INVESTIGATING SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL AND OTHER INFLUENCES ON THE
2017 BRITISH COLUMBIA GRIZZLY BEAR HUNT BAN
by
Bridget C. Kinsley
B.S. Rutgers University, 2005

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
December 2019
© Bridget Kinsley, 2019

Abstract
British Columbia has the largest grizzly bear population in Canada. In 2017, B.C. banned the
hunt of grizzly bears citing a lack of societal support, despite government-cited science that the
hunt was sustainably managed. I explored the factors that influenced popular perceptions of
grizzly bears, the hunt, how these factors may have influenced the province’s decision to
implement the ban, and its reception by various actors. Methods included: examining key claims
in government documents preceding the ban; surveying media coverage of the ban; and
interviewing experts (n = 30) about their role in, and opinion of the ban. Results indicated that
public perception of the hunt, and its framing as a trophy hunt outweighed scientific evidence of
hunt sustainability. However, controversy over the representativeness of the “public opinion”,
and comprehensiveness of government consultation processes remain. I suggest avenues for
further research into roles of social values in natural resource policy.

ii

Acknowledgements
To my supervisor, Dr. Zoë A. Meletis, this thesis would not have been possible without your
unwavering guidance and support. Thank you for your encouragement throughout this entire
process. Thanks also for helping to partially fund this project. Thanks to the Real Estate
Foundation of British Columbia and to UNBC for funding elements of this project.
To my committee members, Dr. Chris Johnson and Dr. Monica Mattfeld. Thank you for your
input in bringing this project to its completion. The knowledge and insights that you both shared
with me along the way were invaluable.
To my interview participants, thank you. This project would not have been possible without the
participation of those experts who took time out of their busy schedules to be interviewed, which
I truly appreciate.
To my friends and support system, here in Prince George including Rebecca DeLorey, Heather
and Lucy Mitchell and Shayna Dolan. I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude for pushing
me to achieve this goal, which at times I felt was impossible.
Finally, to my parents and family, for their support and encouragement to pursue my goals, even
though it meant moving so far from home.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Context ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Animal welfare and related current events in B.C. ............................................................. 4
Context surrounding natural resource management in B.C. .............................................. 7
Natural resource management in B.C. .............................................................................. 10
Claims about the social acceptance of grizzly bears hunting ........................................... 14
Study rationale and research questions .................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2 – Methodology and methods .................................................................................... 17
Approach: qualitative case study ............................................................................................. 17
Adapted grounded theory ......................................................................................................... 19
Theoretical framework: political ecology ................................................................................ 20
Research design ........................................................................................................................ 22
Data Collection......................................................................................................................... 23
Media survey ..................................................................................................................... 23
Expert Interviews .............................................................................................................. 25
Policy Review .................................................................................................................... 27
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 28

iv

Media Survey ..................................................................................................................... 28
Expert Interviews .............................................................................................................. 30
Policy Review .................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 3 – Literature review ................................................................................................... 31
Political ecology ....................................................................................................................... 32
Political ecology of wildlife management/conservation – a focus on hunting .................. 32
The persistent power of science in wildlife management .................................................. 33
Wildlife values and the urban/rural divide ....................................................................... 34
Animal studies .......................................................................................................................... 35
Animal welfare .................................................................................................................. 35
Animal-human relations .................................................................................................... 37
Perceptions of wildlife....................................................................................................... 38
Anthropomorphism and nonhuman charisma ................................................................... 40
Non-human agency............................................................................................................ 41
Natural resource and wildlife management .............................................................................. 42
Science behind the grizzly bear population ...................................................................... 42
Science behind conservation ............................................................................................. 44
Growing interest in holistic management ......................................................................... 46
Chapter 4 – Findings .................................................................................................................. 46
Official rationale and evidence of public opinion for ban implementation ............................. 46
Public opinion by the numbers ................................................................................................. 48
Public opinion resulting from meetings ................................................................................... 50
Summary of overview of public opinion on government consultation processes ................... 52
v

