To the government of Ontario…

To the government of Ontario and whomever it concerns: This comment is to urge an end to the practice of hunting bears in Ontario during the spring season, certainly not to expand it.

POLITICAL CONSIDERATION:

I cannot know if the Premier honestly thinks that by implementing bear hunting proposals outlined in ERO Number 019-1112 it will decrease human-bear conflict situations (other than by producing a net decrease in the net population size of the American black bear in the regions affected) or if he believes that there is more support than opposition to the proposal in those regions that will translate into votes at the next election. According to news reports that same Premier has been surprised at negative responses he has received at public events. I believe that negativity stems from the fact that such a large percentage of the electorate are both weary and wary of reactionary pandering to a “base” that is not interested in or adept at analytical consideration of the results of policies based on gut instinct or simplistic reasoning, and not based in fact and experience.

There is a psychological phenomenon, well studied, that shows an ability to think that saying something makes it true. The government is claiming that the hunt is expected to be “neutral to positive”, but there are no data in support of the contention. If that claim is true, it negates any assertion that continuing the spring hunt with the changes proposed will address concerns by those fearful that there are “too many” bears, or who think that in some way the spring hunt will prevent human-bear conflicts (see below).

The reasons given for the proposal all have to do with assistance to those, Ontarian or not, who wish to kill bears, making it “fairer” by expanding the number of people allowed to do so in the spring, with no concern for the effect on bears themselves, particularly cubs that are to be orphaned or bear populations under threat, and no effort to address human-bear conflict concerns.

Short of eliminating the species, contrary to the government’s own conservation mandate, perfect assurance that no bear will ever harm any human can never be given.

Reducing absolute numbers of bears might, in and of itself, reduce the statistical probability of such an encounter – the rarer an animal is the less often it is encountered on average – but the material supportive of the proposal claims (albeit without evidence provided) that no such reduction is envisioned. Such a reduction would not, at any rate, serve the interests of those outfitters and hunters who have lobbied for the expansion of the spring hunt, nor those of us who enjoy the landscape in the absence of a desire or need to kill bears.

The impression is given that the government assumes that anyone opposing the proposal is a Bambi-loving urbanite in a major city in southern Ontario who has rarely if ever seen a wild bear and does not appreciate their degree of threat; while everyone living in near bear habitat is afraid of bears, at risk, and will be grateful that their numbers are reduced and wills somehow be less likely to have a negative direct or indirect encounter with a bear if non-Ontarians are allowed to kill them in the spring. It is this kind of simplistic and divisive thinking that, I assert, turns people off politics and frustrates those of us, a majority in Ontario, who prefer fact-based policy decisions to ad hominin arguments, or the implication that knowledge-based policy is “elitist”, thus discreditable.

FEMALE BEAR PROTECTION:

In reading the comments of those favoring the proposal, the assertion is often made that the females are to be protected, thus no such problem can exist. But the government’s own research indicates otherwise, as does the experience of those involved in bear rescue and rehabilitation efforts.

Bear trapping cannot be sexually selective to any significant degree. Bear shooting can obviously be significantly more sexually selective, but as I am sure the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry must both know by now, not all bears are correctly identified as to gender by hunters. I am sure many commentators have already mentioned the 2008 study, published in Ursus, and co-authored by MNRF own bear researchers, that even when using suspended baits that force the bear to stand, thus potentially allowing sex to be determined visually, hunters make mistakes.

Certainly if the government is sincere in not wanting female bears shot “accidentally” by hunters, suspended baits are a must, but in order to be most effective in allowing the hunter to determine the sex of a bear, the hunter must not fire until after the bear has stood up in circumstances that allow visual examination of the underside. A side or back view does not work and the 2008 study shows that hunters, usually eager and excited (as I can attest from personal observation) are not always patient enough to wait until a firm identification, possible only under good viewing conditions, of the bear’s sex has been made. The study indicated more research with a larger sample size is needed on this issue, and I would argue it should not only be done in the event if the spring bear hunt continues, but published, not suppressed.

