In an article released earlier this year, based on a media release, Bear “occurrences” increase ten-fold despite MNR program, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.) regarding the negative impact of the program set in place by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 1999. The Progressive Conservative government along with the Ministry of Natural Resources eliminated the once popular spring bear hunt in Ontario over ten years ago. The article is opinion based regarding the reintroduction of the spring bear hunt, and is for the reintroduction of the Ontario black bear spring hunt. Throughout the paper, many strong points are given, backed with information and stats to help prove their stance, in other areas however; weak statements lack the reader of a convincing argument. With such a strong opinion on a subject many are not in agreement with, the article states its facts with authority. The analysis of the article will contain three main areas of discussion including; strong points in favour of the spring bear hunt, weak points in favour of the spring bear hunt and how they could be improved.
The article contains many strong facts and good ideas that help prove the view of reintroducing the spring bear hunt along with background information to inform the reader of the past and present effects of banning the spring bear hunt. With the banning of the spring bear hunt, the MNR needed a way to maintain the bear population (only one hunt remained in the fall). After the ban the MNR now tries to manage people and their activities in and out of nature, trying to minimize the encounters of humans and bears, but this remains a much harder task. When the article was written, it stated that just under the halfway point of the year, police have already killed bears in London and Peterborough, Ontario, who possessed a potential threat to humans when they entered the city limits. The encounters do not end there, with near fatal results in Severn Township earlier this year, a man was attacked by a black bear, and he surprisingly escaped with extensive wounds. In the article, a statement released by the MNR earlier reported that human-bear occurrences increased to 12,645 in 2007/2008, from the pervious average of 1,000 prior to the 1999 banning of the spring bear hunt.
Some of the information in the article were quotes from the by Terry Quinney, a member of the O.F.A.H. Provincial Manager of Fish and Wildlife Services. A point being discussed regarding reinstating the spring bear hunt claims that, human-bear conflicts can be minimized by managing bear populations effectively, using “area-specific quotas and an early season [spring] hunt… Reinstating a well-managed spring hunt would provide positive benefits for all concerned – our black bear populations, the economies of northern and central Ontario, and the safety of the general public.” Since the cancellation of the spring bear hunt as stated, the increase in human-bear occurrences has increased tenfold in ten years (a fact that even the MNR has stated in a 2008 report). Also the O.F.A.H. believes that the cancellation of the spring bear hunt has reversed the improved black bear management, which was once preserved when the spring hunt existed, which stabilized the black bear population at an effective number. Without the spring hunt, the MNR and private landowners are exterminating more cubs and sows in the protection of property and society then when the spring hunt existed. These facts and details about the effects of the black bear populations pre and post banning of the spring bear hunt give a powerful and understandable message to the risk of the public with unmanaged bear populations after the spring bear hunt was banned.
Throughout the paper many of the points are strong and precise, regarding the reinstatement of the spring bear hunt, although, some areas lack in-depth coverage of information, which does not help persuade that the spring bear hunt is a good thing to reinstate. Some areas in the article that could have been adjusted to incorporate a better, more in-depth understanding of why the spring hunt should be reinstated, which causes a void in the data delivered to the reader. One point that lacks evidence through examples in the paper is the fact that the spring bear hunt maximizes resource benefits for society, bringing in tens of millions of dollars in economic benefits throughout Ontario, and employment in northern and central Ontario. The fact that it brings in tens of millions of dollars annually is hard to accept without some examples of how it generates this revenue. The author should have states some ways that the spring bear hunt produces this income, some examples that should have been stated could have been, foreign tourism coming into the country, as in American hunters (since black bear hunting in most states is banned altogether). Other examples are out of province hunters, purchasing of hunting licenses, hiring of guides in northern and central Ontario, lodges, flight purchases (to remote lodges, or into the province), and the list can continue to small purchases which would have an economic befit to Ontario.
