Truth Works

The paper up the valley was hard at work this week gleaning the press releases and summarizing some main points. Some of the highlights are interesting, and I think I will look into the spotlight hunting case by the Court a little further. I must have missed the part in history about Natives using lights to hunt traditionally…….

I guess I had never really thought of the issue of hunting as a right until I came across this story. Definitely hostile, it goes so far as to question where the Conservatives stand on hunting issues. Traditionally, of course, the Conservatives are friends to the hunter, although careful readers of this piece should note that there are people in all parties that do care about some of the greatest pasttimes there are.

That said, I am not sure that the author of this story or the member proposing the bill have entirely thought it through. In my experience, when something is enshrined as a right it becomes nearly impossible to interpret the matter in courts after. This can be seen almost anywhere that people are touting their right to do an activity, whether palatable or not. And as any user of the outdoors will agree, there are times when hunting is not appropriate. Hunters (yes, HUNTERS, not left wing home dwellers) have always been responsible for the conservation of game species. Enshrining the right to hunt as legislation might lead down a slippery slope when it comes to the real mission that every hunter I have met takes seriously. Again, we must always be on guard for those who can undo everything this sport has accomplished by abusing the freedoms given them to roam the woods in search of game. One look at the abuses carried out by the people who have been granted the “right” to hunt should serve as caution by anyone who supports this measure.

The Conservatives did not betray their support base, in my opinion.

I found a great post by some self-styled activist named Paul Glendenning this week (and yes, I am aware that having a link only makes people like this feel validated, but sometimes people deserve attention for being brave enough to be sub-par, like that guy from American Idol and William Shatner). Glendenning is obviously some bleeding heart city dweller who has no real idea about wildlife except for that species are nice to look at. On this, we agree. However, he of course has to go further and go on and on about the evils of hunting and how it “doesn’t work”. All right, Paul, let’s go point by point.

Paragraph one: Santa’s reindeer are caribou Paul. Not whitetails.

Paragraph two: Three sentences and yet there are four things wrong! 1) Deer aren’t really controversial. Strange statement. 2) Deer have always been succesful, human development or not. 3)Deer aren’t really in a conflict with drivers. They are hit by drivers. Not so nice for deer or driver. 4) Hunting deer isn’t a solution. It is something that has always been around. It’s not like some person woke up one morning and said “Hey, there’s waaay too many accidents with deer. Maybe we should shoot them.”

Paragraph three: The hunting season doesn’t kill deer. Legal hunters do.

Four) This is one of the dumbest statements I have heard in my whole life. Seriously, it’s right up there with “We should have just let Saddam look after his own business” or “Orientated”. It means nothing, and is based on nothing.

Five) Most hunters do neither of these things. They just straight up say that they enjoy hunting. The fact that less fawns starve and there are less collisions is just a side benefit.

Six) Again, humans were still around, Paul. They just didn’t have rifles to hunt deer with. Also, when was the last time you saw a natural predator around?

Seven) Mature bucks are actually the least likely to survive a bad winter, because they spend most of the autumn burning off fat stores and not eating because they are so busy fighting everyone else.

Eight) Wrong again. All bucks become aggressive, and all will likely breed. Deer are not like moose or elk that way.

Nine, ten, eleven) What drives deer into “conflict” with drivers and farmers is ease. Roads are easier to travel on than woods. Fields are an easy source of food all year ’round.

Most of the rest of the article is a bunch of crap about high-tech deer safety gizmos that only someone who lives in a city would think will work (and they are probably the first to raise their voice in protest at the cost, saying that it is businesses that should pay the bill, not individual citizens). Paul ends by saying that people need a better understanding of deer. Maybe he should take his own advice and crack open a book before his next attempt at ungulate biology.

For a long time, the native people of Canada have enjoyed the misconceptions of many post-modern myths that were started by people who had good intentions, if questionable methods. Most of these myths try to make up for the traditional mistake of the white man in judging people of color to be inferior by elevating them to some lofty superior status that cannot be understood by groups outside of the one in question.

One of the myths that makes me the most angry is the one that is commonly floated about the Native populations of the continent living in harmony with nature, using all that they could off an animal, never wasting, and carefully nurturing the populations. The fact is, there is evidence all around that points to the contrary, and the evidence continues to pile up in modern times.

