BC hunt kills as many grizzlies as remain in Alberta

meanwhile Barry Penner is boasting his governments 2 million dollar commitment to the bear aware program that "Saves BC's Bears"

See press release by clicking here

Why is our government spending millions of dollars saving more BC bears, while they allow them to be hunted at record numbers.

Suspects identified in bear hanging

A dead bear hung from a pedestrian bridge in Golden, B.C., was shot before the culprits strung up its carcass, investigators said Saturday.

The RCMP in Golden, 260 kilometres west of Calgary, said they have now identified three local men who used a rope to suspend the bruin [grizzly] over the Kicking Horse River last Monday.

What investigators must now determine is whether the same men are also responsible for shooting and killing the bear.

Two of the 19-year-old suspects interviewed by police have admitted stringing up the bear, but claimed it was roadkill and already dead when they found it.

"We don't believe that," RCMP Sgt. Marko Shehovac said.

A surveillance camera in the area captured images of three men hanging up the bear at about midnight last Monday. The town's public works foreman, Dave Poland, discovered the bear about six hours later and cut it down.

"It's a pretty gruesome thing," said Poland, who greeted news the three suspects had been identified as "good news."

Wade Persson, who also works for the town, said the location was especially troubling -- people going to work and kids walking to school would've seen the bear had Poland not spotted it first.

After Poland cut down the bear, the current swept it down the river, but officials recovered the carcass downstream and performed a necropsy.

"The conservation officer recovered the bear and we found a bullet hole," said Shehovac.

The men are currently facing a charge of unlawful possession of wildlife and subject to a $230 fine under B.C.'s Wildlife Act -- but if it's determined they killed the bear, Shehovac added it could result in more serious charges.

The incident stirred up strong feelings among Golden's 4,300 residents, which translated into a lot of tips from the public, Shehovac said.

"Even their friends . . . aren't too impressed," he said.

The men's names won't be released until they have been formally charged, said Shehovac.

The fact alone the bear had been hung from the bridge was upsetting enough to many in Golden -- finding out it had also been shot only added to the revulsion among residents.

"Why would you do that? It's pretty disgusting," said Robin Johnston.

Johnston, 20, said area residents have a healthy respect for nature that such a "shocking" act does not reflect.

Calgary Herald
Sunday, May 11, 2008

I've been putting off responding to this post so i'm sorry for bringing up a 2 week old subject.. but as a bear hunter i've finally decieded to respond. First off.. where does it say that hunting bears endangers the total population? I believe it helps the population because the people hunting the bears are shooting mostly large adult males.. these males kill almost all cubs on sight to try to stop other bears from spreding their DNA and only allow their own DNA to progress. Now I understand that if it was open season anything goes.. we would drastically reduce the bear population in only a few short years.. but its not open season..it limited entry. Only 6 Griz tags were handed out for all of area 4-23. Wich covers north of Elkford to about the tunnel. And all 6 tags probally wont all get filled. To me the real stress on bears.. Griz in perticular is HABITAT DESTRUCTION.. which includes ski hills ,mountain bike trails,and golf courses. I hear the same people coming down on bear hunting saying...man it would be nice if F.A.R. put a lift in fish bowl. Or it would be so nice if Heiko opened a new ski hill on the other side..and man.. i can't wait for the new golf course to open...This is what truly hurts the bears.. once that land is gone.. you can almost be sure its never going to be handed back to the bears again. And it's the same thing with bike trails.. Three Kings for example..above the trail.. use to be thick with Elk and Griz.. and as soon as the mountain bikers discovered that area guess what... no more resident elk.. One of the Grizzlies #1 food source..and the griz left also...So to blame the problem on hunting of bears to me is over looking the number one cause of creating endangered species..LOSS OF HABITAT. So the next time your skiing at the ski hill..or golfing.. or riding the bike trails...know this... you contibuting to HABITAT LOSS. But don't get me wrong.. I bike, I ski, i have golfed before.. I burn gas. I buy harvested lumber and I contribute to habitat loss everyday.. I also put in for a griz tag every year.. But to think that by banning bear hunting is good...or will save the bears.. is only putting the blame on somebody else..The only difference between shooting a Grizzly with a gun or buying a lift ticket, or builing a bike trail, or buying a new lot in a new subdivision, or going golfing at the new course..is ..... I live with the bear and i die with the bear..I see the bear eyes...By contibuting to habitat loss you don't ever see the bear that dies eyes..

Thank you for your well reasoned and eloquent 1st post, as you are new to this board I thought it would polite to inform you that it was a thoughtful and well rounded response - one that gives pause for though. However none of that has a place on this message board (please see Steve's responses as to how to respond to someone who might have a misguided or just differing point of view)

something like this might be more appropriate

F*** you tree huggers - I shoot what i want, because my grandaddy was born here....

and if i can figure out who you are I will out you...

Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

mikes,

I, too, thank you for your comment. There was a time I hunted. No more. A personal decision.

We need more posts that generate a reasonable and measured approach to subjects. Not all posts need be personal attacks.

