Populism driving politics on grizzly-bear hunt

The recent decision by the B.C. government to ban the regulated grizzly hunt except for Indigenous hunters is an example of populism.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines populism as: Political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want.

The ideas are often put forward in the absence of science and analysis of the long-term policy implications. It is often driven by “popular support” for an idea, not because it is rational, stable or in the best interests of the resource, but because it is politically popular and in the short term will garner political support.

The issue is: Do you want your government to make the popular decision or the rational decision? The former is driven by public opinion, the latter by rigorous analysis of the consequences of the decision in terms of what is in the best interests of the resource and the province.

In B.C., the populist view on grizzly-bear hunting is that 78 per cent of the public, according to the government, was against killing grizzly bears. A rigorous analysis was conducted by the B.C. auditor general, and the conclusion is that hunting was not seen as a threat to grizzly-bear sustainability and was considered a minor factor within the larger issue of landscape management. You can find the 74-page report, An Independent Audit of Grizzly Bear Management at bcauditor.com.

The B.C. government originally made a populist decision that trophy hunting was bad, but stated that hunting for subsistence was permissible, including for food, social and ceremonial purposes by First Nations. The regulations to manage the trophy hunting through non-retention of bear parts were put to public consultation by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

From an administrative, technical, compliance and enforcement perspective, government concluded these regulations were unworkable. This was the message received both from within and outside the government. It really didn’t matter where you sat on the debate, government tried to cut the bear in half to nobody’s satisfaction.

Before a final decision on grizzly-bear hunting, government was left with two choices, leave the status quo, or ban the licensed hunting of grizzly bears. Personally, I would not hunt grizzly bears. However, if the hunt were sustainable, I would not impose my personal values on others to prevent them from participating in the hunt. Populism won out, and now there is no hunt.

First Nations can continue to hunt if they choose to. In my view, the larger issue is that this constitutionally protected right will be hollow when the fish and wildlife populations are gone. The right to gain economically from commercial uses of natural resource under the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples is also in question. First Nations have strong voices and can speak for themselves on how, where and why they want to engage in the grizzly-bear debate.

The bottom line is the NDP government of B.C. and the Green Party of B.C. have chosen a populist view not based on science; that does not bode well for future resource-management policy decisions. Alan Martin is the B.C. Wildlife Federation’s director of strategic initiatives.