A recent article from the Globe and Mail talks about the request by a coastal native group to have the right to hunt sea otters for ceremonial purposes restored. This is a fairly useless exercise in trying to use the leverage created by political correctness. What ceremonies do these groups want to begin again that are so vital, but which have not been a part of the culture for at least a century? What is the sense of slaughtering animals that have come back from the brink of extinction in a society that should have moved past such practices long ago? The claim that the sea otter was used in ceremonial purposes long ago simply cannot apply to the present day, much as the claims of Northern indigenous populations should never have been considered when they requested that they be allowed to start a whale hunt.

Many hunters in Canada are aware that often the Natives of the country use the colour of their skin to wildly abuse the silly notions of the various governments. In itself, this helps to debunk the myth that First Nations were some kind of guardians of mother Earth.

For further evidence, consider that while the Europeans are blamed for most extinctions and plummeting numbers of fur bearing animals on the continent, including the sea otter, it was the natives who continued to trap the animals until they were gone. As is commonly joked about among people of native and european descent alike, the white immigrants were useless in the woods and most could not hope to locate the fur stocks themselves. Did the natives stop trapping when they realized that the animal numbers were becoming dangerously low, as stewards of the Earth would have? No. Likewise, did the natives of the Prairies cease to hunt buffalo when the numbers plummeted, turning to other sources of food? No. They continued to hunt the animals until they could no longer find them.

Lest we chalk those incidents up to European influence, it is important to note that there are many stories of animals that were wiped out long before the coming of the white man. Some biologists think that First Nations people may have been responsible for the extinction of several Ice Age species such as the mammoth and the mastodon. Certainly, there is a lot of evidence to indicate that First Nations were resonsible for extirpating the wood bison from places like the Yukon. Finally, the parables of many First Nations themselves contain cautionary stories involving the extinction of species due to overhunting, such as the elimination of the sea mink that is talked about in traditional tales of the Six Nations.

People are people, and the problem with both racism and its polar opposite apologeticism is that neither make allowances for this fact. The First Nations of Canada are no better and no worse than any other race or culture. They are and were just people trying to survive and did what they had to to do it.

It’s time that the truth entered the public dialogue, so that special privileges are no longer granted to one race over another.

I am often amazed by what a narrow approach people take when it comes to government decisions. I am especially surprised when this naive attitude seems to infect people who supposedly are focusing on long term goals. A recent actualization of the selfish interest of ideals over real and effective strategy came by way of an article written by for the Nanaimo bulletinCanadian preservationist David Suzuki regarding proposed plans by the government in British Columbia to halt the downward trend of the critically endangered mountain caribou.

In the article, Suzuki chooses to focus on just one of the tactics that the provincial government is using in an effort to save the species. As a preservationist, it should not be surprising that the one prong of the trident approach that Suzuki took issue with was the culling of the caribou’s natural predators.

For the record, I usually disagree with killing off predators to achieve a goal set by humans, whether it is killing off bears and coyotes by ranchers, tigers by trappers, or wolves in the interest of a better trophy hunt. But in this case, Suzuki’s own claim that killing off predators to save another species has been contradicted by experts in caribou survival.

My biggest issue with Suzuki here is that he acts as if the culling of the predators is the only approach that the government is taking. This is patently false. Suzuki is not the only person with a narrow interest that the B.C. Liberals have angered with their plan. The strategy for preserving the caribou herds has also angered snowmobilers and logging companies, two other interests affected by the new plans, and again two of the biggest threats to the long-term survival of the caribou.

It seems pretty clear by the number of groups that are raising their voices in outrage that none really have the best interests of species diversity in mind at all. For the snowmobilers and loggers, the issue can be chalked up to self interest. But what about Suzuki, who only seems to be defending animals? The answer is likely, and sadly, a political one.

Suzuki has long supported the crazy policies of the New Democratic Party both at the provincial and federal levels. His support has often come with what may be seen as a compromise of principles (so often the case on the left); he was noticeably silent when the policies of the party contributed (among other things) to the rise of the current pine beetle epidemic that is going to wipe out most of B.C.’s pine and threatens to invade other regions of Canada as well.

