Tag Archives: Bears

Optimizing Polar Bear Hunting and Fees in Nunavut

Posted on by
Reply

The Canadian territory of Nunavut occupies almost 1/5th of that country but is home to only about 30,000 people — and quite a few polar bears. The territory is occupied largely by Inuit who have long hunted polar bear, and is also home to a multi-million dollar industry in selling polar bear hunting permits to foreigners.

But how the annual polar bear quota is managed and how to best optimize the money earned from the hunt are topics that came to the fore this summer.

In July, the Polar Bear Specialist Group warned that as the Arctic appears to be shrinking from the increase in global temperatures, polar bear habitat is likely to decline as well which could put population pressures on the polar bear. It warned that by 2055, the polar bear population worldwide could decline by up to 30 percent.

Scott Schliebe, a researcher with the Polar Bear Specialist Group, told the CBC News,

We\’re seeing some fairly significant reductions in the actual area that pack ice occupies in the Arctic, and we\’re seeing some thinning in the thickness of the ice.

Schliebe and his fellow researchers issued their warning after Nunavut announced it was going to increase polar bear quotas for 2005. Again, Schliebe told the CBC News that his group believes Nunavut has overestimated the number of polar bears, adding that,

We would like those levels to be adjusted to the current population abundance estimate, 950 animals, and we would like the adjustment to be calculated as sustainable over time,

Nunavut announced in January that it was increasing the 2005 quote by 28 percent, saying that the population of polar bears is on the increase. But if the CBC is to be believed, its method of determining the polar bear population leaves a lot to be desired,

Nunavut\’s environment minister, Olayuk Akesuk, says government officials decided to increase the quota after consulting with Inuit elders and hunters about how much the bear population has increased.

He said the government is open to making more decisions like this on the basis of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or traditional knowledge.

\”We will respect more the say of the community and we want to see more of Inuit knowledge and western science included into one,\” he said.

Especially given the potential profit from polar bears, such increases should be based on sound scientific estimates of the number of polar bears, not hunters opinion about the status of the bear population.

When it comes to profiting off of the bear hunt, however, an economic study of the bear hunt suggests that Nunavut is not maximizing the money it could make off the hunt. In a study funded by Nunavat and the Safari Club, Dr. George Wenzel of McGill University found that of the $2.9 million hunters spend on the polar bear hunt, only half of that ends up in the pockets of the Inuit.

One of Wenzel\’s major findings was that the Inuit may be underpricing polar bear tags. Currently it only charges $30,000 to $35,000, depending on the specific locale, to hunt a polar bear. Wenzel noted that in contrast U.S. hunters pay up to $400,0000 to hunt bighorn sheep in Alberta. As Wenzel told Nunatsiaq News,

If you can sell a sheep for that much, I\’m sure you could sell a polar bear for more money than is coming in.

Currently, only about 50 polar bear hunt tags are sold to outside hunters. The rest are used by traditional Inuit hunters. Wenzel estimated that if Nunavut sold all its polar bear tags to outsiders, it could increase its income from the hunt to $14 million annually even if it stuck with the current $30,000 to $35,000 price.

Sources:

Nunavut hunters can kill more polar bears this year. CBC News, January 10, 2005.


Rethink polar bear hunt quotas, scientists tell Nunavut hunters. CBC News, July 4, 2005.

Boost price for polar bear hunt, researcher says. John Thompson, Nunatsiaq News, August 26, 2005.

Share

Animal Defenders International Calls for Boycott of Sony Ericsson Over Ad Featuring Bear

Posted on by
Reply

After Sony Ericsson launched a TV ad featuring a performing bear, Animal Defenders International has called for a boycott of Sony Ericsson.

In a press release announcing its boycott, ADI chief executive Jan Creamer said,

The training of performing animals is both unnatural and callous, as wild animals are deprived of their species for normal social interaction and their habitat where they roam free. A brutal regime of repetitive training and domination by their trainers frequently involves coercion and physical punishment. In addition, these animals suffer daily as they are caged and chained by suppliers of animals for the TV and movie industries.

. . .

Global brands such as Sony Ericsson should take on board the fact that public opinion has long since moved away from watching performing animals, as the cruelty of their daily lives has been exposed. If the company find it acceptable to continue to use performing animals in this way, we call on their customers to switch phones to other brands.

Source:

ADI Calls for Sony Ericsson boycott. Press Release, Animal Defenders International, August 12, 2005.

