’t have the people in Victoria telling the people in Prince George, or Smithers, or Fort St. John or Cranbrook  where  they don’t really know what’s going on, and it won’t be replaced by eco-tourism or anything else, this is a direct blow to managing a species   for political reasons.”

Meantime on the  other side of the matter,  the Wilderness Committee  has been pushing for this action for  more than a decade, and they are celebrating the news, “For 16 long  years we’ve been demanding this ban” says Jamie Foy, Wilderness Committee National Campaign Director “We’re glad the senseless killing of grizzly bears is coming to an end”.

While the  Wilderness Committee  points to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as listing the western population of grizzly bears status as a “special concern”,  a recent  report  from the Guide Outfitters Association  says that designation doesn’t mean the grizzly population is at risk.   Their  report says  the designation of ‘special  concern’ “indicates that they are neither threatened nor endangered, but their populations are recognized as sensitive to changes in habitat.”

Ellis  says  taking  hunters out of the field does a disservice to the species “You want people in the field, you want a value placed on wildlife, you want surveys and inventories done,  you want collaring done, you want DNA done.  If  outfitters or hunters aren’t doing that,  who is going to be doing that?.”

He applauds the Coastal First Nations who are doing some of that kind of work in the Great Bear rain Forest, but  says that is just a small area of B.C. “We have a million square kilometers in this province,  what about the rest of it?  We have bears in a lot of areas that unfortunately  we are not going to know if they are healthy and doing well and if sows are having  healthy multiple cubs or not.”

The Guide Outfitters are on record  as saying all wildlife management ” should be firmly science-based”.   Minister of Forests, Doug Donaldson  admits the current  management of the Grizzly harvest  would have  seen the number of licences to hunt decreased  if there was a concern in the sustainability of the  species, “but  we are acting on what the vast majority of British Columbians views were concerning the trophy hunting of grizzly bears.”

Hunting grizzlies for meat will still be allowed,  but hunters who do harvest a grizzly for meat,  will not be allowed to  possess hide, head, paws or  hair from the bear.   They will however, have to present  the skull  for inspection  so records  on age and  sex of the  harvested animal can be kept.



Emotion trumps facts every time.

Well I am a hunter and I can’t see the point in hunting any animal just for a trophy whether it be a moose, elk deer,goat,sheep grizzly or black bear. If you are taking the meat for you own use that is another thing entirely.
The fact that the guide outfitters could loose revenue is not the problem of the BC taxpayer. The hunt should have never been allowed in the first place and no compensation should be awarded to any game outfitter for loss of revenue or any other reason in relation to the grizzly hunt. The killing of any animal just for sport isn’t right. For food is another matter and is a traditional way of life in North America and not just for the native Indians. Immigrant to this country also sought wild game for food and without it they would have perished long ago. They grew gardens and hunted to sustain themselves otherwise we would not be living here. I see nothing wrong with keeping a moose rack of an animal you have harvested but most hunters are hunting for food for te table not racks for a wall.
Thats my 2 cents worth.

I think they are grossly overstating the revenue stream for grizzly hunts. I come from an area that is known for it’s grizzly and year after year the leh available has never been filled. And it is an easy drive or flight from pg.

In the interview on CBC this morning Donaldson stated they had extensive consultations with the Guide Outfitters and the first thing Ellis stated in his interview was that there have been no discussions with the NDP

Trophy hunt is not an complete accurate representation. As stated by the guide outfitters if you harvest a deer do you have to leave the hide and antlers in the bush as these are trophies. There aren’t 250 Bear arcades out there minus the hide and paws, the animals are also harvested for the meat – it may not be the hunter taking the meat home but the bears are used by the guide or sent to meat cutters and the meat donated to food banks.

There is always more to the story

    I agree with you slinky. Little to no meat is left behind. Many guide outfitters will share the meat with the guides and families, donate to food banks and share with local natives.

    Guiding is an industry in itself. Many people fail to realize that out of country hunters pay exorbitant prices for their hunting licenses and tags. This makes our licenses and tags much more affordable.

    These hunters also pay very high costs to the guide outfitter for their hunting trip. The guide outfitter hires Canadian guides and cooks to work in his camps. The guide outfitter shops for his groceries and supplies here in our communities.