Geographies and cultures of public opinion in B.C. ................................................................ 54
Softening of a geographical divide .......................................................................................... 55
Is the public misinformed on hunt/population numbers and sustainability of the hunt? ......... 58
Arguments in support of the grizzly hunt ................................................................................ 60
Portrayals and perceptions of grizzly bears ............................................................................. 62
Framings of hunters and grizzly bear hunting.......................................................................... 65
Ethical/moral arguments against the grizzly bear hunt ............................................................ 68
The grizzly hunt and animal welfare ........................................................................................ 71
Portrayal of First Nations in the media: ................................................................................... 72
Chapter 5 – Discussion ............................................................................................................... 74
Science in grizzly management: for the hunt or for the species? ............................................. 75
Public opinion was the main influence on the ban but not in a straightforward way .............. 80
Integration of the public should be improved .......................................................................... 82
The urban/rural divide and other key geographies ................................................................... 83
Public acceptance of hunter motivations.................................................................................. 88
The grizzly hunt – a debate about existence vs. utility ............................................................ 91
Homogenization of First Nations: ............................................................................................ 93
Limitations of my project ......................................................................................................... 94
Chapter 6 – Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 97
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 100
Appendix A – Government Website (PDF Version) .............................................................. 114
Appendix B – Map of Grizzly Bear Management Units ....................................................... 115

vi

Appendix C – Procedural manual for the grizzly bear hunt prepared by the Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection (B.C. government website) ............................................... 116
Appendix D - Procedural manual for the grizzly bear hunt prepared by the Ministry of
Environment (B.C. government website)................................................................................ 117
Appendix E – Research Ethics Board Approval Letter ........................................................ 118
Appendix F – Interview Guide................................................................................................. 119
Appendix G – News release from government website ......................................................... 124
Appendix H – Statement from B.C. Government .................................................................. 126
Appendix I – Government announcement of the 2017 ban................................................... 127

vii

List of Tables
Table 1: Names of publications included in media sample focused on the ban of hunting grizzly
bears in B.C. .................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 2: Economic arguments supporting the continuation of the grizzly bear hunt in B.C........ 60
Table 3: Arguments for a potential increase in human-bear conflicts post-ban. .......................... 61
Table 4: Pro-hunt arguments focused on concern for bears. ........................................................ 62

List of Figures
Figure 1: Top section of government website, captured October 16, 2019, displaying links to
science-based documents on the right-hand side of the page. (For full text version of
this webpage, see Appendix A)……………………………………………………... 11
Figure 2: Middle section of government website, captured October 16, 2019, displaying
“science-based harvest management” and conservation plans from 1995. (For full text
version of this webpage, see Appendix A)…………………………………………... 11
Figure 3: Diagram of motivations and attributes for different types of hunting, as found in the
media sample. ...………………………………………………………………..….… 68

viii

Chapter 1 - Introduction
The province of British Columbia (B.C.), Canada is often promoted as a nature-lover’s
dream; a place of pristine wilderness. It provides habitat for many species of charismatic
megafauna, including humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), wolves (Canis lupus),
and various bears such as the Kermode or spirit bear (Ursus americanus kermodei). The
province is also home to the largest percentage of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Canada.
Grizzly bears are a species which is often described as an icon of the wilderness and an
iconic species for B.C. Therefore, grizzly bear management is critical for both ecological
and “human dimensions” reasons.
In Canada, the management of natural resources and wildlife has historically been
controlled by the federal and provincial governments, and largely informed by science. B.C.
is home to a large extractive industry that is also regulated by the federal and provincial
governments. The habitat that supports wildlife like caribou, moose and grizzly bears is the
same land for which industries such as forestry, oil and gas, and mining are competing. The
struggle to balance wildlife and ecosystem health with the economic benefits of industry, and
also maintain the image of “Super, Natural British Columbia” often contributes to
controversial natural resource and wildlife management decisions by government.
This thesis is about a recent wildlife management decision for grizzly bears in B.C. and
the contexts that informed that decision (media; policy; public consultation; stakeholder and
expert input). This is an exploratory look at the factors that influence popular perceptions of
grizzly bears and the grizzly bear hunt, how these factors may have influenced a recent
decision by government to enact a ban, and its reception by various actors.

1

The focus here is on policy changes that led to the 2017 ban on the B.C. provincial grizzly
bear hunt:
1. On August 14, 2017, a grizzly bear trophy hunt ban was announced and went into
effect on November 30th, 2017.
2. On December 18, 2017, a province-wide ban on all hunting of grizzly bears, with
exceptions for First Nations, was announced and went into effect immediately.
The first announcement was made in August 2017 by the Honorable Doug Donaldson,
Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development
(MFLNRORD), stating that the trophy hunt ban was being implemented because the hunt
was not a “socially acceptable practice in 2017” (Pynn, 2017). Four months later, in
December 2017, Donaldson was quoted as describing the decision to expand the ban to
include any and all hunting of grizzly bears (except by Indigenous peoples) by saying: “It's
mostly a social values issue; when it comes down to it, this species is seen as an iconic
species for B.C., and people just weren't willing to accept the hunting of grizzly bears
anymore in this province" (CBC, 2017).
This thesis project evolved as a response to such pronouncements and was designed to
examine claims made about factors contributing to this policy decision, and perceptions of
these factors by different actors connected to the hunt. Through this project I have examined
how public opinion, science, perceptions of wildlife, and other influences contributed to the
ban of the grizzly bear hunt throughout B.C. I did this by examining media coverage,
analyzing policy documents and interviewing experts. Findings from this thesis will add to
literature concerning media portrayals of public opinions on conservation, perceived shifts in
these opinions, and their purported roles in policy decisions.