Share

New Jersey\’s Fish and Game Council Proposes Bear Hunt

Posted on by
Reply

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council has again proposed a bear hunt this year, saying that it is the best way to deal with complaints about the state\’s bear population which has grown to an estimated 3,400.

Of course the Fish and Game Council proposed a hunt last year, but that was ultimately halted by state environmental chief Bradley Campbell who blocked the hunt. That ultimately ended up in court, where the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Fish and Game Council could not proceed with a hunt without Campbell\’s approval.

This year might be different, however, as the Council has been working with Campbell on plans for a hunt to be combined with a comprehensive bear management plan.

The current plan is to hold public hearings on the bear hunt proposal in September, and then Campbell has to decide whether or not to agree to the hunt which is currently planned to start December 5.

Sources:

New Jersey bear hunt likely. United Press International, August 10, 2005.

Game Panel Approves Hunt To Control N.J.\’s Bear Population. Associated Press, August 10, 2005.

Share

Vietnam Agrees to Phase Out Bear Farms

Posted on by
Reply

In March, the World Society for the Protection of Animals announced that it had reach an agreement with Vietnam to create a task force that would be responsible for managing the phasing out of bear farms in that Asian country.

Although bear farms are already illegal in Vietnam, laws against them have rarely been enforced and the World Society for the Protection of Animals estimates there are about 3,000 bears on such farms.

The bears are raised by farmers to extract their bile which then is used in folk remedies for a wide range of health complaints.

Vietnam has agreed to micro-chip all bears in captivity to monitor farms and gradually close the farms. It will work with the World Society for the Protection of Animals to develop a sanctuary for the bears in Cat Tien National Park.

Source:

Vietnamese government to phase out bear farming. Press release, World Society for the Protection of Animals, March 10, 2005.

Vietnam promises to get rid of bear farms. Agence-France Press, March 10, 2005.

Share

New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Effectively Ends Bear Hunt, But Still Activists Unhappy

Posted on by
Reply

In February the New Jersey Supreme Court made a ruling about the powers of different wildlife agencies in that state that effectively ended any possibility of a bear hunt. But animal rights activists found little else to celebrate in the decision.

New Jersey\’s Fish and Game Council had approved and schedule a bear hunt that was to take place the week of December 6, 2004. They scheduled the bear hunt despite the fact that the Commissioner of New Jersey\’s Department of Environmental Protection opposed the hunt, maintaining that the DEP Commissioner\’s approval was not necessary to hold the hunt.

In February the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, in fact, that the DEP commissioner had final authority over a black bear hunt derived from his general statutory power to approve or disapprove comprehensive statewide policies that affect the black bear population, and statutory language that made it clear the Fish and Game Council\’s policies were \”subject to the approval of the [DEP] commissioner.\”

Since the DEP commissioner has long been opposed to a black bear hunt, the hunt was canceled and is unlikely to return anytime soon.

But other than the black bear hunt, this ruling simply won\’t change anything else. As longtime New Jersey anti-hunting activist Stuart Chaifetz noted in a letter sent out under the auspices of the Animal Protection PAC (emphasis added),

In order for the Commissioner to veto the Council, he or she needs to be in disagreement with the Council\’s policy. This happened with the bear hunt because we made [former New Jersey Governor Jim] McGreevey\’s life hell, and there was no way he wanted to go through that again (kudos to all of you who never relented in your activism, whether it was by calling, writing, or disrupting the former Gov\’s events). The catch is that, save for the bear issue, [DEP Commissioner Bradley] Campbell isn\’t in conflict with the Council over any other species. In fact, at the hearing for the Sunday bowhunting bill, Campbell sent a letter stating he was in favor of the damn thing.

. . .

While we rejoice that the Council has suffered another unprecedented blow (as they did when we set the first non-hunter on the Council 2000) there are still years of brutality ahead. Now, more than ever, we need to continue our growth as a political force so that we may one day be able to wield the power the Supreme Court has given us today.

The full text of the New Jersey Supreme Court\’s decision can be read here(PDF file).

Source:

U.S. Sportsmen\’s Alliance v. N.J. Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey Supreme Court, Decided February 28, 2005.

Supreme Court Ruling – Another Victory Against the Hunters. Stuart Chaifetz, E-mail, February 28, 2005.