    The hunters from out of country will also shop here for supplies, stay in our motels/hotel, eat in our restaurants often leaving generous tips.

    This industry is not much different than the fishing industry where people from around the world book seven or ten day fishing trips.

As a hunter for over 50 years I also have no problem with the elimination of the trophy hunt..

As a hunter for nearly 60 years, I find this decision very ignorant. Grizzlies are not threatened by hunting as much as they are threatened by loss of habitat. With the expanse of the human population, there is a corresponding loss of wildness habitat. Less wilderness, less grizzlies, wolverines, fisher and the list goes on. If they really care, burn down all the lower mainland and return it to wildlife. People can leave the country.

    that is hitting the nail square on the head. BC wild fires never crossed their minds until the smoke showed up. The people in the lower mainland, fails to realize that money is made beyond hope.

      Oh God,that is so true. Be careful, eh? That’s the NDP voter base yer talking about.

Oh boo hoo, you can’t make a buck from killing a animal just for a picture with it, how sad. At least a real hunter uses the meat and just isn’t there for a pat on the back and a photo opp. Half of these pussies have never skinned an animal, and would probably faint if they had to actually do something with the kill.

    Ha Ha Ha! So True!

      Hey, if they watched wolves or bears ripping into a live calf, while the calf is bauling for their mother, do you think they would still care about cute cuddly cubs?

Trophy hunting isn’t hunting, it’s bragging rights. I figure if you can take a grizzly down in a hand-to-hand fight, then you have earned the right to brag. But shooting an animal in the back so that he is paralyzed and eventually bleeds out (cause you don’t want to ruin his hide) is sheer cruelty and I am so happy that it’s been outlawed – it should have never happened in the first place. If people are hunting to put food on the table, then by all means go and hunt.

    It hasn’t been outlawed. It has been changed. Starting next season if you want a Grizzly you must remove the edible portions and leave the hide, paws and head in the bush.

Are all the trophy hunter’s harvesting grizzly bears from BC? (love the term harvesting. it’s like comparing popping an animal with a gun to pulling a carrot out of the ground)

Maybe the guide outfitter association should offer eco-tour opportunities then. I’m sure lots of people would pay to be out in the wild observing and getting some photos of a grizzly.

And I would guess the LEH numbers given above are for all LEH entries, including moose not just for grizzlies.

There are a lot of things he says wont be happening, but why can’t they? Instead of arguing about the ability to shoot grizzly bears, I hope they start looking into other opportunities. Perhaps they will once the initial reaction has some time to set in.

    They already do that.

Take a look around town, notice all the unsecured garbage bins. I estimate over half the house holds in PG alone do not secure their bins. These people do not give a rats butt about the local black bears but most will get their collective knickers in a knot about trophy hunting and hunting in general.

Hypocrites all.

I think with all hunting, trophy or not, ALL of the meat should be removed from the land and either taken home by the hunter or donated to a food shelter or a needy family. So much is left in the woods to rot.
if you aren’t going to eat it don’t shoot it.

and to those who say they are going out of business because the grizzly hunt is ending, that is what you get when you specialize.

    Sorry the meat or remains very rarely rots in the wild. Wildlife in general makes short work of any remains left in the bush. What about the gutpile, should it be removed, will you eat it?

    So if wildlife eats the remains, is that called waste?

    So if meat is left behind is that waste or opportunity for wildlife?

      if you consider the gut pile to be meat, you are more than welcome to it, I will even deliver it to your door if you like.

      My comment stands, all MEAT should be removed not left behind.

    What is left in the woods to rot?

” We are really disappointed, and no amount of compensation is going to make this right .???? Compensation ? Really ? When capital punishment , aka state sponsored murder . Did the executioners get anything other than unemployment insurance ? I’m disappointed myself that the killing of bears continues this year .

“Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 @ 10:47 AM by Dirtman with a score of 0
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.”

Grizzly meat is not currently required to be taken.

    I have a buddy who is a hunting guide. He says it is.

From the other thread:
Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 @ 1:40 PM by ammonra

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’ve only been here for a couple years but in that time I’ve never seen any “denier” say that climate change doesn’t exist. Neither have I seen any denial of global warming, other than the current 19 year pause (hiatus) in the warming that science tells us (and that even the IPCC admits) is happening. (Were you even aware of the pause?)