2

This work is timely as the ban is relatively new and has already been expanded beyond the
original proposed trophy hunt ban announced in August 2017 (which allowed for the
continuation of a meat hunt). It is now a complete ban on all grizzly hunting. Social values
were cited as the reason for both iterations of the ban. When the first version of the ban
(ending the trophy hunt) was announced, the Province began a public consultation period
described by Minister Donaldson as involving both: 1) “face-to-face meetings with hunting
associations, guide outfitters and First Nations” (CBC, 2017); and 2) requests for feedback
from members of the public on two separate documents, each entitled “Policy Intent
Discussion Paper - Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt Ban” on their website (link no longer
available). That consultation period began on October 4, 2017, and ended on November 2,
2017. During that time, the government received input from almost 4,200 respondents
(Government of British Columbia, 2017). According to the government, 78% of the
respondents opposed the hunting of grizzly bears, which informed the expansion of the
August ban in December (Government of British Columbia, 2017).
There is no single, comprehensive document or resource that reports the history of the
grizzly bear hunt, moratorium, bans, and related public opinion and media coverage. The
literature reviews, media survey and interviews that I conducted for this project will begin to
address these gaps. This thesis takes the first steps towards generating a portrait of the social,
scientific, and political landscapes surrounding the ban. The findings from this project will
improve our understandings of the human dimensions of the grizzly bear hunt ban in B.C.
and its precursors. Careful consideration of such information is important given that
attention to context and human dimensions of wildlife issues is necessary for long-term
conservation success (Artelle et al., 2018; Clark, Workman, & Slocombe, 2014; Richie,
Oppenheimer, & Clark, 2012). Documents and presentations resulting from this project will
3

contribute to a better understanding of the ban, and the conservation and management
climates likely to inform future decisions in B.C.
Context
Here, I provide an overview of the bear hunt-related culture and climate regarding animal
welfare, wildlife/natural resource management, and public opinion in B.C. (as related to bear
hunting) leading up to the 2017 bear hunt ban. I am interested in how such elements are
portrayed in: 1) information available on the Government’s website, and 2) media coverage
of related current events and stories. I begin with a brief look into animal welfare and the
categorization of animals, and emphasize potential connections to the B.C. context. This is
followed by an overview of the recent history of North American natural resource/wildlife
management and policy, ending with a discussion of conservation and wildlife management
approaches currently being employed in B.C. and Western Canada. I end with a summary of
the discourses prevalent in discussions of attitudes toward grizzly bears, and the social
acceptability of the grizzly bear hunt, as represented in relevant media.
Animal welfare and related current events in B.C.
One indication of how a society views animals, including wildlife, is to consider its related
laws. According to a government factsheet on animal welfare, B.C.’s Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act is described as “having among the toughest penalties” for “anyone who
causes suffering or distress to an animal in British Columbia”. This document is a
publication of the Ministry of Agriculture, and is mainly in reference to livestock/animal
owners, and cat/dog breeders. This piece of legislation is enforced by the B.C. Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BCSPCA), an organization that also helps to rescue
and protect wildlife. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not apply to wildlife,

