© Dave DoeDo you want to hear something ridiculous? It’s contained in a document called “Building a Wildlife Management Strategy for Ontario: a discussion paper,” prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). It’s full of clichéd prose. I tried to ignore it when it was published last August, but when MNRF held a public meeting on it in October, a colleague twisted my arm and I attended. [teaserbreak]
It pretty well boils down to MNRF worrying about declining numbers of hunters while assuring that no meaningful wildlife management strategy can be produced by its bureaucratically imposed limitations.
First, it defines “wildlife” as excluding 99% of all wild animals by rejecting invertebrates, microbes, and fish, not to mention plants, as “wildlife”—leaving only mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. You get a flavor of what MNRF is up to by noting that, of the 22 photos of an identifiable species of “wildlife,” 19 are ones that are hunted or trapped. There are two that were wiped out and have been “reintroduced” for hunting (elk and wild turkey); one lacking protection (common grackle); one that never naturally occurs in Canada (a Harris’s hawk, used by falconers to kill native wildlife); and only three protected species. There is only one amphibian and no reptiles.
It also claims to want to do the impossible by drawing on “MNRF’s strategic guidance document” that “sets out MNRF’s vision as a healthy and naturally diverse environment that enables and contributes to sustainable development in Ontario.”
Some grammatical confusion aside, one cannot have “sustainable development” indefinitely drawing upon finite “resources.” Judging from its rhetoric, a “resource” is all that wildlife amounts to in the eyes of MNRF. While concerned that “international movement of people and goods facilitates the introduction of invasive species and pathogens,” it sees this as an “opportunity” that “may offer potential for new hunting-related tourism markets.”
The really ridiculous assertion is this: “An aging population means fewer and older hunters and trappers and reduced revenues to the Fish and Wildlife Special Purpose Account; could necessitate changes in the funding structure for wildlife management.”
We baby boomers, plus advances in medical care and declines in smoking, are slightly increasing the percentage of older Ontarians currently. But, if the percentage of younger folks taking up hunting and trapping remains constant, there is no need to worry about declines in revenues generated by those activities.
In fact, there are declining populations of some “game” and “furbearing” species and places where you can kill them, in conjunction with an increasing appreciation for animals as perceptive beings with inherent self-interests (just like us)—and a subsequent decrease in apathy toward their well-being. With the explosive increase in electronic communications and shared images, there is greater awareness of the needless cruelty inherent to hunting and trapping, plus far more extensive and emotionally satisfying ways to become involved with nature.
MNRF needs to awaken to the modern world.
Keep wildlife in the wild,
Barry