B.C.’s NDP government came to power in 2017 promising to protect the environment. 

“[Former Premier] Christy Clark and the BC Liberals have chosen to pit jobs against the environment,” the party’s election platform said. “It shouldn’t be that way.”

From protecting drinking water sources to reducing carbon emissions, the BC NDP’s platform detailed the actions it would take to protect the province’s environment and create jobs. 

“B.C. was an early champion of a price on carbon and other green policies,” Ecojustice Executive Director Devon Page pointed out in a statement following the election call today. 

“Yet the province’s laws and policies haven’t always lived up to its green reputation,” Page said. “Greenhouse gases rose under the NDP-Green coalition, and the government failed to live up to its commitment to introduce endangered species legislation.”

What environmental promises did the NDP make? And, once in power, how many pledges did the party keep? 

The Narwhal dove in. Here’s what we found.

Stopping the Trans Mountain pipeline

The NDP pledged to use “every tool in the toolbox” to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline from going ahead, saying the project was not in B.C.’s interest and would result in a seven-fold increase in tanker traffic. 

“It doesn’t, and won’t, meet the necessary conditions of providing benefits to British Columbia without putting our environment and our economy at unreasonable risk,” the election platform stated.

In 2018, the government announced its intention to explore restricting the transport of diluted bitumen across the province. (Alberta Premier Rachel Notley responded with a brief boycott of B.C. wine.) 

In January 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the B.C. government does not have jurisdiction to regulate the flow of bitumen through the province.

The NDP government opted not to order a “made in B.C.” environmental assessment of the project. It could have done that following a 2016 Supreme Court decision that found the former BC Liberal government’s decision to hand over responsibility for the project’s environmental assessment to the National Energy Board was not legal and the provincial government has a duty to represent the best interests of British Columbians. 

Protecting endangered species 

B.C. has more species at risk of going extinct than anywhere else in Canada. “Yet, we’re one of the only provinces in the country without stand-alone species at risk legislation,” the NDP noted in its election platform. 

The party promised to enact endangered species legislation, reiterating its pledge in Premier John Horgan’s mandate letter to Environment Minister George Heyman. 

After more than three years in power, the NDP government has failed to keep its election promise.

Almost 1,340 species are now on B.C.’s red and blue lists of species at risk of extinction. Another 1,037 species meet the provincial status requirements for red and blue listings but have not yet been added. 

Scientists like UBC biologist Sally Otto, who sits on the federal species at risk advisory committee, have urged the NDP to take action to protect endangered species.

“The bottom line for caribou and many other wildlife species is crystal clear: without timely and meaningful protection and restoration measures, including a provincial endangered species law, these creatures will be lost forever,” wrote Otto and a dozen other scientists in an opinion piece published in The Narwhal.  

Improving management of old-growth forests

The NDP promised to modernize land-use planning “to effectively and sustainably manage” B.C.’s old-growth forests. 

“We will take an evidence-based scientific approach and use the ecosystem-based management of the Great Bear Rainforest as a model,” the party said in its election platform. 

In 2019, the NDP government commissioned foresters Al Gorley and Garry Merkel to conduct an old-growth strategic review. 

In their report, submitted to the government at the end of April, Gorley and Merkel called for a paradigm shift in the way B.C. manages old-growth. They said old forests should be managed for ecosystem health, not for timber.

The duo provided 14 recommendations for the government and called for an immediate deferral of logging in areas at risk of irreversible biodiversity loss. 

In response, the government said it would defer logging in nine areas and would provide a more fulsome update in the spring of 2021. 

None of the nine areas, which total almost 353,000 hectares, was slated for immediate logging. Some have a notable absence of old-growth, while others have already experienced clear cutting.

It’s business as usual everywhere else in the province, including in the old-growth forests in the central Walbran and Fairy Creek on southern Vancouver Island, in endangered caribou habitat in the Anzac Valley north of Prince George and on the Sunshine Coast.

Judy Thomas surveys clear cut logging in the Anzac Valley with journalist Sarah Cox. Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Banning grizzly bear trophy hunting 

The NDP promised to ban the grizzly trophy hunt. “It’s not just wrong, it’s bad for the economy,” the party’s election platform said. “The trophy hunting of grizzly bears delivers fewer jobs than wildlife viewing operations, and is opposed by most hunters.”

The new government moved quickly to fulfill its pledge, and a ban on grizzly bear trophy hunting came into effect on Nov. 30, 2017. 

Taking action on climate change

The NDP pledged to implement a “comprehensive” climate action plan to reduce carbon pollution and get the province back on track to meet its climate targets.

In 2018, the government released the CleanBC plan to encourage the use of more clean and renewable energy. By the end of 2019, the government had spent $3.17 million to promote the plan.

But B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. From 2017 to 2018, carbon emissions in the province rose by 3.5 per cent, to 65.5 million tonnes. 

B.C. missed an emission reduction target to cut greenhouse gases 33 per cent from 2007 figures by 2020. The NDP government revised the target, saying it will slash emissions 40 per cent by 2030. It’s unclear how the new goal will be achieved. 

The NDP’s election platform said the party would phase in the federally mandated $50 a tonne carbon price by 2022 over three years, starting in 2020. On April 1, 2019, B.C.’s carbon tax rose from $35 a tonne to $40 a tonne. Following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the B.C. government announced the carbon tax will remain at $40 a tonne until further notice. 

In 2018, the NDP government approved the LNG Canada export project, which will generate about four megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year in the first of two planned phases. That’s equivalent to putting more than 800,000 cars on the road for a year. 

The four megatonnes will account for 10 per cent of B.C.’s entire carbon budget by 2050, placing massive pressure on other sectors — such as transportation, building and industry — to undergo a rapid decarbonization. 

B.C. Premier John Horgan tours the site of the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C., in January 2020. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

The government says CleanBC will take the province 75 per cent of the way to the 2030 target. But the NDP hasn’t identified how it will close the 25 per cent gap.

Earth scientist David Hughes, who was a scientific researcher for 32 years at the Geological Survey of Canada, examined the B.C. government’s emissions math in a recent report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

When the LNG Canada project is factored in, Hughes found that emissions from oil and gas production will exceed the province’s 2050 target by 160 per cent, even if all other emissions are reduced to zero by 2035.  

LNG Canada is one of seven liquified natural gas projects in various stages of proposal, planning and construction in B.C. 

Reviewing fracking

The NDP said it would appoint a scientific panel to review the practice of hydraulic fracturing “to ensure that gas is produced safely, and that our environment is protected.” The panel assessment would include impacts on water and the role gas production plays in seismic activity.

The government followed through and appointed a three-member, independent panel. The panel submitted its final report to Michelle Mungall, former minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources, in February 2019. 

But whether or not the government will implement the majority of the panel’s recommendations remains to be seen. And despite the NDP’s commitment to ensure the gas “is produced safely,” the scientific review did not include an examination of the public health implications of fracking, in keeping with the government’s quiet assurance to the industry lobby group Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that the hot button issue would not be included in the panel’s mandate. 

Even so, the panel found that fracking entails numerous unknown risks to human health and the environment. Panel members cautioned that the severity of those risks is unknown due to a lack of data, noting they were not aware of any health-related studies being conducted in northeast B.C., which is covered with thousands of fracking wells, including in the middle of communities and on farmland.

A natural gas well pad with numerous wells is readied for fracking north of Farmington, B.C. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The panel also found a “profound absence of knowledge” about the presence and migration of fracking fluids — a proprietary mix of chemicals — below the ground.

The panel’s report raised concerns about the thousands of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal wells in northeastern B.C. It found that “the maximum magnitude of an event that could be induced in [northeastern B.C.] is unknown.” 

The government’s response, quietly posted on its website but not sent to media, said new groundwater observation wells near Fort Nelson had been installed, mapping of more than 55 aquifers had been completed and that it would map zones likely to experience greater ground motion from seismic events. It said it had also established a cross-government working group to develop “short-term and long-term action plans” for implementing the panel’s recommendations.

Northeast B.C. is poised for a fracking boom to supply the LNG Canada project. 

Adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The NDP promised to adopt the UN declaration, which outlines global standards for upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The government kept its commitment, passing legislation in November 2019 to enshrine the declaration in B.C. law. The declaration states that large resource projects require the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples on whose territories the projects will be built.

How the declaration is going to be implemented remains an open question and the Wet’suwet’en conflict in early 2020 illustrated the complexity of this commitment. 

Indigenous youth occupy the B.C. legislature in a solidarity action with Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs on Feb. 11. Photo: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Banning political donations from corporations and unions

Saying it would “take big money out of politics,” the NDP promised to ban corporate and union donations to bring B.C. in line with other Canadian jurisdictions. The party moved quickly once in power, passing a law in November 2017, and donations are now limited to B.C. residents, with a cap of $1,200 a year. 

Prior to the new law, corporations such as Imperial Metals, the owner of the Mount Polley mine, and mining titan Teck Resources Ltd., whose coal operations have polluted a transboundary waterway with selenium, donated more than $1 million to political parties.

Banning fish farming on wild salmon migration routes

The NDP pledged to implement the recommendations of the Cohen Commission, “keeping farm sites out of important salmon migration routes, and supporting research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risk of disease transfer from captive to wild fish.” 

It also promised to provide incentives to help the aquaculture industry transition to closed containment where possible. 