On the other hand, it could be that Suzuki is a rare type among those who believe they are activisits; both the extinction of the mountain caribou and the pine forests of B.C. could be seen as a natural evolutionary process. If this is Suzuki’s thinking, then he should come out and say it. In either case, his rants reek of ideology, not balance.

Most hunting enthusiasts, or for that matter anyone interested in bear biology, should probably have heard by now about the incredible hunt by Jim Martell, a big game hunter from Idaho. He went out on a tag for a polar bear, and bagged himself a trophy that had the biological world in an uproar; a wild bear that was half polar bear and half grizzly.

Recently, this story made the news again because, as the Edmonton Journal reports, the mounted animal is now on its way south to the home of the succesful hunter.

One important issue with this story is the amount of money that just one man was willing to spend on a hunt. Including the trophy mount, Martell -by himself- contributed over $60,000 to the economy of the Northwest Territories. In many parts of Canada, especially the northern parts, the money that hunters inject into the economy is absolutely vital; a fact which is often forgotten when emotions begin to run high in the cities. It is important that everyone remembers this the next time the left wing preservationists attempt to drive hunters out of the woods (or off the tundra).

With all that said, I do think that it is a bit of a shame that this unique animal had its life ended prematurely. However, Mr. Martell took the animal in good faith and according to the provisions of his license. If you ever get a chance to see this bear on display, make sure and take it. Otherwise, the excellent photo in the Edmonton Journal will have to suffice!

Perusing the ‘net lately in search of some inspiration, I came across a couple of interviews that I think really help to clarify the difference between those that we are tempted to call “environmental activists”. I think that really, all people who enjoy the outdoors are “environmental activists” when you get down to it. I think that this view is best exemplified by people such as Dr. Bruce Fraser. On the other side of the spectrum are people like Mike Brune and his Rainforest Action Network. While one of these gentlemen is clearly out trying to establish a real relationship between all people with a stake in the proper cultivation of our wilderness, the other seems to be solely interested in the furtherance of his own ego, backed up with lies (the photograph of him being hauled out of a UN World Summit clearly shows a man on the borderline in terms of anger, but he maintains that he was “just talking”).

To hear Mike Brune talk, having all of those who would consider themselves environmental activists come together with one voice is a good thing. From my end, I think that with people like him in the mix, those of us who believe in logical, scientific practices are much more likely to distance ourselves from the term environmental activists, much as Dr. Fraser did.

Or, perhaps it would be best if we kept the original term and shortened the phrase applying to Mike and his ilk into a more apt description: “mental activists”.

For some time now, the Canada goose population in the country for which they are named has been on the rise. Over the last five years or so, in fact, that rise has sky rocketed. The number of Canada Geese has grown so much, in fact, that they are considered almost a pest in some areas, due to their tendency to graze on golf courses, crap everywhere, and because of the hazard they pose to airplanes; the local airport where I live actually has to have people go out once in a while with a chotgun to cull the birds a bit.

Airports are not the only organizations that have invested in culling programs for the burgeoning population of Canada geese. In one of my university classes. my instructor informed us that the province of Ontario was actually paying students to go out and cull the population along the muskeg region of the Canadian Shield as the area was rapidly becoming overgrazed. Other provinces seem to rely on hunting regulations to keep the numbers of geese down. In British Columbia, this means that the Canada Goose season is open until Christmas Day, and hunters can have a daily possession of five geese (the total possession is ten).

The Okanagan area appears to be so overrun with Canada Geese that there are actually three distinct seasons where hunters can bag a goose. The first runs from fall to December 20, the second from the middle of January to the middle of February, and the third in the early spring months. This is just one more occurrence that makes the Okanagan region one of the very best bird hunting areas in all of Canada.

An increase in the population of waterfowl is always a good thing. It appears that not only are the numbers of Canada Geese on the rise, but other species of goose are being increasingly seen as well, including Snow Geese. I don’t remember ever seeing snow geese as a teenager, but over the last ten years the number of snow geese that winter over on the South Thompson River has also seen a noticeable increase.