Share

After Failure of Bear Baiting Referendum, Maine Activists Focus on Narrower Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

In November, Maine voters handily ejected a referendum that would have banned bear baiting, trapping and hunting bears with hounds. Activists are now turning their attention to legislation to make changes to bear hunting in Maine that may have wider support.

Apparently the lesson activists took from the failure of the referendum is that it was overly broad. Exit polls showed that many people who supported a ban on trapping of bears, for example, voted against the referendum because they nonetheless support bear baiting.

A number of bills being proposed by Maine\’s legislature will narrow that focus to banning the use of leg-hold traps to trap bears. According to the Environmental News Network, Maine is the only state in the country that still allows leg-hold trapping of bears.

One the other hand, these bills might not be quite what activists expect. Green Party Rep. John Seder, for example, is working on a compromise bill with Democrat Rep. Thomas Watson that would ban leg-hold traps, but expand night and Sunday hunting — something that hunting groups in Maine want.

The Humane Society of the United States generous support for the referendum is also drawing legislative reaction. At least one proposed bill would limit the amount of money groups in Maine could accept from out-of-state groups such as HSUS.

Another bill would make it harder to put referendums on the ballot by requiring groups to obtain a certain level of signatures from every county rather in addition to a certain number statewide. The referendum to ban bear baiting was put on the ballot by signatures that were disproportionately collected in urban rather than rural areas of Maine.

Source:

Bear hunting debate shifts to outlawing traps. Environmental News Network, January 28, 2005.

Share

Some Activists Unhappy with HSUS\’ Use of Dead Pigs in Bear Experiments

Posted on by
Reply

The Humane Society of the United States is making some animal rights activist unhappy with an otherwise animal rights-style project.

The HSUS has reached agreements with Six Flags Wild Safari in New Jersey to carry out an experiment in using contraception rather than hunting to control bear populations. The HSUS will do two separate tests, one in which it will inject female bears with PZP and another where it will administer a chemical castration compound, Neutrosol, to male bears.

It is the PZP experiment that had New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance activist Joe Miele complaining in a post to AR-NEWS that \”HSUS [is] exploiting pigs to save bears.\” When injected into bears, PZP causes an immune system reaction that has a byproduct of preventing sperm from fertilizing a female\’s eggs. PZP is obtained by taking tissue from dead pigs.

Vegan birth control it ain\’t. Presumably it was undertaken on one of the days of the week when HSUS doesn\’t oppose animal research.

Source:

Bear contraception to be tested at Six Flags. Brian Murray, New Jersey Star-Ledger, October 8, 2004.

Share

Proponents of Alaska Bear Baiting Ban Complain about Official Election Pamphlet on Measure

Posted on by
Reply

Supporters of a ballot proposal that would ban bear baiting in Alaska were unhappy at wording from their opponents that appeared in the state\’s official pamphlet on the measure.

Alaska\’s Division of Elections printed up 300,000 copies of the pamphlet for Alaskan voters. The major groups supporting and opposing the initiative where asked to provide text describing why they supported or opposed the ballot measure.

Opponents of the measure included text claiming that the ballot measure was,

. . . proposed by out-of-state extremists like Greenpeace and PETA . . . [and] is being heavily funded by numerous national anti-hunting, anti-fishing and environmental obstructionist groups.

Citizens United Against Bear Baiting complained that the opponents\’ text wrongly linked the measure with outside groups and overstated the effect of the law.

A spokeswoman for the Alaska Outdoor Council told the Anchorage Daily News that Citizens United Against Bear Baiting is part of a larger nationwide anti-hunting movement and that its characterization of the proposal was fair.

Laura Glasier, director of the Division of Elections, said that her agency simply would not get involved in fact-checking statements by either side, which would open her agency up to doing so for dozens of candidates and other issues also included in the pamphlet. Glasier told The Associated Press,

I understand their concern. All I can say is, how many people do I hire to check and recheck every candidate\’s statement, every birth date, every address.

Source:

Bear baiting foes growl about election pamphlet. Associated Press, September 23, 2004.

Share

Activists Upset Over Maine Bear Ad, But State Says Ad Is Legal

Posted on by
Reply

Supporters of a ballot proposal that would ban bear trapping, baiting and hunting with dogs were upset over an ad that began running in September featuring a state biologist opposing the initiative.