A salmon farm at Sonora Point in the Discovery Islands of B.C. Credit: Tavish Campbell

In December 2018, the government announced that salmon farms in the Broughton archipelago would be closed or moved by 2023, following an agreement among the B.C. and federal governments, First Nations and two fish farm companies, Marine Harvest Canada and Cermaq Canada.

Salmon farms remain along wild salmon migration routes in Clayoquot Sound, the Discovery Islands and elsewhere. 

The NDP does not appear to have made any announcements about supporting research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risk of disease transfer from captive to wild fish. Nor has it provided incentives for a transition to closed containment farming. 

Improving wildlife management

The NDP’s election platform said B.C.’s biodiversity, fish and wildlife populations, and the habitat upon which they depend, were under threat due to lack of funding, government cuts to staff and ineffective policies. 

The party pledged to ensure dedicated funding for wildlife and habitat conservation.

Instead, the government has cut spending on matters related to fish, wildlife and the environment, according to Jesse Zeman, director of the fish and wildlife restoration program for the BC Wildlife Federation. 

“The government has publicly announced it’s increasing investment, but behind the scenes it has clawed back base budgets and it has cut funding from the Forest Enhancement Society of BC,” Zeman told The Narwhal. 

“Given B.C.’s biodiversity, we still [have] the most underfunded fish and wildlife agency in North America.”

The government also did not follow through on its election promise to dedicate all hunting fees to fish and wildlife management, Zeman said. 

A caribou cow stands watch over its two-day old calf. Photo: Ryan Dickie / The Narwhal

Increasing the budget for BC Parks

The NDP said it would restore funding for BC Parks, and hire additional park rangers and conservation officers.

The party’s election platform said it aimed to boost the BC Parks budget by $10 million in each of 2018-19 and 2019-20 to restore parks and hire additional park rangers and conservation officers.

The BC Parks budget has only increased by $416,000 since 2017-18, according to budget documents. It’s now $49.7 million. 

The Narwhal asked the B.C. Environment Ministry for the number of conservation officers and park rangers in 2017, as well as for today’s numbers. The ministry did not respond by press time, more than two business days after we put in the request. 

Updating environmental assessment legislation

The NDP said it would update B.C.’s environment assessment legislation and processes for major resource projects to ensure they respect the legal rights of First Nations and “meet the public’s expectations of a strong, transparent process.” 

The government passed Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, in late 2018. 

Scientists commended the NDP for overhauling the act, calling the bill a “good start” and noting it allows First Nations communities to be involved at the start of assessments.

But an open letter from 180 academic scientists identified three “deficiencies” in the new legislation: a lack of scientific independence, peer-review and transparency.

One of the main deficiencies of the legislation, according to the scientists, is that it still allows project proponents to oversee, collect and present the vast majority of evidence for environmental assessments.

The legislation also has no requirement that all data generated by the project proponent, or gathered by a technical advisory committee, be made public. Nor does it include criteria for how the government’s final assessment decisions will be made. 

Ensuring clean, safe drinking water 

The NDP singled out the former Liberal government for leaving British Columbians in dozens of communities under ongoing boil water advisories. 

The party said it would work with the federal government to improve drinking water quality in B.C. communities and ensure the permitting process prioritizes local drinking water needs. It also said it would review the Water Sustainability Act to ensure drinking water sources are protected. 

In July 2019, B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer found the B.C. government is failing to protect drinking water from increased risks that include climate change and industrial activities such as logging, saying accountability measures for safeguarding drinking water are “of grave concern.”

‘You can’t drink money’: Kootenay communities fight logging to protect their drinking water

The health ministry and the Provincial Health Officer are “not sufficiently protecting drinking water for British Columbians,” Bellringer told reporters.

The audit came as communities around B.C. grappled with imminent plans for logging and other industrial activities in watersheds that supply their drinking, irrigation and, in some cases, fire-fighting water. B.C. currently has 200 boil water advisories and five do not consume water advisories, according to the website Water Today. 

Bringing back investment in clean energy

Saying the Liberal government had made B.C. “unfriendly” to investments in wind and solar projects, the NDP pledged to bring investment in wind, solar and other clean energy projects back to B.C. 

Instead, faced with a growing glut of energy in the province — even before the hugely over budget Site C dam comes online at some unknown point in the future — the government indicated it would shut the door on most new wind and solar projects. It introduced Bill 17 to amend the Clean Energy Act, eliminating the requirement that B.C. be self-sufficient in new power and allowing the province to import cheap power from the U.S., potentially including coal and gas-fired power. 

The NDP government also said it would not renew contracts with independent power producers, leaving family-run, green and clean power projects facing bankruptcy after supplying power to the grid and remote communities for decades. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Brian Falconer is more than happy to admit that he and his colleagues at Raincoast Conservation Foundation have dismal records as guide outfitters.

In fact, in the 33,500 square kilometres of B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest where Raincoast holds the commercial hunting licence — which gives the organization the right to escort foreign hunters into the area to shoot black bears, cougars, mountain goats and wolverines — the success rate has been zero.

Unless, that is, you count the wildlife photos.

“The only ones that can take anyone in for trophy hunting is Raincoast and we take a different type of hunter,” said Ross Dixon, Raincoast communications director.

Guide outfitters have exclusive rights in the area of their licence to take non-B.C. residents on hunting trips. Hunting for food by B.C. residents does not come under the purview of guide outfitters.

Raincoast is now raising funds for the $100,000 deposit needed to secure the commercial hunting tenure for the Kitlope, the world’s largest intact area of coastal temperate rainforest where the longest fjord in the world stretches into the heart of the province.

The site of an old cannery in the Kitlope at Wakasu. A Canadian Pacific Railway steamer used to bring tourists here. Pictured here is the vessel Maple Leaf of Maple Leaf Adventures. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

A swallowtail butterfly at M’Skusa, the final estuary before Kitlope Lake. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

Trophy hunting of wolves, black bears and cougars legal in B.C.

The Kitlope has been protected from logging since the Haisla Nation and the province signed a joint management agreement in 1994. The provincial government banned grizzly bear hunting in 2017, but trophy hunting for other species is still allowed.

Cecil Paul, hereditary chief of the Xenaxiala people, described the Kitlope and the species that live there as the bank of his people.

“They have been robbing our bank for years for no purpose other than to put a trophy on their wall,” Cecil told Raincoast.

“We don’t understand this and we want to stop it.”

It is a sentiment shared by many British Columbians who are surprised to learn that trophy hunting is still allowed in the Great Bear Rainforest and in most provincial parks, Falconer said.

Raincoast has until the end of July to raise the deposit, with about $85,000 already raised. Once the deposit has been paid, fundraising will start for the $550,000 needed to complete the purchase that will give Raincoast the hunting rights for another 5,300 square kilometres, including the Kitlope Conservancy and surrounding area. The deadline for raising the full amount is December 2020, but, with the support of the Haisla Nation, Raincoast aims to have the tenure secured by the end of this year.

It may seem expensive Falconer said but trophy hunters are willing to pay more than $35,000 to kill bears, wolves and cougars and more than $10,000 for mountain goats, bighorn sheep and moose, meaning the value of commercial hunting tenures has soared.

“And remember $550,000 can’t buy half a house in Vancouver,” said Falconer, who, almost 30 years after first visiting the Kitlope at the invitation of the Haisla and Xenaksiala Nations, remains awestruck at the beauty of the area.

A black bear in the Great Bear Rainforest. Despite a ban on the trophy hunting of grizzly bears, black bears can still legally be hunted in British Columbia. Photo: April Bencze / Raincoast

‘It’s like Yosemite on steroids’

“It’s breathtaking and overwhelming. I have never seen a place like it,” he said describing glacial, milky water, trees more than 1,000 years old and granite walls stretching up thousands of feet.

“It’s like Yosemite on steroids. There’s a waterfall every 100 yards —it’s the land of waterfalls — and when you get to the head of (the fjord)  there’s a gigantic, beautiful estuary with willow and alder and sedge meadows so you have all the river species and birds. It’s the highway of the north coast for wildlife,” Falconer said.

Which is exactly what makes it so attractive for trophy hunters.

One of many waterfalls in Gardner Canal. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

A river flows through an area of the Great Bear Rainforest known as the Kitlope. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

The ultimate goal of Raincoast is to buy all commercial hunting licences in the 64,000 square kilometres of the Great Bear Rainforest, so the area will be protected not only from trophy hunters, but also political whims. In 2002, for instance, the Liberal government scrapped the short-lived ban on grizzly hunting brought in by the former NDP government.

The organization also hopes that, by eliminating the need for governments to compensate tenure holders, it will remove a major disincentive to restrict trophy hunting of other species.

However, everything depends on Raincoast’s capacity to fundraise and, unless there is a massive cash donation, not all offers to sell tenures can be immediately accepted

“Other guide outfitters have approached us, because they see the writing on the wall. … There’s certainly more potential. It’s the new economy. It’s the non-extractive economy of B.C. that isn’t wasteful or extractive,” Falconer said.

A grizzly bear in an intertidal area in the Great Bear Rainforest. Grizzly bear trophy hunting is now banned in British Columbia, but hunters can still kill black bears, wolves and cougars. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

An estuary at Wakasu in the Great Bear Rainforest. Photo: Alex Harris / Raincoast

From hunting guides to wildlife viewing operators

There is no better illustration of the changing economy than in the Kitlope where the tenure has been held since 2015 by Angus Morrison of Wild Coast Outfitters, who is now transitioning his business to wildlife viewing.