4

however. Wildlife is defined in another piece of legislation called the Wildlife Act. The
Wildlife Act defines wildlife as “raptors, threatened species, endangered species, game and
other species of vertebrates prescribed by regulation, and [for some sections of the Act]
includes fish”. The Wildlife Act (which includes bears as “big game”) is typically enforced
by conservation officers, park rangers and police officers. Therefore, from a policy and
enforcement standpoint in B.C., there is a clear distinction between different categories of
animals based on dominant framings of their relationships with humans (e.g. pets, livestock,
wildlife, etc.). Consequently, the ways in which a certain species or an individual animal is
categorized is a key consideration in determining which rights/protections they are afforded,
which piece of legislation is applicable, and which entity/entities are responsible for
enforcement of such.
Members of the B.C. media contribute to and reinforce such categories in terms of what
and how they report information concerning the use, protection, management or conservation
of animals in B.C. Their reporting often illustrates or reflects the significance of such
categories and designations, as well as the influences of such categorizations on rights
afforded to animals and human owners/users/hunters (both in individual cases and more
generally). For example, in February 2018, several outlets reported that an adopted potbelly
pig was killed and eaten by its owners. This caused public outrage, as this pig was classified
as a pet. In North America, particularly in urban centers, the designation of “pet” is seen as
being different from livestock or other categories of animals that one might consume as food.
This potbellied pig was perceived as a domesticated pig but not one to be used for
agricultural or harvest purposes (i.e. the consumption of the pig was not acceptable to many
because the “companion animal” or “pet” category does not allow for consumption in many

5

North American minds) (Preece & Chamberlain, 2009). And yet, B.C. law does not prevent
or forbid the killing of a pet, as long as it is done humanely.
Negative public reactions to the story of the pot-bellied pig illustrate that people can raise
ethical and social objections about the treatment of animals even when no illegal activities
are involved. By extension, one could argue that B.C. laws may not reflect some dominant
social values with respect to animal ethics and common understandings of animal
categorizations. The case of this pig and the reactions to its demise suggest that many people
object to the idea of killing and eating a pet pig (as distinct from an agricultural hog), because
they somehow view pets as a different category of animal, and one worthy of differential
treatment because of this distinct status.
Common conceptions of pets and distinctions made between one type of domesticated
animal (pet pig) and another (agricultural hog) are just one interesting point of consideration
with respect to human-animal relations in B.C. and beyond. Another B.C. arena that acts as a
magnet for lively debate about common categorizations of animals and clashes between
different conceptualizations is the Vancouver Aquarium. It is a site to watch for evidence of
a shift in animal welfare-related beliefs and values in Vancouver that could extend to other
areas of the province. To a certain degree, it is beholden to popular opinion, while also trying
to fulfil educational and scientific mandates that may not always fall neatly in line with
public opinion. For example, John Nightingale, the President and CEO of the Vancouver
Aquarium recently declared that “Things have changed in Vancouver in the court of public
opinion”. He said this while explaining the decision to accept a ban on keeping new
cetaceans (dolphins and whales) at the Aquarium (Lazaruk & Luymes, 2018). Bill S-203
was recently passed, banning all whale and dolphin captivity in Canada (Ending the Captivity
of Whales and Dolphins Act, 2019). The debate on cetaceans in captivity has long preceded
6

the four-year consideration of the recently passed bill, and a postulation of a shift in public
opinion both in Vancouver and in general was put forth in early media coverage of this ban
(Lazaruk & Luymes, 2018; Lindsay, 2018).
Context surrounding natural resource management in B.C.
Wildlife management in Canada often falls under the umbrella of natural resource
management, establishing wildlife as a type of resource among others such as forests,
minerals, and water. This is evident in British Columbia, especially in relation to grizzly
bears, as the management of grizzly bears is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of
Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (MFLNRORD)
(emphasis added). The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (MECCS) also
shares a portion of this responsibility. What exactly each Ministry is responsible for is
unclear, as pointed out in “An Independent Audit of Grizzly Bear Management” (Office of
the Auditor General of British Columbia [Auditor General], 2017). Furthermore, the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC), which informs much of Canadian and
U.S. wildlife management policy, explicitly refers to wildlife as a resource (Eichler &
Baumeister, 2018).
Aside from being equated to a resource, wildlife (especially large carnivores/game species
like the grizzly bear) is also linked to other types of natural resources. For example, the scale
of habitat needed to sustain healthy grizzly populations inevitably links grizzlies to other
natural resources such as the forests and “wildernesses” of B.C. These large areas of habitat
are often the same areas that could be used for resource extraction. Therefore, management
of grizzly bears has potential implications for land use planning decisions (Gibeau,
Clevenger, Herrero, & Wierzchowski, 2002), and vice versa. The War in the Woods, a

