"For the first time in B.C. history, an anti-hunting group has bought the
guide-outfitting rights to a prime piece of the province's wilderness with a
view to ending permanently the commercial killing of all animals in the
area."
The numerical and financial clout of the combined anti-hunting movement is often cited. Its ability to trump hunters' groups in advertising and voting campaigns is well demonstrated. But this story illustrates the most frightening potential of those who would see hunting abolished: They may simply buy us out.
But the situation described in this piece seems complicated by the involvement (willing) of native tribes living in the region. Could it be that a strange-bedfellows agreement is in progress? The main target seems to be commercial trophy hunting, largely by foreigners. Native hunting may continue...
"According to provincial regulations, licensed guide-outfitters must continue to facilitate some hunting in areas for which they are responsible. Raincoast conservation director Ian McAllister, who helped broker the deal, said Raincoast
will live up to those obligations by allowing hunting of some ungulates -- hoofed grazing animals -- for food. But henceforth commercial trophy hunting will be a thing of the past."
Then to deal with the local competition?
"First nations representatives, who are negotiating a land and resource
management plan with Victoria, say they hope the deal will be expanded in early
2006 to include a ban on resident sport hunting as well. About 40 per cent of
all animals killed along the coast are killed by resident hunters. 'First
nations don't hunt for trophies,' said Heiltsuk chief Ross Wilson. 'We kill for
need, not desire.'"
Hunting without desire? Weird. Does the chief know his reasoning leaves the tribe vulnerable to the argument that if hunting for food---for "need"---is merely a necessary evil, wouldn't it be better for all parties to bag your groceries at Wal-Mart? Any while your at it, you ought to move into Vancouver apartment complexes (central heat and air!) and leave the wilderness to the animals.
Or at least to another breed of guide service. A second complication to the story appears as native inhabitants and former hunting guides seek the development of eco-tourism and a new source of revenue from abroad. Whatever the outcome here, however many the motives, the precedent of an anti-hunting group finally meeting its agenda by buying the resource outright...that should scare everyone.
1 comment:
The press release from Raincoast foundation describes their deed as "an unprecedented move to make conservation the primary objective in managing wildlife – not sport or profit."
This is a chilling example of First World application of urban values onto wild places and their native peoples. In most other places in the world, countries and their native peoples in wild places can't afford conservation, period. There's not enough grant and foundation money in the world to go around to save all the important biodiversity, so many conservation practitioners are supporting sustainable use of wild animals and resources as an incentive to local people to conserve biodiversity - and their own way of life.
This story chills me like no other. Smacks of the work that animal-rightists do in East Africa, holding governments and native people ransom in the interest of their very First World, urban-centric view of conservation, where somehow Nature is there to be adored by wealthy urbanites in between yoga classes and triple grande skim chai lattes, and by their leave used by charming natives , thus absolving them of racism and coincidentally making them feel spiritual to boot, but to hell with the rest of us.
Post a Comment