Morrison, who also works as a helicopter pilot, said his primary motive in selling the tenure to Raincoast is conservation.

“They probably have the best plan for preserving what is left. I love the wilderness and I travel quite a bit and there is a definite decline. It’s not that I think the hunting, as we were doing it, was wiping out the animals, but the motivation behind some of it is a bit murky,” Morrison told The Narwhal.

“If the animals are already under pressure, I don’t see the point in continuing to hunt them. I think we need to slow down resource extraction and commercial fishing and I know that’s easier said than done.”

Hunting trips booked through Wild Coast Outfitters were conducted on foot and were tough going, which weeded out clients who simply wanted a quick kill, a big head on the walls and bragging rights, but there is that element in the industry, Morrison said.

“I like the idea of seeing people going out there and showing them grizzly bears and things without killing the animals,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Jean Polfus had a moment of clarity sitting around a long oval table in Tulít’a, a community on the Mackenzie River in central N.W.T. It started with confusion over a pair of Dene language words.

Goecha gots’anele. The words refer to a process in hunting whereby a hunter will circle around downwind to head off a caribou or a moose, taking advantage of an instinctual attempt to catch a predator’s scent.

Polfus, rolling the unfamiliar term around in her mind, began to absorb some of its meaning. Goecha gots’anele. It related to wind and even to textures of snow. It related to particular places. It encompassed an entire way of thinking and the relationship between the hunter and the caribou; between the wind and the land.

It crystallized in her mind how language is rooted in the land. And the land, in turn, reflects the culture.

“It’s just absolutely beautiful how connected the words are to the land, and how connected the words are to the relationships people have with the animals,” she says.

That moment in Tulít’a in 2014 set Polfus on a course of interdisciplinary research that would never stray far from her newfound appreciation for the knowledge around her.

“It’s hard to really understand how people can perceive the world in a different way when they use a different language that you can’t understand,” she says. “I just got a glimpse of it.”

It’s an understanding shared through generations of Dene people. As one of Polfus’ community advisors, Walter Bayha, put it to her, quoting his own grandfather, “Our history is written on the land. The language comes from the land.”

A camp in the Mackenzie mountain range in central Northwest Territories, where non-Indigenous scientists and Indigenous knowledge-holders work side-by-side. Photo: Jean Polfus

More scientists are immersing themselves in Indigenous communities

This wealth of shared knowledge did not spring forth at random. Polfus has spent the last seven years living in Tulít’a, a community of less than 500 people along the Mackenzie River. She built her career studying various types of caribou — mountain, boreal and barren ground, all of which live there — and how they interact with different habitats.

Living in the community gave her an irreplaceable edge in understanding the caribou. More importantly, it granted her the time and space to win the trust of community members. Their knowledge shaped her work.

Polfus is part of a growing movement of scientists who don’t just “consult” with Indigenous communities — they immerse themselves in them, learn from them, share knowledge and return something to the community in the process. The Dene call this mode of thinking “łeghágots’enetę,” translated to “learning together.”

“It’s finding the questions that you have in common,” says Aerin Jacob, a conservation scientist with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y). “Where’s the overlap between [questions] communities want to have answered and what is your expertise?”

That overlap can be a place of both great opportunity and great resistance. It’s the site of an ongoing clash of vibrant traditions, a stubborn establishment and curious minds.

And in some places, in some ways, it just might be the future of science.

Changing science

In 2017, the three largest federal funding bodies for science, health and social science research in Canada announced a brand new type of grant. Indigenous Research Capacity and Reconciliation Connection Grants grants of up to $50,000 were awarded the following year to projects that “identify new ways of doing research with Indigenous communities.”

The new awards were a response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 65th call to action: to establish a national research program to advance the understanding of reconciliation.

Importantly, more than half of the grants were dedicated to Indigenous not-for-profit organizations — not universities.

Internationally, the scientific establishment has been taking notice. Community-involved science received a strong endorsement in a June editorial in Science co-signed by Jane Lubchenko, former administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Expanding the range of effective solutions and scaling them globally requires scientists to engage actively with communities,” the endorsing authors wrote.

Jacob says this broader acknowledgment is an important step to legitimizing research that falls outside of the academic establishment, adding that the movement is still finding its feet.

“It’s increasingly recognized by funding agencies as being important, but that doesn’t translate yet into huge amounts of research funding,” she says.

Still, the conversation has evolved a long way from how things were done in the not-too-distant past, when there was no guarantee that researchers would even engage with Indigenous communities more than absolutely necessary.

“I think 10 years ago it was a really progressive idea to even table your findings at a community meeting,” says Megan Adams, a PhD candidate at the University of Victoria.

Adams has been working out of Rivers Inlet on the central coast of B.C., in Wuikinuxv First Nation territory, in close collaboration with community members. From the very beginning, that collaboration has meant going much farther than sharing a slideshow over coffee.

In the first two weeks of Adams’s graduate program — when she was supposed to be starting classes at the University of Victoria — her supervisor, Chris Darimont, instead sent her to Wuikinuxv to listen to community members.

Western science seen as ‘a tool’ to stop grizzly trophy hunt

The stunning rainforest inlet, 100 kilometres north of Port Hardy, B.C., is home to abundant salmon runs that power local food, social and ceremonial fishing, as well as a sport-fishing industry.

It’s also home to a large and very visible grizzly bear population.

“Where I work, bears and people live side-by-side,” Adams says.

The community wanted to know more about the bears’ diets and how that could inform their harvesting practices.

“If bears don’t get enough food, not only do people have to see bears — who they care about — suffer, they also face increased bear-human conflict,” Adams says. “This is about food security for you, and food security for bears.”

Heiltsuk researcher Howard Humchitt collects samples of bear fur in his traditional territory. Photo: April Bencze

Throughout her research, Adams checked in with elders and community members. They directed her collaborative work with the Nation. But the community wasn’t simply in search of information out of a sense of objectivity in the tradition of Western science. Their goal was to establish an evidentiary basis, parallel to their own traditional knowledge, to stop the grizzly bear trophy hunt and they saw Adams’s research as a means to that end.

“Western science was one of many tools they were using to stop the hunt,” Adams says.

Science holds its own objectivity in high regard. But Anne Salomon, associate professor at Simon Fraser University, says scientists who believe in their own objectivity are fooling themselves. Scientists are operating from an unavoidable position of bias, from the way they’re trained, to their values and beliefs, to the ways they formulate questions and gather data, she points out.

“It’s farcical to think that any science is unbiased,” Salomon says. “We do what we can to still get an approximation of the truth we’re interested in, in the least biased way possible.”

Asking for consent from Indigenous communities

Salomon, regarded as one of the foremost practitioners of community-involved ecology research in Canada, learned her approach early on at the Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre. All ecological research projects at Bamfield, no matter how small, are brought to the Huu-ay-aht First Nation for approval first if they involve Huu-ay-aht lands.

Salomon thought that was just how things were done, so when she arrived in Alaska she approached the local Sugpiaq villages to ask for their input into her work surveying the creatures that live between high and low tide.

What they told her formed the basis for her research.

“It was in talking with the chief and talking with the people that they told me about the decline in this particular chiton that led to all this work,” she says. The community wanted to know why. “That’s such an interesting question ecologically, and also in terms of conservation.”

The species in decline, the leather chiton, turned out to be a keystone species in that ecosystem, a species whose presence or absence has knock-on effects for the entire food web. In picking up on that trend, the Sugpiaq had noticed something resource managers had missed, and they noticed it because the community has an interest in the species as a resource — and because it was steps from their front doors. That is often true of Indigenous communities, Salomon says, and that wellspring of local knowledge and curiosity draws her back to them again and again.

“Theirs is a deeply marginalized voice — when in reality it should be revered,” she says.

Today she believes scientists have a much more pressing duty to consult with Indigenous communities. Ḵii’iljuus (Barbara Wilson), a member of the Haida Nation, convinced her that the duty was grounded in the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The requirement for “free, prior and informed consent” applies to researchers, Salomon says, and that means accepting the answer.

“When you ask for consent, you have to be prepared for ‘no,’ ” she says.

The work Adams has done with First Nations along the central coast has also combined traditional knowledge from the community with modern scientific approaches. Using local knowledge has helped them establish shifts in the bears’ habitats dating back well into the past, further than science alone would allow. It has led to renewed understanding of the multifaceted, deep interactions between bears and salmon, involving the communities at every stage.

“When we started that habitat work, the province didn’t believe the Kitasoo [Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation] were seeing grizzly bears on islands,” Adams says.

People who had spent their entire lives in close contact with grizzly and black bears would be told the obvious by a provincial scientist: that black bears, too, can look brown. Backing up what was already well known by the local First Nations with knowledge that was more palatable to government employees was one part of building the case for that knowledge to be accepted by the government.

“The dialogue has really changed.”

‘We’ve been studied to death’

The Heiltsuk First Nation’s sprawling coastal rainforest territory borders that of Wuikinuxv First Nation to the northwest. It’s known for its stormy waters, mysterious spirit bears, abundant marine life and towering red cedar, Douglas fir and hemlock trees. That rich coastline has been threatened over and over again over the past decade by overfishing, diesel spills and the prospect of unwelcome crude oil pipelines.

The Heiltsuk’s unceded lands overlap in the south with those of Wuikinuxv First Nation at Calvert Island — home to the Hakai Institute, a relatively new research organization that focuses on coastal ecosystems.