It looks as though numbers of waterfowl, along with many other species of animal in B.C., is on the rise. This is probably due to a number of factors, including better methods of resource management and milder winters. Whatever the case, hunting has not offered such high chances for success for a long time. If you have always wanted to put a goose on the table for Christmas, oyu havea great chance of doing so in British Columbia.

So I have not been out fishing in several years, and I was alarmed to hear recently just how difficult it has become for anglers to pursue their past time due to the mechanisms of bureaucracy.

British Columbia used to make big bucks through its outdoor activity industry, especially when it came to hunting and fishing. The government has lately been alarmed by the marked drop in revenue from these traditional sources, and is scratching collective heads wondering where all the outdoors people have gone.

The crisis started a while ago, when the socialist left New Democrat Party came into power. This party is particularly odious to the outdoors person, since it bases policay purely on emotional reaction and not on scientific reasoning. The policies of the party quickly infected the bureacracy, as the NDP placed similar minded people in the bureaus. Moreover, it tightened employment guidelines so that when they were inevitably ousted, their people had to remain.

As a result, the Fish and Wildlife Branch continually churns out regulation after regulation based on nothing at all but what the bureacracies think might be a good idea. The result is that almost every lake in the province has a different set of rules for anglers, some that are absolutely ridiculous. Not being aware of all the rules could result in having your name published in local papers as a poacher, so many people are simply forgoing the past time. Revenues are down, and bureaucrats scramble to encourage people to get back out in the woods after buying their licenses.

What the regulators seem to fail to realize is that all of the written encouragement in the world won’t help if people are scared to go out becuase of the labyrinth of rules they have to muddle through. Some regulations, of course, are necessary, but many are simply stupid.

One has to wonder if all of the talk aimed at getting people back outside is really just empty. After all, anyone should be able to see that encouragement means nothing at all if it is impossible to follow through. It looks as though the non-scientific, emotional community is winning the battle over the woods and lakes, even though this is detrimental in the end to their fellow citizens and the environment they claim to “protect”. Is it really so much better for the fish for lakes to be overrun with ski boats and sea doos than to be caught on a barbed hook?

For as long as humans have been around, we have tried to change the environment around us in order to make it more suitable to our way of life, whether it is for survival or simply aesthetics. One way that most civilizations have done this is by introducing a kind of animal into an area where it was not found naturally, in order to increase the food supply. In many cases, especially on islands, this practice has been disastrous. Wild pigs, goats, and chickens wreak havoc on the natural environment and contribute to the extinction of natural species. Some extreme examples of species introduction causing massive harm are Australia and Hawaii, where dozens of introduced species have contributed to the extinction of hundreds of native species.

While doing an article for Canada Wild Outfitters, I was surprised to learn that introduction of species still goes on, and right in my own country! In the Yukon territories, a herd of bison roams the woods. The plant was called a “re-introduction”; a bit silly since the last bison left the territory over 3,000 years ago as a result of Native hunting (a subject which will be addressed in a future blog!). The bison herd is known to cause damage to the area, and as a result the territorial government has decreed that the herd can never be over 500. This is great for hunters, but one has to ask how this process really differs from running a game farm instead of fair pursuit.

Another species that has been introduced are elk, and this is actually a really dumb move. Elk have never been found too far to the North, the traditional habitat of moose. My dad grew up in the Peace River region, and never saw an elk there in his entire life. With the mild winters and flat crop land there today, the Peace region is overrun with elk; this has led to a fairly extreme example of the problem of the introduction of a species (although it looks like elk were mostly supplemented by populations in nearby locations and thus the introduction can be attributed to natural migration); the elk breed like mice and are wreaking havoc on the prairie grasslands. This has been true of elk wherever they have been introduced, including places like New Zealand. They are a species naturally given to thrive, so it is astounding that anyone would plant a population in an area that has not seen elk since the end of the last Ice Age.

There are thousands of species re-introduction programs that I think are good. Putting wolves back in Yellowstone has probably saved local ungulate populations from the ravages of CWD. Again, though, that was re-introduction, not planting a population of animals that had never lived in the region there just for the sake of doing so. The lesson that should have been learned through all the examples is that planting a population of animals in an area that they have never been found, or have not lived in so long that the environment has changed and cannot cope with them, is unbelievably still being ignored.