SAFETY:

I express this last concern because I have been told my MNRF staff on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation that previously (nothing to do with the current government) a study on hunter marksmanship a government funded study that demonstrated a high potential for wounding was suppressed because the results countered the popular narrative that Ontario hunters are skilled marksmen. And with regard to all research I strongly urge that all government policy, not only MNRF, be fact-based and experience-driven.

Because I did, in the 1960s, hold a hunter safety permit myself, following appropriate training, I am also have another concern. Ontario hunters do need to exhibit a modicum of basic knowledge of gun safety. Hunters from many western European jurisdiction get far more vigorous training both in gun safety and animal biology and comparative anatomy. However, in the United States there is often very little such need for training in gun safety in order to own guns or obtain hunting permits, and as a result we see an increased number of hunter-caused “accidents” in the United States compared to Ontario, whereby innocent people are shot.

While I understand the economic motive of wanting to allow American hunters in our forests it increases the risks of those of us who want it to be safer to enter the forests in the spring for any of a suite of reasons. Speaking personally, as a naturalist I love to visit what is viable black bear habitat in central Ontario in the spring and fall, but do not do so in the fall except in places where, or at times when, hunting with rifles or bows and crossbows is not allowed. I have marginally less concern about shotguns but avoid marshes when and where waterfowl hunting is allowed not out of safety concerns (although I have been showered by spent pellets and had loaded guns pointed at me) but because they are largely devoid of wildlife and I find the killing of non-targeted species depressing to witness.

While any part of central Ontario (and a few parts of northern Ontario) may see significant use by tourists, safety is of special concern in such areas, and on the Bruce Peninsula it augments conservation concerns addressed below in giving reason to eliminate bear hunting and trapping from that region. It is heavily used at all times of year by campers and hikers, naturalists, photographers and other tourists.

Please do not continue to ignore the interests and safety of the majority of us who wish to see, but not hurt, our native wildlife.

THE BRUCE PENINSULA AND CONSERVATION

It is odd that “research” is used selectively in the proposal being discussed to the degree that it is admitted that “research indicates that there has been a decline in bear numbers…” due to anthropogenic causes on the Bruce Peninsula, and that the population is “genetically isolated”. The Bruce population is “insular” in the sense that it is ecologically the same as an island population, and a long, sad history of wildlife extermination teaches us that island populations are the most vulnerable to extinction. I congratulate the government for any reduction in bear killing in that region, but for both conservation and human safety reasons there should be no spring or fall removal of bears from this region. Apart from safety issues, unless or until we know that the population is rebounding any take makes a mockery of any claims of wise management, good stewardship or conservation. For those wishing to kill bears there are opportunities nearby, and for those concerned about income, there are many tourist-serving potentials for income in this region at all times of year, most assuredly including the proposed spring bear hunt season.

We know that organisms can pass through a “genetic bottleneck” whereby a very small population contains quite limited genetic diversity which mitigates against selective adaptation that can be vital to species survival, especially in times of change, even if numbers of the species rebound. In spite of this government’s cavalier view on climate change, such change is happening, trigging cascades of interlocking events too complex to be easily modeled, leaving no way to know just what black bears on the Saugeen-Bruce Peninsula will be experiencing in terms of future survival rates. All that can be said for certain is the ability to adapt is a function of the very genetic diversity that hunting and trapping reduces.

HUMAN-BEAR WILDLIFE CONFLICT:

I am particularly concerned that the general public may be encouraged to believe, as many seem to, that in some way hunting bears in spring will reduce or eliminate risks to public safety posed by the presence of bears. Short of extirpating the species, the potential for encounters dangerous to people always exist, but other than reducing numbers absolutely, the changes to current regulations will do nothing to help people who live in or visit bear habitat – most of Ontario – to more safely co-exist with native fauna, including bears.

Shooting bears, especially if, as the government seems to be claiming, does not alter the things people do that encourage the statistical likelihood of behavior that increases the likelihood of a risky bear encounter. Indeed, provision of bait will almost certainly exacerbate that situation by habituating surviving bears to the idea of human-sourced food.