Hakai came to Calvert Island in 2014. It wanted to build out its field research station to conduct field research across the territory, from its shallow seabed to cascading rivers high above its inlets and islands.

Both First Nations insisted on a collaborative approach.

“I hear people say, ‘We’ve been studied to death,’” says Jess Housty, a Heiltsuk First Nation councillor in the coastal community of Bella Bella.

Housty says researchers were often coming to the community and taking what they needed — in the form of interviews with elders or other knowledge holders, or invasive animal-based ecological research — then leaving, “advancing their careers with nothing tangible left in the community.”

That is no longer the case.

Researchers who want to work in Heiltsuk territory must now get approval from the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department. It’s a way for the First Nation to vet projects before they begin. Housty says ultimately it’s about the expression of Heiltsuk sovereignty over their lands and waters — something from which the First Nation has never shied away when it comes to other pressures on their resources.

“It’s not enough to say you’re sovereign — you have to act sovereign,” Housty says, quoting, as she often does, the community’s elders.

Most applications are accepted or returned to the researchers with suggestions on how to improve them. Some have been outright rejected — “often social science research questions that we felt were racist or exploitative of the community,” explains Housty.

Those researchers who are not willing to adapt their proposals to work within the community’s rules are shown the door.

“That helps you weed out the people who you don’t want working in your territory to begin with,” Housty says.

Practice is starting to spread

Other benefits also arise when the community asserts control over how research is done in its territory. The Hakai Institute employs Heiltsuk members as field technicians. In Wuikinuxv First Nation, Adams has been trying to leverage the funding and privilege that comes with her affiliation with the University of Victoria to work with youth, running a camp in a hard-to-reach part of the territory.

Polfus has been doing the same in Tulít’a, spending time in schools and working with community members in an effort to expand local capacity.

“I really hope … the next generation of researchers doing work on caribou in the North are from the communities,” she says.

That’s already happening in Bella Bella, where a school-based program is giving young people the chance to shadow resource officers and collect real data that will be used by their community to inform decision-making. Time spent out on the land is part of their curriculum.

Other First Nations are now taking notice and the practice is starting to spread.

“We are visited by, I would say, about a dozen communities a year,” Housty says. The visitors are looking for advice on how to assert sovereignty the way Heiltsuk has done, and on how to get a stewardship program up and running.

When the Gwich’in land claim was complete, covering a large swath of northern Yukon and the Northwest Territories, one of the first steps taken by the newly empowered First Nation was to establish a board to oversee all research in Gwich’in territory.

“Once the project takes place if they collected any tapes, any kind of documentation, they would have to give us any kind of tapes, transcripts, photos related to the project,” says Sharon Snowshoe, who heads the board. The data is used to inform local decisions and advocate for local development priorities. It’s also a safeguard for the future.

“It’s going to be available for the future generations,” Snowshoe says.

‘The biggest opportunity to discover something new’

When 23-year-old Henry Huntington arrived in northern Alaska in the spring of 1988, straight out of Cambridge, he intended to stay a few months to round out his polar knowledge.

More than 30 years later, Huntington is still there.

“I just got hooked,” he tells The Narwhal. “You had real communities, people who had been there for thousands of years doing interesting things.”

When Huntington arrived, the subsistence whaling hunt of the lñupiat communities — their way of life — was under threat. The International Whaling Commission had unilaterally withdrawn its approval for Indigenous whaling and the communities were left reeling.

Rather than accept the decision, however, the whalers decided to fight back with science.

Traveling from place to place along the coast gathering information for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Huntington found himself floored by the amount of local knowledge and its overlap with the whaling tradition.

Henry Huntington gathering local information in Koyuk, Alaska, in 1995. Photo: Henry Huntington

“It was like a little spark,” he recalls. “People crowded around the table, and had lots to say about where the ice was, where the whales are, what they do, where the people go, what the key features are, what their names are.”

But when he went to publish his results, he was met with resistance from the scientific establishment, which largely believed science was meant to come from scientists, not from Indigenous whalers.

“They seemed to give flimsy reasons for not publishing,” Huntington says. “For a lot of people, this was something new, and hard to quantify. How much faith should you give in the words of some guys who’s spent his life out on the land, but has he had any training? Is there any rigour associated with this? Is he saying things just for his own benefit?”

Huntington made a conscious effort to publish his work collaborating with communities as ecology or biology papers rather than as anthropology, firmly asserting the place of traditional knowledge in natural science and moving the practice into the mainstream.

Necessary to build trust

Chris Darimont, Raincoast chair at the University of Victoria and science director for Raincoast Conservation Foundation, has spent his entire career working in cooperation with Indigenous communities. He sent Adams to Wuikinuxv, having built trust and setting the groundwork for her arrival over many years.

He argues that no matter how much say a community has over the direction of research, just like any good science, it’s all peer-reviewed and replicable.

“Our responsibility is not only to that community, but we have a professional responsibility as scientists to do good work, and critically — here’s a key part — have our work subject to peer review, and submit work that is reproducible,” he says.

Huntington says some of the resistance he met in his early days in Alaska has been overcome, opening the door to more applications for this kind of work. Some of the openness is sincere; some less so. But overall, he says, echoing Adams, “that attitude has changed, or at least the rhetoric has changed.”

As it grows in acceptance, scientists may start encountering the awkward moment when their results disagree with the community’s traditional knowledge.

“When you have disagreements between the two types of knowledge, that’s where we have the biggest opportunity to discover something new,” says Polfus.

Dene elders survey their territory in the Mackenzie mountains, Northwest Territories.

Indigenous communities provide insights into caribou and whales

For Polfus, that happened in the Mackenzie mountains near Tulít’a. Science has three categories for the caribou found there: mountain, barren ground and boreal. The Dene have another subcategory of mountain caribou, known to them as tęnatł’ǝa — the fast runner, a subtype the elders say comes from far away, “possibly as far away as the ocean,” she says.

“This type hasn’t been identified by western science,” she says. And it still hasn’t; that will require a dedicated study involving linking DNA in scat from caribou to community members’ observations of tęnatł’ǝa individuals. It could have major implications for policy, since different caribou are protected in different ways by species-at-risk legislation.

“But there really wouldn’t be another word for this in Dene language if it wasn’t important for their hunting success.”

Sometimes, however, the implications aren’t so supportive of the scientific interpretation of the world. Huntington encountered that tension as he worked on St. Lawrence Island, in the Bering Sea.

Among the knowledge he gathered about whale migratory patterns and behaviours, he discovered something surprising. Whalers in the community had a word for whales coming alongside their boats on the side away from the harpooner, eyeing up the whaling crew. If the crew was found worthy, the whale would offer itself to the crew on the harpooner’s side of the boat.

The very idea of a whale endangering itself like that — let alone deciding to sacrifice itself to another species — flies in the face of all biological science. Yet there the word was earnestly shared with the scientists.

Reviewers had a hard time believing it.

“Fair enough, from the biology point of view,” Huntington concedes. But he felt that the term revealed enough about the whalers, along with their worldview and their traditions, that it was a valuable observation regardless of whether it made sense to biologists.

“That speaks to a whole relationship with the whales that informs and motivates the way the whalers do their thing,” says Huntington, who included the term in his results.

Asked if he believes the biology can ever be reconciled with the traditional knowledge, Huntington demurres; it doesn’t really matter what he believes.

“Maybe the two will never agree,” he says. But “if we go in with a filter of saying, ‘I’m only going to take seriously the things that make sense to me,’ we’re really closing our minds.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A muddled mess of plans that were never implemented, unclear accountability, lack of organized monitoring and spotty oversight has been at the root of the provincial government’s management of grizzly bear populations for more than two decades, Auditor General Carol Bellringer found in a highly critical report released Tuesday.

The report confirms many of the concerns frequently raised by conservation groups.  A lack of firm population numbers. Resource extraction in grizzly bear habitat. Lax regulation of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.

“This is a scathing indictment of the poor management of grizzly bears by successive B.C. governments, going back decades,” said Faisal Moola, director of the David Suzuki Foundation, which requested an audit in 2014 along with University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre.

To understand where things went wrong, we’ve got to rewind to 1995 when the government committed to a “Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy” with a goal to maintain healthy grizzly bear populations and the ecosystems they depend on.

But the Environment Ministry and Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources never clarified responsibilities and priorities in terms of actually implementing the strategy.

“Currently, there is no organized inventory and limited monitoring of grizzly bears. We found that one of the reasons this work is not being carried out is that there is no dedicated ministry funding,” says the report.

B.C. Bungled #Grizzly Bear Management: Auditor General https://t.co/xWX6BNcHCD #bcpoli #wildlife @BCAuditorGen @DavidSuzukiFDN @faisal_moola pic.twitter.com/xUe0hEZWF1

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 24, 2017

In other cases, government created plans, such as the strategy for recovering the endangered North Cascades grizzly population, but plans were never implemented.

“In many cases they have not developed policies and procedures necessary to ensure the survival of grizzly bear populations and, when they have had plans, they have failed to effectively implement them,” Moola said.

Government figures estimate there are now 15,000 grizzly bears in B.C. — one of the last areas in North America where grizzly bears live in their natural habitat. But that figure is questioned by some scientists — and nine of the province’s grizzly bear populations are on the verge of elimination.

A century ago, 35,000 grizzly bears lived in B.C., while other populations flourished from Alaska to Mexico to Manitoba, according to the Suzuki Foundation.

