Politics Can Affect Wildlife Biologists Credibility

Dr. Dave Samuel

In a recent discussion of the grizzly bear situation in British Columbia (where all hunting was stopped by the government this spring), John Jackson of Conservation Force noted that when politicians make improper and irrational wildlife management decisions they cause their wildlife personnel to lose credibility, both regionally, but also nationally and internationally.

Politically-based and motivated wildlife management decisions happen all the time at the state level. Most times the impacts are not bad, and are changed relatively soon. However, on January 15, 1999, John Snobelen, Ontario’s Minister of Natural Resources announced that the spring bear season was canceled. The decision was not biologically based, and was driven by animal rights groups. These groups indicated that many cubs were orphaned by spring bear hunting in Ontario. Interesting since Ontario biologists estimated that losses were a maximum of 250 a year. Why would politicians listen to animal rights groups over their own biologists? Are we to believe that animal rights groups have better data than biologists? Truth is that most animal rights groups have no biologists working for them, so where does their data come from? Apparently it doesn’t matter. Politicians extended an olive branch to the guides and outfitters who lost their source of income by expanding the fall bear season. But the cancellation of spring bear hunting led to the removal of more nuisance bears than in years when spring hunting was allowed. In fact, in Sudbury and Parry Sound, nuisance bear relocations increased eight times from 1998 when spring hunting was allowed to 1999 when hunting was stopped.

Animal rightists suggested, and evidently politicians agreed, that black bear numbers were threatened in Ontario. But during the fall of 1999 it was discovered that Ontario biologists released figures in February 1999 (one month after the cancellation of the spring season) showing that there were 125,000-150,000 bears in Ontario. Obviously these biologists and the wildlife agency within Ontario lost credibility when their management of spring black bears was politically changed.

In the spring of 2001 we had an identical situation with grizzly bears in British Columbia. Animal rights groups placed the number of grizzlies at 4,000-6,000—plenty of bears to sustain a managed hunt. But biologists for the province put the number at 10,000-13,000. Again the question.....why would anyone, especially leaders of the country, discount the data provided by their own trained employees? The 1999 grizzly harvest in British Columbia was only 238. Obviously this harvest does not affect grizzly numbers regardless of whether you believe there are 4,000 grizzlies in BC or 13,000. Again, as in Ontario, the rural economy and life styles suffer, as do the bears.

But as John Jackson pointed out, perhaps the biggest loss is to the esteem of the conservation programs in both provinces. We read in the press that those opposed to the bear hunts were environmentalists. Maybe, but probably not. Just because one is antihunting does not necessarily make then environmentalists. In fact, if the bear population and bear management suffers one might make the argument that such groups were anti environment. What kind of a sign of the times is it when we make wildlife management decisions as political decisions rather than biological decisions using real data? I am not saying we should discount the minority who opposed bear hunting. I am saying that there is science here that does tell us what will happen when management is stopped. For example, with the black bear in Ontario, biologists suggest that the male boars will increase their kill of cubs (it is the mature boars that are the number one cause of mortality in cubs) because of the stoppage of spring bear hunting. They also suggest that nuisance problems will increase leading to the deaths of more bears.

What will happen to the grizzlies in British Columbia? First, there will be more encounters with humans....negative encounters....as these bears lose their fear of man. There will be bears killed because of these negative encounters. Second, poaching of grizzlies will increase because the interested parties who make their living from grizzly hunting (i.e. the guides and outfitters) won’t be out there reporting poaching. It’s hard to estimate how high this poaching could go, but it will increase. Third, and saddest of all, the British Columbia wildlife program that was held in such high esteem throughout North America has been tarnished. Put management back in their hands and credibility can be restored. Continue to allow politicians to make wildlife management decisions and that credibility will continue to erode. When that happens, all wildlife, far more than the grizzlies, will lose.