The ad features Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife bear biologist Jennifer Vashon. Although Vashon is not in uniform, she identifies herself as a state bear biologist with the IFW and goes on to voice her opposition to the bill. The ad goes like this,

\”I\’m Jennifer Vashon, the state\’s bear biologist. Maine\’s bear population is healthy and growing. Today we have over 23,000 black bears – one of the largest bear populations in the country. Our bear hunt is highly regulated and closely monitored by wildlife experts. But Question 2 would ban the most effective methods we use to control bears and minimize conflicts with people.\” After Vashon finishes speaking, the announcer states, \”That\’s why Maine\’s Fish and Wildlife Department strongly opposes Question 2. Vote NO on 2.\”

Those supporting the ballot proposal immediately voiced their objections. Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting\’s Bob Fisk complained that,

It\’s a problem here in our minds. (The department) crossed the line a long time ago and because nobody is making notice of this, they continue to do it. They are not supposed to play that type of role in a referendum campaign.

The IFW responded, however, with a press release to the effect that there was nothing improper about Vashon\’s appearance in the ad.

Martin stated that the department\’s involvement in the bear referendum is based on science, wildlife management, and the relevant facts of the issue. Department personnel are allowed to provide scientific, historic and background information to the public, and respond to questions from the media or citizens about the issues raised in the referendum by any individual organization on any side of the referendum debate.

The advertisement features Department of Inland Fisheries Bear Biologist Jennifer Vashon providing scientific facts about Maine\’s bear population. Vashon\’s statements are substantiated by research that appears on the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website at www.mefishwildlife.com .

Vashon appeared on her own time in the advertisement. The advertisements were produced and paid for by Maine\’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, a coalition consisting of 11,000 individual donors and 600 organizations and businesses opposed to the November 2 referendum question. Vashon\’s appearance is legal under state law that allows public employees to disseminate information on matters such as citizen initiatives.

The Department opposes question 2, due to the fact that passage of the referendum would severely impact the department\’s ability to properly control Maine\’s thriving bear population. Each year, 3,500 – 4,000 bears need to be removed from the population to keep it at 23,000, the largest bear population east of the Mississippi River and one of the largest in the country.

In a press release criticizing the ad, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting said that Vashon had made contradictory claims earlier this year in an e-mail obtained through the state\’s freedom of information act,

Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting pointed to statements made by Ms. Vashon early last year that entirely contradicts recent statements. In an email obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Vashon, in correspondence with the Safari Club International, wrote, “We will not get a population explosion, especially in the span of a few years, as bears do not have the capacity to reproduce that quickly. She continued, \”Many have said that our nuisance complaints will go through the roof, but nuisance bear activity depends more on year-to-year variations in natural food crops and less on the total number of bears in an area, especially since most bears in Maine live in areas with low population densities.\”

Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting charges that the DIF&W is working illegally with the opponents of Question 2 by spending state resources on a referendum campaign, a violation of state and federal law.

Source:

IFW Commissioner States Advertisements Featuring Department Expert Are Legal. Press Release, September 15, 2004.

State Employees Engaging In Blatant Political Activities Should Be Taken Off The Air Immediately. Press Release, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting, September 15, 2004.

DIFW biologist urges \’no\’ vote. Bangor Daily News, September 15, 2004.

Share

Poll Shows Maine Bear Referendum In Trouble

Posted on by
Reply

The Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups have been campaigning for a ballot proposal that would ban the use of baiting, dogs and traps by bear hunters in Maine. The HSUS apparently thought ballot proposal would be a slam dunk, but a September poll by Zogby International found widespread opposition to the proposal.

In a poll of 400 likely Maine voters, 52 percent said they would vote against the ban compared to 35 percent who said they would vote for the ban. Fourteen percent of those surveyed by Zogby said they remained undecided.

HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle suggested the poll was simply wrong since polls done by HSUS in 2001 and 2003 in Maine found solid majorities in favor of a ban on bear baiting. Pacelle told the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, which paid for the poll,

I\’ve helped oversee 20 (state) ballot measures across the country and I wouldn\’t see (such a change) in advance of the campaign advertisements.

However, an early October poll by Strategic Marketing Services comissioned by the newspaper produced similar results — 50 percent opposed to the measure, 33 percent in support and 17 percent undecided.

The full text of the proposed ban can be read here.

Source:

Opposition to tax cap increases, poll finds . Portland Press Herald, October 6, 2004.

Activists surprised by views on bear hunt. Dierdre Fleming, Portland Press Herald, September 12, 2004.

Share