Some populations of bears have increased, Bellringer noted, but that is not the result of management strategies.

Habitat Destruction Key Threat to Grizzly Bears

Despite the public controversy that has raged around the grizzly bear trophy hunt, with 250 to 300 bears killed every year, the greatest threat is not hunting, but human activities that degrade grizzly bear habitat, Bellringer wrote.

“For example, there are 600,000 kilometres of resource roads with, on the order of 10,000 kilometres more added each year. This expansion allows greater human access into wilderness areas, which results in illegal killing of grizzly bears and greater human-bear conflicts,” she wrote.

Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Minister Doug Donaldson and Environment Minister George Heyman said the government is accepting all 10 recommendations in the report and will develop a grizzly bear management plan with clear objectives, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

The recommendations include improvements in monitoring populations and threats, developing an adequately funded inventory of bears, increased transparency, ensuring the Conservation Officer Service has enough resources to respond to grizzly/human conflicts, developing clear policies and procedures for bear viewing, mitigating the effect of industry on bear habitat, adjusting tools needed to conserve habitat and reviewing wildlife management in B.C.

Some Areas Need to be 'Off Limits' To Industry to Protect Habitat

Moola is pleased the government has accepted the recommendations, but says more is needed.

“They have gone, far, far further than the previous government, but we definitely need to ensure that there is tangible action and that will mean there have to be some areas of the province that are put off limits to any industrial development whatsoever — off limits to any resource roads, mining, forestry, oil and gas development so the remaining habitat of grizzly bears is not further eviscerated,” he said.

Heyman said at a news conference that environmental assessments will be tightened to include habitat concerns and there will be public consultations on a new species at risk act for the province.

“Part of the purpose of a species at risk act is to identify areas where species are at risk of being extirpated or threatened and to take action to prevent it happening in the first place. That can come with a whole range of conditions that will work in concert with the environmental assessment,” he said.

After a decade of decreases in boots on the ground, the government will be adding new conservation officers next year and there will be a close look at the professional reliance model, which often sees industries policing themselves, Heyman said.

Donaldson added that new guidelines are being given to statutory decision makers to consider wildlife values.

Trophy Hunting Controversy Continues

However, Heyman and Donaldson skirted around questions about the newly revamped grizzly hunt.

Under the new rules, no grizzly hunting will be allowed in the Great Bear Rainforest and trophy hunting will be banned through the rest of the province, but a meat hunt will be allowed to continue, something that critics say will open a loophole that will allow the hunt to continue.

Guide outfitters in B.C. are continuing to advertise grizzly hunting to overseas hunters, but have eliminated the word trophy.

Trish Boyum, speaking for the Facebook group Stop The Grizzly Killing, said it is now up to all British Columbians to tell the government, before the Nov. 2 deadline, that a meat hunt is not acceptable.

Since the Auditor General’s report says there is not an adequate management framework in place, it is difficult to know how a meat hunt would be policed, Boyum said.

“How can the public now be expected to trust that the Conservation Officer Service will be able to police the government’s new proposed strategies?” she said.

The report does not take into account the ethics around killing grizzlies for the thrill of the kill, Boyum said.

“If a new grizzly bear management strategy is to succeed, it will require the backing of the majority of British Columbians . . . and British Columbians want a total ban on grizzly hunting across all of B.C.”

Green Party spokesman Adam Olsen agreed it is disturbing that the province has failed to properly manage the grizzly population and wants to see a moratorium on hunting “while we take the time to review our wildlife management practices and plan for a landscape altered by climate change.”

Image: Nathan Rupert via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The B.C. government announced on Monday it will end grizzly bear trophy hunting throughout the province and stop all hunting of grizzles in the Great Bear Rainforest.

“By bringing trophy hunting of grizzlies to an end, we’re delivering on our commitment to British Columbians,” Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, said. “This action is supported by the vast majority of people across our province."

A public opinion poll conducted by Insights West in February found strong opposition to trophy hunting across Canada (80 per cent), including 90 per cent of British Columbians.

The ban will take effect Nov. 30th — after this year’s hunt.

Hunting for meat will be allowed to continue outside of the Great Bear Rainforest. Historically, environmentalists have critiqued exceptions for food hunting, saying it leaves the door open for trophy hunting.

"We’re pretty dubious about the whole notion of classifying any killing of grizzlies as a food hunt," said Chris Genovali, executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation, a group that has campagined against the trophy hunt.

"If the food hunt policy is going to have any chance of having an effect, at the very least you’d have to force the hunters to surrender the trophy parts to provincial authorities in an attempt to de-incentivize why people go out and kill these animals."

While reserving judgment on the trophy hunting ban until further details are released, Raincoast Conservation Foundation called the complete end of grizzly bear hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest "a solid step forward for wildlife management in British Columbia."

BREAKING: B.C. to End Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunting https://t.co/mbFXaZhziM #bcpoli #grizzlies #wildlife #explorebc pic.twitter.com/jQ9Yi4YUsR

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 14, 2017

According to B.C. government statistics, about 300 grizzlies are killed each year by trophy hunters. Eighty-seven per cent of known, human-caused grizzly bear deaths in B.C. are attributable to trophy hunters, who have killed 12,026 grizzly bears since the government began keeping records in 1975.

Foreign hunters account for about 30 per cent of all trophy kills in B.C. in any given year and they can pay upwards of $30,000 for the proper permits and the assistance of a guide outfitter. Former premier Christy Clark supported the grizzly trophy hunt and the BC Liberals received nearly $60,000 in donations from guide outfitter associations since 2005.

Earlier this year, Safari Club International put its name behind a $60,000 fundraising effort for the Guide Outfitters Association of BC. In a post on Facebook, the Canadian chapter for Safari Club International wrote: “NDP have vowed to end the Grizzly hunt in BC if elected. SCI chapters from CANADA and the USA banded together donating $60000.00.”

Until now trophy hunting has even been allowed within some of B.C.’s provincial parks and protected areas. A 2012 report [PDF] by Stanford University in conjunction with the Center for Responsible Travel found that bear viewing groups in the Great Bear Rainforest generated “more than 12 times more in visitor spending than bear hunting.”

The government will consult with First Nations and stakeholder groups to determine next steps and mechanisms as B.C. moves toward ending the trophy hunt, according to a press release.

In late 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) assessed the world’s brown bear populations, and identified eleven around the world as critically endangered. Three of those are in Canada — all in southwest B.C.

The Coast to Cascades grizzly bear initiative warned on Monday that without stronger management of the species and their habitat — beyond hunting — grizzlies are still in grave danger.

“Many British Columbians are not aware that for years there has been no legal hunt for the most at-risk populations of grizzly bears in B.C., yet some of these populations continue to decline to perilous levels,” said Johnny Mikes, field director for Coast to Cascades. “Even though the province will end the B.C. grizzly bear trophy hunt in its entirety, it is only improved management focused on habitat and non-hunting threats that will benefit the bears in these depressed and declining populations.” 

The B.C. auditor general's office is expected to release a report on the effectiveness of grizzly bear management in B.C. sometime this fall.

Image source: Dogwood

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Provincial politics. There, I said them — two of the most boring words in the English language.

There’s no denying it. Provincial elections fail to capture the imaginations of citizens the way national or even international elections do.

Case in point: in the last B.C. provincial election, just 55 per cent of eligible voters cast a ballot — 13 per cent fewer than voted in the last federal election.

I get it: most of us are just trying to pay the bills, put dinner on the table and make sure the kids get to soccer practice. There’s not exactly a whole lot of time (or energy) left to monitor several different levels of politics.

Yet Canadians have been captivated by the train wreck that’s been unfolding south of the border for the last six months — even though there ain’t much we can do about another country’s state of affairs.

So if you give a shit about the state of the world, now’s as good a time as any to focus on what you can change. If you’re a British Columbian, you’ve got a golden opportunity to make your mark in just one week from today.

In Canada, the provinces are responsible for managing things like health care, education, housing and natural resources — so, snooze-worthy or not, provincial politics have a major influence over our day-to-day lives.

Here are our Top 5 reasons to give a shit about the B.C. election.

1) Because It’s a Referendum on Big Money in Politics

When the New York Times devotes an entire article to how corrupt your province’s politics have become, calling it the ‘wild west’ of political cash, it’s time to sit up and pay attention.

Here are the facts: unlike many other provinces, B.C. has no limits on political donations. Anyone, including foreigners and foreign companies, can give as much moola as they want to political parties in our province.

A Globe and Mail investigation this spring found lobbyists breaking one of the few rules B.C. has in place by donating to the B.C. Liberals under their own names, while being reimbursed by companies, thus concealing the true source of the money.

An RCMP investigation is now underway into the practice. Meanwhile, the B.C. Liberals (who are not affiliated with the federal Liberal party and are actually strongly aligned with the federal Conservative party) announced they would return $93,000 in prohibited donations.

Thanks to these lax laws, the Liberals raised $12.6 million in 2016 — more than any other provincial party in power. The B.C. NDP meanwhile raised $6.2 million in 2016.

Despite the fact 86 per cent of British Columbians want to see big money banned from politics, the Liberals have defeated six NDP bills to ban big money in politics.

When asked during the televised leaders’ debate about how she’d regain British Columbians’ trust after the donations scandal, Clark said: “I think the thing that matters most to British Columbians is jobs.”