Shooting bears does not prevent people from putting organic garbage out in plastic bags, or overnight or long before pickup; does not prevent people from hiking with dogs off-leash or without knowledge of how to chase a bear with bear spray, shaking a plastic bag or other tried and true strategies; does not prevent use of bird feeders after bears have awakened from hibernation; does not encourage use of bear-proof garbage containers by restaurants and other sources of edible garbage; does not encourage campers to store food outside of tents and out of easy reach by bears; does not teach people bear behavior; does not alter the timing of emergence of berries and other food whose presence or absence influences bear behavior and in fact does nothing to really help people with that concern.

ETHICAL CONCERNS:

The spring bear hunt was ended in 1999, by the Conservative government under the leadership of then Premier Mike Harris for two reasons. One, it was alleged by many, if not proven, that in a critical by-election a significant amount of financial support would go into an effort to defeat the Conservative candidate if the spring hunt, long an issue of concern because of the orphaning of bear cubs, was not stopped. What is known with certitude is that then Minister of Natural Resources (now Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry), John Snobelen made the decision “…to move to end the spring bear hunt because [our government] will not tolerate cubs being orphaned by hunters mistakenly shooting mother bears in the spring.”

There can be no doubt Snobelan was sincere in his belief since he has repeated that concern after leaving politics. Hunting is an inherently cruel sport since wounding is inevitable. In a casual search while writing this response I can find no data on wounding rates from hunting bears, which at any rate is a function of a multitude of variable factors such as hunter skill, type of weapon used, and reporting truthfulness. For other species of hunted wildlife overall, it would seem to average around thirty percent, but if bear hunting is restricted to being done only by use of hanging bait it should be very low, possibly even approaching zero.

But there is no doubt that spring hunting leaves an unknowable percentage of cubs orphaned. The concern this generates is value-dependent. There are people who care deeply about the suffering and deaths of those cubs that are still dependent on their mothers, and there are those who are not at all concerned. Philosophers and ethicists cannot apply objectively determined value to such concern or lack thereof. It may be that it is wrong to be concerned about the suffering of another individual, either of one’s own species, or another. However, decisions based on such a value system would, in light of the anthropogenic pressure being placed on the natural world, given human dependence on biodiversity and ecological integrity, indicate that such attitude is counterproductive to human interest.

In Ontario I find no reason not to believe that the simple majority of us oppose such gratuitous cruelty to any species with a well-developed, cognitive brain and nervous system and subsequent ability to suffer. Without getting into detail I urge abandonment of spring bear hunting on humanitarian grounds.

These humanitarian concerns overlap environmental concerns with regard use of dogs. Inevitably when dogs are used to track and find, chase and corner (tree) game (as opposed to simply detecting and/or retrieving) some are lost, even though sophisticated electronic tracking is used. The chased animal is greatly stressed and individual dogs may be injured. These dogs are hazardous to other wildlife species and those who escape will suffer themselves if not found and rescued. According to what I have been told by people who work in them, dog shelters and pounds experience spikes in the retrieval of stray “sporting” breed dogs whenever there is dog-based chase hunting of bears allowed. While Ontario hunters are less likely to employ dogs, it is a favoured hunting method of Americans and should not be allowed.

CONCLUSION:

It strikes me as bizarre that on one hand politicians and political parties decry citizen cynicism and apathy, and on the other, feed it by their actions. Case in point would be the use of public comment on decisions already made, especially when there are majority governments unburdened by the risk of a vote of non-confidence by opposing parties. If one does not take the time to provide thoughtful comment, it can be claimed that the public was indifferent to the policy. If one does take the time, it can be said that there was “wide public consultation” or that “all stakeholders” were heard from. Opposition is easily dismissed as “uninformed”.

Nevertheless, we live in an age when well over ninety percent of mammal biomass now consists entirely of humans and animals domesticated for human use. We have to do better; we have to learn to co-exist with wildlife and appreciate what is left. For these reasons I urge an end to the spring bear hunt once and for all.