Emotion over Science: How “Trophy Hunting” Designations are Closing Hunting Seasons
By: Dean Taylor
Polarization around hunting is far from new and, with the rise of social media and instant-activism, it has almost become part of the territory. While the social stigma around hunting has been well-established and relatively easily endured, the loud voices that spout these uninformed opinions seem to be reaching the ears of those in power and are resulting in some scary new actions against hunting.
The New Jersey Black Bear Hunt
Despite having one of the healthiest bear populations in the country, New Jersey is no stranger to contention around its bear hunt. Hunters in this state are met face to face with this opposition on an annual basis as protesters swarm the state-run check-in stations they are required to visit at the end of every successful bear season. Though COVID has put a temporary stop to these in-person confrontations, the opposition in 2020 is stronger than it has ever been, its loudest voice now coming from the governor of the state.
Governor Phil Murphy has been a strong opponent of bear hunting for his entire reign as governor, banning all bear hunting on state land in 2018 as a temporary appeasement to local activists. While the banning of a hunt on tax-funded land is concerning enough, the governor has now proclaimed that New Jersey’s 2020 bear hunt will be its last should he be re-elected this November. This change comes at a transition period in the state’s bear management plan, as the 5-year management plan which included hunting as a major component is now up for renewal.
The logic behind the ban is predictably thin as much of the scientific data favours the hunt and identifies the state’s bear population as particularly healthy. Like most activism against hunting, common tropes such as trophy hunting are often thrown at the hunt in order to vilify it and further associate it with other hunts that have been banned in the past. This labelling is extremely effective, especially when appealing to urban voters who are easily swayed in opposition to “trophy” hunting and who make up the majority of the voting base. This is evident in the public conversations around bear hunting in New Jersey, with even state officials like former state senator Ray Lesniak using his anecdote of “never seeing bear served at a restaurant” as proof that bear are inedible and hunted purely for thrill and trophy (see video here). This ignorance is especially concerning coming from a state senator, as the selling of wild game has been illegal nationwide for decades and has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of bear meat. The claimed inedibility of bear meat has become a major talking point in discussions around the hunt and has allowed protesters to claim that the hunt’s sole purpose is to provide hunters with wall decorations and “footstools made from bear cubs” (video here).
While watching these uninformed comments may be entertaining for hunters who are separated from the consequences, Canada is far from immune to similar opinions gaining power in politics.
The British Columbia Grizzly Hunt
Canada saw its own emotion-based hunting ban occur in 2017 when the newly elected NDP government ended the province’s long-standing grizzly bear hunt. Similar to the case we’re seeing in New Jersey, the grizzly hunt was banned in spite of overwhelming scientific support, with nearly all of the province’s bear scientists agreeing that the mere 200 annual tags had little impact on the bear population of roughly 15,000. Ignoring the advice of the scientific community, the government decided to go ahead with the ban, claiming that the grizzly hunt had simply fallen out of favour with the general public. While this statement is likely true, the vast majority of the support for the ban came from urban centres in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, an area that makes up well over 60% of the province’s population and where the voters are far removed from the consequences of a hunting ban.
The initial hunting ban put in place by the NDP referred specifically to “trophy hunting”, however, animal rights organizations with celebrity support from the likes of Miley Cyrus saw this wording as a loophole; allowing hunters to get away with the murder of bears under the guise of acquiring food. As pressure from the groups and their supporters mounted, the government soon caved and, as of December 2017, all grizzly bear hunting by non-indigenous hunters was banned in the province of BC.
As seen in the recent New Jersey example, the labelling of grizzly hunting as trophy hunting and its eventual banning came primarily from the animal’s perceived inedibility. In the case of grizzly bears, this is a perception that is even held by some hunters due to its reputation for strong smells and even stronger flavour. While the perception may be prevalent, it can likely be attributed to hunters’ experience with coastal bears where the fish-heavy diet can lead to some unappetizing smells and textures. This, however, is not the case with interior bears where the meat has been closely compared to berry-fed black bear and has been consumed for generations by indigenous and non-indigenous hunters. Outside of North America, Grizzly Bears are also consumed without hesitation, such as in Finland where, as Senator Lesniak would appreciate, it is commonly served in restaurants.