If corruption matters to you, this is your chance to get big money out of politics.  Both the NDP and the Greens have promised to ban corporate and union donations if elected.

2) Two Words: ‘Legalized Bribery’

In a system that’s been called ‘legalized bribery,’ Premier Christy Clark has been receiving an annual stipend of up to $50,000 from her party, financed by political contributions. This is in addition to her $195,000 a year salary paid for by taxpayers.

“No elected official in the U.S. is allowed to get a stipend; that would be bribery,” said Dan Levin, a New York Times reporter covering Canada. “I lived in China for seven-and-a-half years; in China or Russia this would just be called ‘corruption’ or ‘nepotism.’ But here, it’s just ‘legal.’ ”

That salary top-up led two groups to file a court challenge to overturn the government’s decision on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline due to alleged conflicts of interest between the premier and project proponents, who have given $560,000 in political contributions over six years to the Liberal party.

A week after the New York Times turned its glaring spotlight on B.C., Clark finally announced she’ll stop the controversial salary top-up. But the B.C. Liberals still haven’t made any commitment to get big money out of politics.

While Clark has been raking in close to $250,000 a year, during the 16-year tenure of the B.C. Liberals, the cost of living for ordinary British Columbians has skyrocketed — from housing and child care to health care premiums, Hydro bills and ICBC rates.

Entire campaigns have popped up to stop the squeeze on younger British Columbians and fight for $10 a day childcare. If the ability for working class people to get by matters to you, cast a ballot, mmmmkay?

3) Because The Largest Mining Disaster in Canadian History Went Unpunished

When a dam broke at the Mount Polley mine in August 2014, it unleashed a four-square-kilometre lake full of mining waste into Polley Lake, Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake, a source of drinking water and major spawning grounds for sockeye salmon.

You might be thinking: that sounds really shitty, but surely it’s not the government’s fault?

Oh how we wish that were the case. But a two-year investigation by B.C.’s auditor general found that compliance and enforcement expectations were not met after a “decade of neglect.”

The report said that to reduce the risk of “unfortunate and preventable incidents like Mount Polley,”compliance and enforcement should be separated from the Ministry of Energy and Mines Ministry because the ministry’s role to promote mining development creates an “irreconcilable conflict.”

But guess what? The government ignored that recommendation and continues business as usual. In fact, the government approved another mine with a massive tailings pond just like the one at Mount Polley, even though an expert panel said to stop doing that. Alaskans downstream are so worried about their salmon rivers that they’re practically begging the B.C. government to get its shit together.

Meanwhile, Mount Polley and its parent company Imperial Metals got off without a single fine or criminal charge for the largest mining accident in Canadian history.

To add insult to injury, British Columbians have been left on the hook for millions of dollars of clean-up bills for the Mount Polley spill.

And now, just days before the writ dropped, the B.C. government approved a permit for Mount Polley to discharge mining waste directly into Quesnel Lake. Seriously.

You’d almost think there was some corruption at play or something.

P.S. Mount Polley and its parent company Imperial Metals have donated more than $200,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 2005.

4) Because We’re Still Killing Grizzly Bears for Trophies

Since we’re on the topic of totally screwed up things that B.C. allows because of unlimited political donations, let’s talk about grizzly bears. About 300 of them will be killed this year so that hunters can hang their heads on the wall at home.

Many grizzlies will be killed in B.C.’s provincial parks and protected areas. Many will be females. This will happen despite the fact 90 per cent of British Columbians want to see trophy hunting banned.

Photo: Dogwood

Why? Money talks yet again.

Guide outfitters — who can earn as much as $20,000 for helping a foreign hunter bag a grizzly bear — have donated nearly $62,000 to the B.C. Liberals since 2005.

Fun fact: a 2012 study by Stanford University in conjunction with the Center for Responsible Travel found that bear viewing groups in the Great Bear Rainforest generated more than 12 times more in visitor spending than bear hunting.

Most recently, wealthy hunting society Safari Club International donated $60,000 to the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., bragging in a since-removed Facebook post about “working … to prevent the NDP from getting elected.”

The NDP have vowed to end the trophy hunt, as have the Green Party.

Safari Club International spent nearly a million dollars lobbying in the U.S. last year, including on legislation related to species such as elephants, wolves and polar bears. Handy fact: One of their members was responsible for killing Cecil the Lion.

Ahem, did we mention this is your chance to get big money out of politics?

5) Because We’re Losing Our Place in the World

There was a while there when B.C. was praised for being a leader in tackling climate change, while maintaining one of the strongest economies in Canada. That time is over.

A recent L.A. Times piece focused on B.C.’s new “embrace of fossil fuels.”

“Now, however, Canada’s West Coast is striving toward a very different kind of cutting edge: British Columbia is positioning itself to become a global leader in exporting fossil fuels, with plans to nearly triple crude oil exports through a controversial new pipeline and vastly expand production of liquefied natural gas to be sold in Asia,” read a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times.

Premier Christy Clark has been a big pusher of any and all fossil fuel development, including a stunning about-face on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline. Meanwhile, she decided to ignore the recommendations of her expert panel on climate change.

It’s gotten so bad that even former B.C. Liberal premier Gordon Campbell —who’s given precious few interviews — had some choice words for B.C. in the Los Angeles Times article.

“They still say that they take pride in having a revenue-neutral carbon tax,” Campbell said. “If you do, then what are the next steps you take? The journey’s not done. We started it with some good, strong policies that I would have liked to see carry on. But it’s up to the current elected leaders. There are leaders and there are followers.”

Even if climate change isn’t No. 1 on your priority list, chances are you don’t want B.C. to become a laggard on the global climate file just as the world accelerates toward a clean energy economy.

This no-holds-barred approach to natural resources has antagonized B.C.’s First Nations, who are calling on their friends and allies to vote for anyone but Clark.

“The Clark government has virtually neglected the people of British Columbia in her obsessive pursuit of large-scale resource development projects,” said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip at a press conference this week.

Grievances include the B.C. Liberals’ continued musings about LNG, even though the market appears to be dead, and their bull-headed approach to the Site C dam, which Phillip described as a “sleazy, political make-work project to shore up the failings B.C. Jobs program.”

Why is Clark so enthusiastic about fossil fuel exports? It could have something to do with the 22,000 meetings her government has had with fossil fuel lobbyists since 2010. Or with the roughly $4 million in donations her party has received from oil and gas companies since 2008. Just sayin’.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Eighty-seven per cent of known, human-caused grizzly bear deaths in B.C. are attributable to trophy hunters, who have killed 12,026 grizzly bears since the government began keeping records in 1975, according to data obtained by David Suzuki Foundation.*

In 2016, 274 grizzlies were killed by humans — the vast majority of which (235) were killed by trophy hunters.

B.C. currently sanctions a legal trophy hunt by both resident and foreign hunters. Non-resident hunters killed almost 30 per cent of the grizzlies in the 2016 hunt.

The trophy hunt has become a hot election issue with the NDP and Green Party vowing to end the hunt if elected. An Insights West survey conducted in the fall of 2016 found 91 percent of British Columbians are opposed to trophy hunting.

Meantime, the B.C. Liberals are the party of choice for international trophy hunters — who donated $60,000 to the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. to help prevent an NDP win.

The Canadian chapter of Safari Club International posted to Facebook: “NDP have vowed to end the Grizzly hunt in BC if elected. SCI chapters from CANADA and the USA banded together donating $60000.00 [sic]."

The Guide Outfitters lobby to continue trophy hunting, which attracts wealthy customers from around the world who pay as much as $20,000 for a hunt. The annual spring bear hunt began April 1.

Source: David Suzuki Foundation

B.C. Premier Christy Clark is a vocal supporter of the trophy hunting industry and a past winner of the Guide Outfitter association’s President’s Award.

B.C. has some of the weakest political donations rules in Canada, which allows anyone (including foreign corporations) to donate unlimited amounts of cash.

The New York Times recently called B.C. the ‘wild west’ of political cash and a Globe and Mail investigation revealed that lobbyists are routinely making political donations under their own names while being reimbursed by corporations — something that is illegal.

The B.C. NDP and B.C. Green Party have vowed to ban corporate and union donations if elected while the B.C. Liberals have promised to appoint a panel to review campaign finance rules if re-elected.

* Article updated to clarify data is based on known, human-caused grizzly bear deaths and does not include natural mortality (most of which is unknown).

Image source: Dogwood 

87% of B.C. Grizzly Deaths Due to Trophy Hunting, Records Reveal https://t.co/rJwE9VgcS3 #bcpoli #bcelxn17 #BanBigMoney @bcliberals pic.twitter.com/GOnF9HyCYm

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 12, 2017

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In early October a provincial government news release landed in the inboxes of reporters and researchers around B.C.

It boasted of a new government-commissioned report that concluded B.C. has “a high level of rigour and adequate safeguards in place to ensure the long-term stability of grizzly populations.”

Even though the report was less glowing than the news release and noted there are monitoring difficulties and a lack of funding, the review gave the BC Liberals the ammunition they needed to conclude the controversial practice of hunting grizzlies for sport is just fine.

But, here’s the thing: even if the province’s estimates of 15,000 grizzly bears in B.C. is correct — and it is a figure disputed by independent biologists, some of whom believe the number is as low as 6,000 — the stand-off over hunting intelligent animals for sport isn’t about the science. It’s about values and ethics.