This is a specious argument. Basically you're saying that we kill grizzly bears for their own good. Because really, humans are better at managing wild populations than letting nature take its course.

It's true that humans encroaching into their habitat will displace bears. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. Why exacerbate the loss of habitat by tracking them down and shooting grizzlies in their remaining habitat?

There is a difference between intentional killing and the unintentional consequences of human activity. Far more people die in accidents each year than are murdered. Yet nobody would suggest that homicide is insignificant in the big scheme of things, just because accidents kill more people.

I don't mean to equate killing bears with murder. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic that suggests we shouldn't care about hunting because other activities may have a larger impact on bear population.

For close to 50 years out culture concepts dealing with nature have been based on the priciples of conservation. We are now abandoning those principles and replacing them with radical concepts of preservation.If the preservationists get their way,there will be so many bears in some areas,you won't be able to avoid them;if some politicians also get their way,you won't be able to be carrying a firearm to defend yourself with.Consider the following statement:
B.C. bear status report: Even though there are some areas in the province where additional protection is needed for grizzly bears,both bear species are doing quite well.Grizzly populations have increased significantly in recent years in the mid coast area,the West Chilcotin,and in South Tweedsmuir Park.In many other areas of the province bear populations are stable or increasing.Present evidence indicates that the bear parts trade ban is helping reduce the number of black bears being killed each year for bear parts.The Ministry of Environment,the B.C. Wildlife Federation,the provincial Rod&Gun clubs,and the Conservation Officer Service should all be credited for the many conservation projects,and increased habitat protection,and regulations that have brought about this improved picture for bears.
By James Shelton
So to me it's clear that that groups for bear hunting are also the groups that have done the most,and have spent the most money to protect the bears.
B.C. is one of the main battlegrounds in the international environmental wars presently being fought. The concept the evironmental groups are trying to ram down your throats is called international evironmental affirmative action. The claim that B.C. belongs to all mankind and that British Columbians are mere custodians. We must set aside vast protected areas so that people from other areas of the world (who became wealthy by exploiting nature to extinction in their own countries) can come and experience real nature-here.They want us to stop hunting bears,to stop trapping,and to stop a good part of out mining and logging.These preservationists are mounting an unrelenting attack right now because they know that our present government is wobbling at the knees and will likely put pollitically correct minority groups ahead of the majority of British Columbians.Most modern conservationists believe in a type of natural world where a limited amount of balancing takes place,where competing destructive forces are at work,that mankind is an integral part of the system and that our behavior reflects nature.But we must reduce and limit our impact on wild systems whenever possible.This belief system os a stoic relic of the synthesis of the Neo-Darwinism and Judeo-Christianity that took place in the late 1940's.
Most people that advocate preservationist doctrines believe in a natural regime where forces exist that balance,protect,and enhance individual species.An inter-connecting web of life exists where the loss of any species may cause and ecosystem disaster.The human behavior of capitalistic-materialism was created by culture in the last 10,000 years and is a perversion of natural processes.This viewpoint is a modern version of the pro nature anti capitalist belief system that was born in the United States during the 1960's.
There has never been a balanced natural regime in B.C. as many people believe,and even if there had been,fire suppression,logging,and present restocking standards have changed vast areas of wildlife habitat.We must actively manage and husband all of our animal species if we are going to maintain strong,viable,wildlife populations in B.C. If wolf control,for example,was a wildlife management decision,instead of a political desicion,we could bring our caribou populations back quickly.If we managed wolf populations for a lower desity,our hunting and guiding inustries would prosper and return many more millions to the B.C. economy that they already do.We are headed for an all or none concept of preservation:we save this area,and destroy that area.If our Ministry of Environment regional officeshad the freedom and determination to actually use all the conservatoin techniques at their disposal,instead of sitting by in preservationist gridlock,we could radically increase the popultaion of most of our animal species without reducing mining,loggin,or oit exploration.But as long as our government is controlled by people who believe in the fantasy that there is a "wonderful balanced regime" out there,our wildlife populations and realted economic potential will continue to decline.

Nice rant mikes, but Neo-Darwinismm Judeo-Christianity, capitalistic-materialism and "international environmental wars" are a little off topic. We were discussing grizzly bears.

You offered a quote by James Shelton, a presumed "bear expert", so I looked him up. Not everyone agrees that his viewpoints are unbiased, believing as he does that bears are a "resource" to be harvested. Read a critique here. I particularly liked these quotes from Mr. Shelton's Bear Attack book: "The federal government of Canada has become a surrogate for the United Nations, and it's no secret that both are working towards a plan to disarm all world citizens." and "The election of George W. Bush will derail postmodernism in the U.S. and at the U.N. for at least four years and possibly much longer." I guess it's obvious what his political views are.

