Kill It
Jul 19 2007
Last Sunday, the province closed a three-month consultation period to review the wildlife act.
While it’s commendable the government went to some effort to invite public input, some of the recommendations in the environment ministry’s discussion paper border on the crazy.
For instance, we are now down by tens of thousands of hunters from 25 years ago.
The ministry—which controls hunting in B.C.—reports it sold 84,000 hunting licences to B.C. residents in 2005-06, plus another 6,000 to non-residents. This compares with the 180,000 licences sold in 1981, according to a published report.
Well, great.
Maybe that means people are growing more interested in watching animals than in blasting away at them. Or it could mean fewer people want to eat bits of dead, chopped-up animals, thanks in part to government programs to encourage healthier eating.
However, the government has a better idea: Let’s boost the number of hunters.
The ministry’s latest service plan, issued last February, states that the goal is to issue 100,000 basic hunting licences annually in seven years—an increase of 10,000.
Better yet, let’s make it easier for young people to get into the great outdoors and kill things.
An environment ministry discussion paper, released last March, deals with revising the province’s wildlife act, which governs hunting in the province. A new version of the legislation is due in the legislature next spring.
For some reason, the paper appears to lean in one direction, at least when it comes to hunting: Let’s get more people out there in the wild with lethal weapons.
For instance, the paper repeatedly refers to the number of animals killed as “the harvest,” as though it was discussing the latest soybean crop.
To be fair, the paper does propose some worthwhile changes—such as strengthening the penalties for illegal killing and trafficking in wildlife.
But then there’s the government’s interestingly named “hunter recruitment and retention project.”
The paper suggests that the project’s target is more even ambitious than the service plan’s. The project aims at adding 20,000 hunters in B.C. during the next 10 years.
Why?
Well, for one thing, there’s the “quality of the outdoor recreation experience,” says the paper.
I couldn’t agree more about the importance of enjoying B.C.’s outdoor recreation experience. But why the need to carry a weapon to enjoy it?
Of course, not anyone can shoot anything in any way they want.
“All hunting that takes place in . . B.C. must be carried out in an ethical and humane way,” says the discussion paper.
Whew! That’s a relief: I’m sure there’s nothing worse than being slaughtered unethically. (I know I’d just hate it.)
As well, in general hunters have to have licences, issued by the government—which legally owns all B.C. wildlife.
However, those licences have been a little too hard to get, the paper suggests.
So, let’s make it easier.
First, we’ll extend the cheaper “junior licences” to those aged between 10 and 18 years. Second, we’ll reduce the price for species licences. Third, we’ll let first-time hunters go out for a season, with an experienced hunter, without having to take that annoying safety course.
After all, there must be innumerable would-be hunters who would be out there killing animals, but for the trouble it takes to learn how not to shoot people.
The paper’s apparent pro-hunting bias didn’t go unnoticed by conservationists.
Peter Hamilton, of Vancouver-based Lifeforce Foundation, was all too willing to contribute to the public’s input on the issue.
“Your purpose should not be to make hunting cheaper, less restrictive and to promote it as being a quality ‘cool’ experience,” Hamilton wrote in a July 15 submission to the ministry. “In this day and age, with changed public attitudes that respect and protect wildlife, your government should not be promoting killing wildlife.”
In addition, wrote Hamilton, the government should abandon its hunter recruitment and retention project.
“The role of the government must be as the guardian of the wildlife, to protect them for present and future generations—alive, not dead.”
In an interview this week, Hamilton calls the government “hypocritical” for trying to attract tourists to see super natural B.C. while also attempting to draw more hunters to kill off parts of that natural beauty.
“People enjoy wildlife alive, not dead,” Hamilton says, a view that the ministry’s own statistics seem to bear out.
He particularly objects to the paper’s proposal to encourage young people to hunt. Are 10-year-olds really mature enough to make a considered decision about ending another being’s life?
“Young kids are being coerced into hunting by parents and relatives, when they may not want to kill animals,” he says.
Hamilton wonders about the real purpose of the wildlife act: “Is it to allow vested interests to exploit wildlife and kill them? Or should it be called the hunting act?”
As if to underline the province’s apparent interest in shooting things, last week B.C. handed a hunting lobby group a grant to continue working on a “biodiversity strategy.” Though the amount, $40,000, is not large, the symbolism in handing it over to Ducks Unlimited is bizarre.
In a July 11 statement, environment minister Barry Penner praised the lobby group for its “huge contributions” to preserving wetland habitat.
Isn’t it nice that the government is helping a hunting group preserve refuges for birds?
That way, after a relaxing stay at the refuges, the birds can take off happily into the blue yonder before being blasted out of the sky. M
Does B.C. really need more hunters?
Peter Hamilton
Lifeforce Foundation