“The ethical argument is clear. Gratuitous killing for recreation and amusement is unethical and immoral,” says Chris Genovali, executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation, one of the organizations fighting to stop the trophy hunt, which takes the lives of about 300 grizzly bears in B.C each year.

“This is a moral issue. This is about ethics and values,” reiterated Val Murray of Justice for B.C. Grizzlies, an organization hoping to make the grizzly hunt an issue in the upcoming provincial election.

“After more than 30 years as a teacher, if a child in the classroom was deliberately hurting animals, he would be immediately referred for counselling before the behaviour escalated into anything else, but people go out and just kill these bears,” she said.

Dramatic pictures of grizzlies fishing for salmon bring tourists from all over the world to “Super, Natural B.C.”

But those tourists rarely see the gut-churning videos of a grizzly being shot, attempting to run for his life and then being shot again — a sequence included in the new film “Trophy” produced by LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics.

Lush Cosmetics Presents: Trophy from Lush Cosmetics on Vimeo.

Yet, Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberals show no sign of changing course and, in a parting shot, one of the most energetic supporters of the hunt, retiring Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett told Vaughn Palmer on Voice of B.C. that parts of the province have too many grizzly bears and they need to be shot.

It is a view that is increasingly out-of-step with the majority of British Columbians and in direct opposition to the views of Coastal First Nations who have banned trophy hunting in their territory.

Following a trend set by previous polls, an October 2015 Insights West poll found that 91 per cent of British Columbians oppose hunting animals for sport. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 per cent.

“Look at who we are as a people and a nation and where we are headed,” environmental activist Vicky Husband urged the Grizzly Bear Foundation board of inquiry in Victoria.

“We are past the time to stop grizzly hunting. It’s not ethically right,” she told the three-person panel headed by philanthropist Michael Audain.

In addition to holding public hearings, the panel is talking to First Nations, scientists, hunters, guide outfitters and conservation organizations and will use the information it garners to set up conservation, research and education programs.

The group, which is looking at the effects of climate change, urbanization, loss of habitat, accidents and food availability as well as the hunt, is writing a report that will be handed to government in February.

Another report headed government’s way this spring is from Auditor General Carol Bellringer, who is looking at whether the province is “meeting its objective of ensuring healthy grizzly bear populations throughout B.C.”

The government claims its decisions are science-based and points to the new scientific review, but the Audain panel was cautioned to take the report with a grain of salt

“This was a government report, commissioned by government, for government. It was not peer-reviewed,” warned professional forester Anthony Britneff.

Government estimates of the number of grizzly bears are based on models, but Melanie Clapham, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Victoria, who has researched grizzlies for a decade, cautioned that more research is needed.

“Models are only as good as the numbers you put in to them,” she said.

Photo credit: Mike Hoekendijk

The Liberal government scrapped the NDP’s short-lived moratorium on grizzly hunting after the 2001 election, but the hunt does not have the support of at least one key figure in former premier Gordon Campbell’s government.

Martyn Brown, Campbell’s former chief of staff, wants trophy hunting banned for grizzly bears and all other species.

“Precious animals and wildlife are being taken for nothing but a trophy. They are not being taken for food or ceremonial purposes, they are simply for people’s self-aggrandizement and whatever twisted, distorted satisfaction they get from killing an animal,” he said in an interview.

Bear Viewing 12 Times More Beneficial For Economy Than Hunting

A 2012 study by Stanford University in conjunction with the Center for Responsible Travel found that bear viewing groups in the Great Bear Rainforest generated “more than 12 times more in visitor spending than bear hunting.”

But there is increasing concern that the two activities cannot co-exist.

Grizzly bears are a passion for Dean Wyatt, owner of Knight Inlet Lodge, and he takes pride in showing tourists the bears feeding on salmon and berries near his lodge.

But, even though Wyatt wants more British Columbians to understand the vital role grizzlies play in the environment, most of his guests are from overseas because he has found from bitter experience that advertising in B.C. is dangerous for the bears.

“I would love to have more British Columbians, but the ones that come first are the hunters, so we don’t market very much in B.C.,” he told the Audain panel.

“If we put something in the paper, immediately the hunters show up to see if the bears are there. The hunters are there in their boats 24 hours later. It’s horrible,” Wyatt said.

Photo taken on a Wildlife Defence League mission to monitor and document the grizzly trophy hunt. Photo credit: Chelsea Miller/Wildlife Defence League

It is a stark example of the conflict between bear viewing and bear hunting, according to Katherine MacRae of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association, an organization that emphasizes that bear viewing must have a neutral impact on the animals.

Even with the no-impact rules, bears quickly learn that humans in a boat are not necessarily threatening and that puts them at risk when hunters show up.

“Our bears that are viewed will be killed because they are not running away . . .  hunting and viewing cannot take place together,” MacRae told the three-person panel.

Expansion of the bear-viewing industry, which brings in $13-million in direct revenue annually, is being constrained by hunting, MacRae said.

“A bear-viewing operator in the Kootenays had his guests witness a kill and then they had to see the dead bear strapped on the roof of the car,” she said.

Why Does BC Still Kill Grizzlies for Sport? https://t.co/IfBU9YrTX6 #bcpoli #bcelxn17 #cdnpoli #BanBigMoney @Justice4BCGrizz @christyclarkbc

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 23, 2016

Foreign Hunters Pay Thousands of Dollars to Kill B.C. Grizzlies

Most grizzlies hunted in B.C. are killed by foreigners who pay upwards of $16,000 for the chance to display the head and hide, but Jamie Scott of Victoria was faced with a major decision when he was awarded one of the $80 grizzly licences in the government’s lottery-style draw for resident hunters.

“As a hunter, at first I was really excited,” said Scott, but doubts set in as he recalled his father’s hunting ethics.

“You don’t become a better hunter by targeting unnecessary animals. You have to find yourself on the right side of conservation,” said Scott, who gave up his licence in return for a bear-watching honeymoon, with his wife Nicole, at Tweedsmuir Park Lodge.

“We saw 11 grizzlies and it altered my mind on the trophy hunt. I think it’s a black eye for B.C.,” Scott said.

Genovali said that the government’s position is puzzling as the economic argument against the hunt is clear.

“Notably it appears that the revenue generated by fees and licences affiliated with the trophy killing of grizzlies fails to cover the cost of the province’s management of the hunt,” Genovali said.

“As a result, B.C. taxpayers, most of who oppose the hunt according to poll after poll, are in essence being forced to subsidize the trophy killing of grizzlies,” he said.

Between 2011 and May 2015, the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. contributed almost $37,000 to the BC Liberal party.

At the heart of the ethics argument is the difference between hunting for a trophy and hunting for sustenance. Most hunters do not eat bear meat, especially as it sometimes carries the parasite that causes trichinosis — but three hunters who spoke in Victoria insisted they hunt bears for the meat.

With the provincial election just six months away, so far, only Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has come out against the hunt. The NDP has not yet settled on a position.

Photo: Misty MacDuffee/Raincoast

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Above the stone fireplace in the comfortable Saanich home, photos of grizzly bears are pinned in a casual collage.

Cubs are shown frolicking in the grass, a curious bear stands on his hind legs looking through a camera lens and, jarringly, at the top, is a massive grizzly lying lifeless in the grass, eyes closed, claws digging into the dirt, as two jubilant hunters smile into the camera.

The photo, typical of those found in hunting magazines that promote the chance to travel to Super, Natural B.C. to kill grizzles, provokes a visceral response among hunt opponents and a newly-formed group wants to harness that gut reaction.

Justice for B.C. Grizzlies is led by a small core of volunteers who, for years, have tried to end the trophy hunt by arguing the facts — such as the uncertainty of population numbers, studies that show bear viewing generates far more in visitor spending than bear hunting and — what should be the clincher for politicians, but, curiously seems to be ignored — polls clearly demonstrate that British Columbians are overwhelmingly against the hunt.

In the leadup to next spring’s provincial election, the group is aiming for hearts and minds by asking B.C. voters and political candidates to consider the hunt from a moral and ethical stance.

“We are the moral high ground. We are not the scientists,” said Barb Murray, who has fought against the hunt for more than a decade.

“We can speak with our hearts…We all have a heart and a brain and we know wrong from right. We just have to stand up and be counted and make our politicians be accountable to the majority on this ethical issue.”

The hunt is outdated and archaic, pointed out supporter Val Murray.

“It’s 2016, and stopping the hunt is morally and ethically right,” she said.

Justice for B.C Grizzlies will officially launch in September and members will then start the hard work of pinning down politicians and candidates and bending the ears of friends and neighbours.

Supporters will be asked to sign a pledge to actively lobby to end the hunt, and ask candidates in their riding where they stand.

The group will work alongside others fighting the same battle, such as Raincoast Conservation, the David Suzuki Foundation and Pacific Wild, but will take a different approach in hopes of attracting those who have not thought about the morality of killing an apex predator — listed as a species of special concern by the federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada — in order to put a head on a wall or rug on the floor.

In 2001, in the dying days of the NDP government, a moratorium was imposed on trophy hunting until more scientific data could be compiled, but, as soon as Gordon Campbell’s BC Liberals were elected, the moratorium was rescinded.

That decision has stuck, despite the growing distaste of British Columbians and a 2004 European Union ban on imports of all B.C. grizzly parts after an analysis found the hunt was unsustainable.

Polls show the number of people who oppose the hunt is steadily growing, with an October 2015 Insights West poll finding that 91 per cent of British Columbians and 84 per cent of Albertans say they oppose hunting animals for sport. The margin of error for B.C. is plus or minus 3.1 per cent.