The article quickly stated that more cubs and sows were being exterminated since the spring hunt was banned, but did not have any further information or facts to back the statement. During the fall or spring bear hunt cubs or sows with cubs are not killed (purposely), and the 30% of bears that are killed during the hunt are sows without females without cubs. In another article produced by the O.F.A.H., stated, “…Today, hundreds, if not thousands of bear are destroyed annually-wasted-instead of being valued and used by hunters… In 2007/2008 alone, the MNR authorized the killing of 23 young-of-the-year cubs, 53 yearlings, 75 adult bears and 61 bears of unknown age, other years have been worse.” (Hare 2009). This data from another article would have been a key concept to add to the article, since it supports the opinion of reinstating the spring hunt. It also helps support the facts that more cubs and sows with cubs are killed each year because of their interaction with the human population and must be exterminated.
Following the data of unnecessary bear extermination due to the banning of the spring bear hunt, further facts that should have been introduced in the article are lacking. To allow the reader to visually acknowledge the number of bears being harvested annually, in comparison to pre and post spring hunt termination. Before the cancellation of the spring hunt, on average 6,280 bears were harvested annually, and now without the spring hunt 5, 719 bears are harvested annually. The MNR claims that in a report that almost the same number of bears are harvested now in the fall hunt alone, as there use to be in both the spring and fall hunts before the ban. Since only the fall hunt exists now, bear populations are affecting moose populations directly. During the spring hunt, bears that would have killed moose calves would have been harvested, during the birthing months for moose. Now moose populations are being decreased since the bear populations have slightly increased, but spring bear populations have dramatically increased, over 50% of moose calves die within the first year, and over 50% of those deaths (25% of total moose calf populations annually) are killed because of black bears. This information would have been a good asset in helping persuade the reader to be for the reintroduction of the spring hunt, but the details were not mentioned in the article.
If the management of the black bear population in Ontario could be maintained in another way with better results, the means of a black bear hunt would not be necessary, but since another way which produces the same results is not available, the spring hunt is needed. Trapping and relocating have been attempted with dismal results, in a statement by the MNR in a related article published by the O.F.A.H., the trapping and relocation of bears has not proven an effective method. Many bears have been trapped, tagged and relocated, but many return to populated areas within a short time period. Even some have been relocated more than once but wonder back, only to be terminated by private landowners or the MNR themselves. This strategy is not aiding in the management of bear populations in public areas, and only proves to end up having the same results time and time again.
Personally I believe the spring black bear hunt should be reintroduced into Ontario. From the strong points stated in the article and the information gathered from other sources, my opinion on the subject at hand is pro spring bear hunt. With human-bear occurrences significantly increased and the extermination of cubs and sows escalated from pre-spring bear hunt, the termination of these bears (during human-bear occurrences) is a waste, and are not valued like they would be by hunters, during the bear hunt. Since other strategies have been attempted, but failed, it only makes sense to go back to the only strategy that has been proven to work, and maintained a stable black bear population in the past. The MNR and provincial government need to reintroduce the spring black bear hunt, and allow hunters to harvest the bears in an effective, well-managed spring hunt, which not only sustains a balanced black bear population, but also the public’s safety and economic benefits for all of Ontario. The article has given an effective and persuasive argument, even with the weak points which have been presented, it persuades the reader of the benefits of having a spring bear hunt, and why it should be reintroduced.
Goodwin, L. (2010, May 26). Bear "occurrences" increase ten-fold despite MNR program - Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters) Retrieved November 05, 2010, from Bear "occurrences" increase ten-fold despite MNR program: http://www.ofah.org/News/index.cfm?ID=3&A=GetDoc&DID=524
Guothro, A. (2010). Bearish Thoughts. (J. Kerr, Ed.) Hunting Annual , 42 (8), p. 10.
Hare, R. (2009, July). Hunter's and Anglers Hotline. Retrieved November 08, 2010, from Ontario of Federation of Anglers and Hunters: http://www.ofah.org/report/
No comments:
Post a Comment