Mountain Lion Hunting In British Columbia
Cougars, or Mountain Lions, are another species that have been lumped into the trophy hunting category in an attempt to shut down its hunting seasons. Although many states and provinces still have seasons for these animals, their hunting has become increasingly contentious and its banning has begun to pick up steam in the political sphere.
Following up on their grizzly bear ban, British Columbia’s NDP government has banned the pursuit-only cougar hunt as of 2020. Pursuit-only seasons are traditionally used by houndsmen to train their dogs for future hunts, treeing cats and then letting them go in hopes of either scaring off problem animals or hunting the animal later in the year. While this new ban may be targeting this particular method of cat hunting, this “death by a thousand cuts” approach to hunting bans has been seen before and the language of animal rights groups and their supporters would suggest that more change is on the way.
https://www.change.org/p/tell-premier-john-horgan-minister-doug-donaldson-to-ban-the-hunting-of-cougar-lynx-bobcat-in-british-columbia-canada
As seen above, petitions to ban these cat hunts have become increasingly popular and is very reminiscent of the movement that banned the bear hunt back in 2017. In fact, this is directly acknowledged in the petition, where it states:
In December of 2017, the BC NDP banned the grizzly bear hunt, due in part to public opposition to an outdated, inhumane and unethical practice. The hunting of cougar, lynx and bobcat is no different than grizzly hunting and belongs in the past.
This petition also acknowledges the government’s recent banning of the pursuit only season as a step in the right direction but will not stop until the hunting of cats in British Columbia has completely ceased as it has for grizzly bears. While 26,000 signatures may not seem like a lot in comparison to the province’s population, it only takes roughly 10,000 signatures to have the petition viewed by the government and based on the province’s history, voices of this kind seem to carry a lot of weight.
Similar to the bear argument in both BC and New Jersey, cats are often lumped into an inedible category that makes the hunting of them very easily pinned as trophy hunting. This attitude towards cats can even be seen from people who support other forms of hunting, such as in this quote from an opinion piece down in Kelowna:
“I realize in today’s society that there are idiots that will say cougars are worth eating but we all know that is more about celebrity status and feeding an ego than anything else.”
As with bears, this perception likely comes from people who have simply never tried Mountain Lion, as anyone who has ever tasted it would tell you it is highly edible and even sought after by some hunters. In fact, the meat may actually be more desirable than bear, being almost indistinguishable from pork when cooked properly.
The Take-Away
As I have mentioned in previous articles, specifically in Sunday Gun Hunting, hunters have a tendency to be rather quiet and insular when it comes to their lifestyle and beliefs. Although this quiet demeanour may have been inconsequential in the past, the rise of social media and the ability for mass influence has left animal rights activists and anti-hunters with an entire platform to themselves and their loud voices have begun to reach the ears of politicians. This influence can now be seen in the banning of once-accepted hunts, the removal of hunting rights on certain public lands, as well as the disinformation around the true nature of hunting and the values of those that enjoy it. These bans and the voices that spark them may be focused on less commonly hunted predators right now, however, the line from bear to moose to elk becomes rather thin when all food sources deemed as uncommon by the public are lumped into a category of trophies.
While I am absolutely advocating for hunters to use these online platforms to promote their lifestyle, I feel that the way we do so is just as important. Comment sections are often filled with fire-with-fire approaches to discussing hunting with its opponents and instagram feeds are often filled with uncaring attitudes towards posting images that are knowingly “poking the bear”. This approach to fighting back against the anti-hunting movement is in no way productive and will not likely win hunters any favours with urban voters and uneducated politicians.
To truly make a difference in these cases, I feel that hunters need to start actively promoting their lifestyle in a positive way to people who may not be familiar with hunting. This could be as simple as having a non-hunter over for dinner or gifting well-prepared game meat to friends who have never had it before. Reaching out to local politicians to let them know about issues that matter to you is another great way of providing those in power with different opinions. In terms of social media, hunters may want to consider posting more meals and less “grip and grins” or more stories and less uncaptioned kills. While there is nothing inherently bad about posting a grip and grin or a hunting picture you’re proud of, I feel that the less hunting is associated with the food and lifestyle it provides the less it will connect with non-hunters and the more easily it can be lumped into a trophy hunting category that has become far too easy to ban.