Along the way, hunt opponents have gathered some high profile support, including Martyn Brown, former chief of staff to Gordon Campbell and former deputy minister of tourism, trade and investment.

Brown agrees that putting pressure on politicians and political candidates is the way to “make the B.C. government bow to the wishes of the 91 per cent of British Columbians who say they don’t support it.”

Grizzly Group Takes Aim at Trophy Hunting, Sets Sights on Provincial Election Candidates https://t.co/FPHWA79mZ2 #bcpoli @christyclarkbc

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 15, 2016

In a column published on DeSmog Canada, Brown wrote “In our hearts, most of us know that the grisly business of trophy hunting is not right. Rather, it demeans us as the planet’s apex species.”

So, why does the Christy Clark Liberal government insist on continuing the hunt?

The two main arguments are that the grizzly population is healthy, with an estimated 15,000 bears, and the hunt puts money into the economy.

But government estimates of population numbers are based on models and expert opinions, not a count of bears, and many researchers believe numbers are much lower — possibly in the 6,000 range — and kills much higher than the approximately 300 grizzlies killed by hunters each year that the province reports.

A study by Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria and the Hakai Institute, which analyzed 35 years of grizzly mortality data, found kill limits are regularly exceeded.

At least nine sub-populations of grizzlies in B.C are on the verge of disappearing and, in addition to the hunt, grizzlies face disappearing habitat, poachers, and vehicle collisions.

“The current hunt subjects grizzly populations to considerable risk. Substantial overkills have occurred repeatedly and might be worse than thought because of the many unknowns in management,” Raincoast biologist Kyle Artelle said after the study was published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE.

Following the Raincoast study the David Suzuki Foundation and the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre requested an investigation by Auditor General Carol Bellringer, who agreed to look at whether the province is effectively managing the grizzly bear population.

Bellringer is expected to issue a report in the spring and hunt opponents are crossing their fingers it will be released before the election.

They are also hoping that the departure of Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, who has said he will not run in the election, will help their cause.

Bennett, a key member of Clark’s cabinet, has been a strong supporter of the hunt.

On the financial front, a study by the Center for Responsible Travel, in conjunction with Stanford University, found that, in 2012, bear-viewing groups in the Great Bear Rainforest generated “more than 12 times more in visitor spending than bear hunting.”

Bear-watching also directed $7.3-million to government coffers compared to $660,500 from hunters and created 510 jobs a year compared to 11 jobs created by guide outfitters.

“The overwhelming conclusion is that bear viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest generates far more value to the economy, both in terms of total visitor expenditures and gross domestic product and provides greater employment opportunities and returns to government than does bear hunting,” says the study.

However the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. is a powerful lobby and a generous contributor to the Liberal Party.

Between 2011 and May 2015 the association contributed almost $37,000 to the Liberal Party and a little over $6,000 to the NDP.

Jefferson Bray, owner of the Great Bear Chalet, in the Bella Coola Valley, in a letter to Bellringer, wrote “This global obscenity continues because it is lobbied, bought and paid for.”

Although the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. is the voice of those arguing to keep the grizzly hunt, the bulk of softer support comes from hunters who belong to the B.C. Wildlife Federation, who are afraid the end of the grizzly hunt would be the thin end of the wedge, said Barb Murray.

But Justice for B.C Grizzlies has no problem with those who hunt for food and the group has hunters among its’ supporters, she emphasized.

“I am a hunter and I have never shot a bear,” said David Lawrie, a former forests engineer with the B.C. government and an inaugural member of Justice for B.C. Grizzlies.

“And, when it comes to the government being capable of providing us with the number of bears, I don’t believe it. They can’t even provide us with the number of trees in the annual allowable cut and trees don’t walk,” Lawrie said.

This summer, the Wildlife Federation supported a call by Green Party leader Andrew Weaver to require trophy hunters to pack out edible meat from grizzly bears, but the support was immediately dismissed by hunt opponents.

“If Weaver’s bill is somehow approved, most of the muscles of the bears will be transported out of the bush and dumped into landfills in B.C. and beyond, while their heads and hides will continue to be transformed into rugs for living rooms and prizes for trophy rooms, “ Raincoast executive director Chris Genovali and Raincoast guide outfitter coordinator Brian Falconer wrote in an op-ed in the Times Colonist.

Weaver’s bill died when the session ended and a Green Party spokesman said Thursday that, ideally, Weaver wants to see a complete ban on grizzly trophy hunting in B.C.

“As the government made it clear that is not on the cards, Andrew tabled the bill as an interim measure with the goal of making trophy hunting more costly and regulated, especially for out-of-province hunters,” Mat Wright said in an email.

The major hope for reversing the legislation lies with the NDP and, so far, the party has not decided where it is going with the contentious issue.

Environment critic George Heyman said in an interview that discussions have taken place in caucus and will continue once summer vacation is over.

“We will be letting people know our decision before the election,” said Heyman.

“We understand that over 90 per cent of British Columbians oppose it and we are taking it very seriously,” he said.

It is obvious many British Columbians do not trust the government’s numbers and conservation is the first principle for the NDP, Heyman said.

“We understand the importance of conserving this iconic species and we will make a responsible decision,” he said.

Which is exactly what Justice for B.C. Grizzlies wants to see.

Image: Princess Lodges via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Chris Genovali, executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

We want these bears dead. This is the message the B.C. government’s “reallocation policy” sends to the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, to British Columbians, and to the world.

This policy also prevents the implementation of an innovative solution to end the commercial trophy hunting of grizzlies and other large carnivores throughout the Great Bear Rainforest.

With the mismanaged, and some would say depraved, B.C. grizzly bear hunt having commenced this month, the controversy surrounding the recreational killing of these iconic animals is spiking once again.

A hard-won Raincoast-led moratorium on grizzly hunting in B.C. was overturned in 2001 by Gordon Campbell’s newly elected Liberal government with no justification other than serving as an obvious sop to the trophy hunting lobby. So, what was supposed to be a three-year provincewide ban was revoked after one spring hunting season. Raincoast, recognizing the then-new premier’s mulish intractability on this issue, decided to take a different approach.

Raincoast raised $1.3 million in 2005 to purchase the commercial trophy hunting rights across 24,700 square kilometres of the Great Bear Rainforest. Raincoast purchased an additional 3,500 square kilometres in 2012, including nearly all the habitat of the spirit bear (despite a restriction on killing spirit bears, trophy hunting of black bears that carry the recessive gene that causes the white coat is allowed). The sellers of these hunting tenures received a fair price, bears were safeguarded, and ecotourism prospered, including within coastal First Nations communities.

The province has countered by instituting a so-called reallocation policy (a.k.a. the Raincoast policy), whereby unused (not killed) grizzly bear “quota” would be stripped from Raincoast’s commercial tenures and allocated to resident hunters (B.C. residents who do not require a licensed hunting guide by law).

Bereft of any legitimate argument to justify the recreational killing of grizzlies, provincial wildlife managers stand naked in front of an increasingly disgusted and disapproving public, their blatant cronyism on behalf of the trophy hunting lobby exposed for all to see.

The ecological argument is clear: killing bears for “management” purposes is unnecessary and scientifically unsound. Although attempts are made to dress the province’s motivations in the trappings of proverbial “sound science,” they are clearly driven by an anachronistic ideology that is disconcertingly fixated on killing as a legitimate and necessary tool of wildlife management.

Dr. Paul Paquet, senior scientist at Raincoast and co-author of a recently published peer-reviewed paper on B.C. bear management, states: “We analyzed only some of the uncertainty associated with grizzly management and found it was likely contributing to widespread overkills. I’m not sure how the government defines sound science, but an approach that carelessly leads to widespread overkills is less than scientifically credible.”

The ethical argument is clear: gratuitous killing for recreation and amusement is unacceptable and immoral. Polling shows that nine of 10 British Columbians agree, from rural residents (including many hunters) to city dwellers. In their 2009 publication, The Ethics of Hunting, Drs. Michael Nelson and Kelly Millenbah state if wildlife managers began “to take philosophy and ethics more seriously, both as a realm of expertise that can be acquired and as a critical dimension of wildlife conservation, many elements of wildlife conservation and management would look different.”

The economic argument is clear; recent research by Stanford University and the Center for Responsible Travel (CREST) identifies that bear viewing supports 10 times more employment, tourist spending, and government revenue than trophy hunting within the Great Bear Rainforest. Notably, the Stanford-CREST study suggests the revenue generated by fees and licences affiliated with the trophy killing of grizzlies fails to cover the cost of the province's management of the hunt. As a result, B.C. taxpayers, most of whom oppose the hunt according to poll after poll, are in essence being forced to subsidize the trophy killing of grizzlies.

What remains unknown is why the B.C. government so desperately wants these bears dead.

Raincoast stands ready to raise the funds to acquire the remaining commercial hunting tenures in the Great Bear Rainforest, a mutually beneficial solution that guide outfitters have indicated they will not oppose. Although the province, at its political peril, has failed to recognize it, Coastal First Nations have banned trophy hunting under their laws throughout their unceded territories, and the public is overwhelmingly supportive.

Buying out the remaining hunting tenures in the Great Bear Rainforest, coupled with the administrative closure of resident hunting in the region, would create the largest grizzly bear reserve in the world and a model for sustainable economic activity.

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.