This is funny stuff and thanks for pointing us to Mr. Shelton's global conspiracy theories, but getting back to the serious topic of hunting Grizzlies, let me offer up a few quotes from The BC Grizzly Bear Population Estimate (2004) -- the latest population estimate published on the BC government's website http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/grzz/

"The revised Grizzly Bear population estimate for BC in 2004 was 16,887 bears. A quantitative estimate of the precision of the final estimate is not possible because the expert-based approach does not estimate uncertainty."

The report goes on to say that "no conclusion about the population trend should be drawn because of the uncertainty surrounding estimates." And finally " We cannot make any conclusion about the trend in the number of grizzly bears in BC from our data". This is from the government's own report on grizzly bear population.

Translation: the number of grizzlies in BC, commonly stated as 17,000 is only a best guess and they have no idea how accurate it is. Worse, they're not even willing to hazard a guess at the accuracy of their estimate, say plus or minus 10%, so the real number could be only half as much as their 17,000 figure. And they can't be sure if the population is increasing or decreasing. How's that for science?

trailhead said:

"But our government sees no problem with hunting an endangered species because "we have a healthy grizzly bear population in British Columbia,"
But the last time i checked the grizzly bear was not on the endangered species list in B.C. If we set aside thousands of hectares of timber that can't be logged,and shut down our guiding industry for the unnecessary over-protection of grizzly bears,what is the total influence on the world besides the loss of millions of dollars to the B.C. economy?The world demand for timber would still be there.Does this mean that the demand will be filled by logging valuable jaguar habitat in South America?Or will the timber be removed in an area where one of the Asian bears is endangered?It certainly won't come from spotted owl country.Every product purchased in the world marketplace has elements in it that represent the destruction of habitat or the elimination of competitive plant and animal species somewhere in the world.Even all those things preservationists buy:their cars,their homes,their food,their clothes,their compact disks,and even their bean sprouts.Do preservationists refuse to hookup to B.C. Hydro in order to make sure they are not contributing to the electricity demand that devestated all those hectares of prime habitat flooded by dams?Do they refuse to live in dwellings that are constructed by lumber?Do they refuse to purchase fuel that originates from oil that is pumped from the ground in grizzly habitat? It's wonderful to have bananas,tomatoes,and oranges any time of the year-and all those other cheap goods from areas of the earth where there are very few restrictions on agricultural or industrial expansion.But there is a cost for all of this:Somewhere in the world,life is eliminated for our comfort.In other words,because you exist you are causing death and destruction somewhere in the world right now.Even though I'm a hunter and kill animals,there are many so-called environmentalists who consume far more world goods than i do,and as a result,they contribute to more total world destruction that i do.Before the second world war,B.C. residents cut their own firewood,grew their own food,made most of their clothes,cut there own lumber,and created many necessary products for survival.During this time people here could not posslibly live with maximum-pahse populations of grizzly,black bears,wolves,cougars,fox,mink,and hawks.You simply could not compete against these wild creatures;they would kill your livestock,eat your garden vegetables,and steal your eggs-they would destroy you econimically.B.C. residents are now removed from a land based existance enough that we can tolerate much higher populations of competing wildlife than our forebearers could.But this is only possible because we can now obtain cheap goods from other areas of the world,and we don't have to extract them directly from our own environment.But what effect douse this have on those other areas of the world?Are we trading Asiatic Black bears for grizzlies? Why is it feasible for a B.C. logger to buy most of his vegetables from California rather than grow them himself?Because he can make good money in resource extraction,then buy cheap vegetables from farms in California where not only has the land been cleared,drained,and all competitive plant and animal species eliminated,but it also been irrigated with water from vast diverted river systems.His decision is an economic one,and his decision directly reduces the demand to clear more land in B.C. but increases the need to clear more land in California.If all B.C. went back to pre-world war 2 living conditions right now,we would devastate all of the prime B.C. habitat in very short order.Our resource-removal-based economy is much less destructive to the environment in the long run than the industrual manufacturing and agricultural economies in the nations from which we import most of our goods.British Columbians are lucky;we can trade very valuable resources to other nations for products that cause far more long term damage to nature than our own resource extraction. We will be able to protect reasonable portions of B.C.,but only because we are willing to sacrifice other areas of the world's surface,along with the plants and animal species that live there.Remeber what David Suzuke says:It's important to reduce your carbon footprint in the WORLD.

Opposition to killing grizzlies for sport on the rise

According to a poll released today, 73 per cent of British Columbians support an end to the trophy hunting of grizzlies.

The provincewide poll found even among British Columbians with hunting licences, 60 per cent support a ban on trophy hunting of grizzlies.

The opposition to the hunt cuts across party lines, with 64 per cent of those who identified themselves as New Democrats opposed, compared with 71 per cent of those who said they were Liberals and 81 per cent who identified as being Green.

The B.C. government has argued the hunt is sustainable. But the poll found that just 18 per cent of British Columbians find such assertions credible, while 73 per cent said they agree with scientists who say the hunt should be stopped because of a lack of reliable population data.

The poll was done by McAllister Opinion Research, and is based on a random dial telephone survey of 629 British Columbians, aged 18 years and older. The survey was done between April 17 and 27, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Full story in the Globe and Mail