We do, to this day as we have always done, base our opinions on the science. The overwhelming scientific evidence says that human activities have an almost undetectable influence on climate and that the change that the warmists are excited about is natural and follows known past natural fluctuations. For years I’ve challenged warmists to show me where I’m wrong and I’ll switch sides in a heartbeat. They’ve as yet been unable to. Most of them won’t even try, they’ll just call me names instead. The few that have tried have failed becauses the science just doesn’t support them.

You have deliberately ignored the point I made.

I have been commenting on this site for many years, almost from when Ben first set it up, and during that time many deniers refused to accept that global warming was a fact. They called it unscientific and just an excuse to get research funds. For several years, this was the mantra of many here. In the last couple of years, when it became irrefutable that scientific evidence proved that global warming was taking place, the mantra changed into either “It’s a natural phenomenon based of the sun’s variability and periodic changes”, or “there may be warming but it is not due to human activity.” Deniers most definitely have denied global warming in the past, but now accept global warming and deny human involvement. However, none of that was my point. You know, the point you ignored.

That point was that the vast, vast majority of scientists knowledgeable in this area agree that human activity is a major cause of global warming. Certainly, you can deny that, but who else are we to rely on but those in the field who actually study the subject and evaluate the data. I am not qualified to do that, are you? What are your credentials? Why should we accept your version of the warming rather than the version agreed to and endorsed by the vast majority of experts in the field?

My point originally was that the considered opinions of peer climatologists about climate change causality is treated one way, i.e., rejection, while many of those denying human involvement in climate change insist that scientific data and its interpretation by relevant experts in the field should be relied upon for making decisions about the grizzly bear hunt. That is the pointt you ignored. Is scientific data evaluation by experts in the appropriate fields reliable or not? A simple question, surely.

    Why has the term “global warming” been replaced with the term “climate change?

    I notice that you have used both terms!

    I remain a skeptic as to whether man has any measurable effect on “climate”!

    I suspect that many of the scientists that promote this idea are also the same one’s with their hands out for more money to “study” climate change!

    Scientists who are in disagreement tend to receive less funding!

    As someone who is skeptical, and who asks for hard evidence, I end up being labelled a denier! I have no doubts that the climate is changing, as it always has and it always will! Show me the proof that “man” has had an impact and that “man” has any ability whatsoever to slow down or speed up the rate of change!

    I don’t accept Al Gore’s opinion as proof on anything other than a way to get rich off of the backs of his fan group!

    By the way, did you catch Andrew Weaver’s comments on the Grizzly hunt being cancelled?

      “Political stunts and political spin — the confusing tale of the government’s inept grizzly bear policy” – Andrew Weaver, August 14, 2017

      ht tp://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2017/08/14/political-stunts-political-spin-confusing-tale-governments-inept-grizzly-bear-policy/

    I wasn’t responding to your point. I was responding to your baseless slur.

    You’ve been here much longer than I, and I don’t know what you’ve seen before my arrival. MY point was and is, that in the time I have been here, I’ve not seen any “denier” deny that global warming is a fact. And while I haven’t been active here for very long, I have participated in other forums for over a decade, and never saw any “deniers” on them deny the existence of global warming either. Participants on this site must be a breed apart.

    As for your point, you are arguing consensus, which has nothing to do with the facts and is not a basis for the truth. Scientific history is replete with examples of the vast majority being wrong. So who are we to rely on? Those who back up their claims with evidence, data, facts. When those of the majority that you trust so implicitly make claims, it’s not unreasonable to believe them. But when critics point out the flaws in those claims using science, it behoves them point out where the critics are wrong. They don’t do that, instead they try to silence any criticism. That should be enough for you to be skeptical at the least.

    Is scientific data evaluation by experts in the appropriate fields reliable or not? Only if it can be shown to be backed up by the evidence. When one expert refuses to back his claims with evidence, and the other bases his claim entirely on evidence, which one should be believed?

For thirty years the consensus was against tectonic plate theory. How did that work out?

As for the bears, ask those who live out in salmon valley how threatened grizzlies are.

NDP destroying the economy of the north, hunting, mining, oil, gas, pipelines, refineries. Oh well they always did believe money originates from pixie dust. Do not expect a change as this election has shown the NDP does not need the north, can ignore.

Comments for this article are closed.