7

recent resource-related conflict, culminated with the formation of the Great Bear Rainforest
(GBR). This is indicative of the complex interactions between wildlife and B.C. resource
culture.
The War in the Woods refers to the battle over forestry policy between environmentalists
and logging companies in B.C. A portion of this conflict came to a head with the Clayoquot
Sound protests in 1993. These protests brought B.C. forestry policy to the international
stage, via media attention to activism and responses (Stefanick, 2001). Historically, forestry
in B.C. had been based on a tenure system which enabled private logging companies to lease
portions of crown land in order to harvest timber (Cashore, 2014). After World War II, tree
farm licenses were introduced to the tenure system in an effort “to promote the long-term
sustainability needed to spur capital investment and job creation” (Stefanick, 2001, p. 53).
However, despite the goal of fostering a sustainable level of extraction, government forestry
policy continued to favour logging companies during this time and the forestry industry in
B.C. experienced a boom (Cashore, 2014). By 1994, over 300 communities within B.C.
relied in part or entirely on the forestry industry for employment and income (Stefanick,
2001).
Beginning in the 1970s, activism and advocacy of environmentalists interested in
protecting areas valuable both to the forestry industry and as grizzly bear habitat started to
fight for greater conservation in B.C. At the same time, the political power of First Nations
across B.C. started to gain more recognition from government (Cashore, 2014). Furthermore,
the rise of the internet and social media added new fora and networks for connecting
environment-interested people with information and with each other. In the mid-1990s,
advances in technology further promoted networking between actors in B.C. and likeminded, conservation-oriented groups internationally, putting pressure on B.C. to implement
8

a more sustainable forestry management plan (Cashore, 2014; Page, 2014). All of this
contributed to the environmental management and conservation status quo in B.C. being
challenged in significant ways (Cashore, 2014; Page, 2014). And, this land-related conflict is
linked to and affects wildlife.
In addition to related interventions by First Nations and environmentalist groups, it can be
argued that the grizzly bear itself has used non-human agency to help bring about policy
changes and the preservation of large tracts of important habitat (Dempsey, 2010; Page,
2014). This has largely been accomplished through the non-human charisma inherent within
grizzly bears. This is combined with human framing of grizzly bears as an indicator of
ecosystem health and biodiversity, and as a symbol of wilderness. These characteristics have
made the species a perfect symbol for the protection of the GBR, and First Nations and
environmental groups have employed the grizzly bear more broadly to promote conservation
and management causes (Dempsey, 2010; Kellert, Black, Rush, & Bath, 1996).
Coinciding with, and possibly helping to end the “War in the Woods”, environmental
groups began focusing their efforts on an area that came to be known as the “Great Bear
Rainforest” (GBR) in 1996 (Dempsey, 2010; Page, 2014). The Kermode bear 1 or Spirit bear
was arguably the most prominent symbol used in the ground-breaking collaboration of
disparate stakeholders in the case of the GBR. The grizzly bear, however, was also a
powerful presence in the establishment of the GBR. According to a 1999 Sierra Club
publication entitled “Canada's ancient rainforest: home of the great bears and wild salmon'',
the GBR “ is called the Great Bear Rainforest because it is one of the great grizzly bear
strongholds in the world” (cited by Dempsey, 2010, p. 1150). Large tracts of unfragmented

1

“The Kermode bear is a white phase of the North American black bear that occurs in low
to moderate frequency on British Columbia’s mid-coast” (Marshall & Ritland, 2002, p. 685)

9

land are necessary in order to sustain a viable population of these wide-ranging carnivores,
(Gibeau et al., 2002). The GBR, remaining largely untouched, offered ideal habitat at the
time of its creation (Dempsey, 2010; Page, 2014). Forestry and logging policy in the GBR
were shaped by the necessity to preserve this “critical” grizzly, black and Kermode bear
habitat. Biodiversity and values of First Nations were also contributing factors informing the
formation of the GBR.
Natural resource management in B.C.
Scaling up to B.C. as a whole, science still seems to rule wildlife management, officially.
Today, upon visiting the government website:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animalsecosystems/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/grizzly-bear, it appears that science largely guides
decisions focused on the management of grizzly bear populations and their habitat (see
Figures 1 & 2). In B.C., grizzly bear management is divided between two ministries: the
MFLNRORD and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. According to
a recent report by the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia (2017), “In
establishing and defining the roles of these two ministries, however, government created an
unclear organizational structure for wildlife management” (p. 3). The report also finds that
grizzly bear management decision-making lacks transparency (Auditor General, 2017).
These are two examples that highlight some of the shortcomings of the government in their
related management role.

10

Figure 1: Top section of government website, captured October 16, 2019, displaying links to sciencebased documents on the right-hand side of the page. (For full text version of this webpage, see
Appendix A).

Figure 2: Middle section of government website, captured October 16, 2019, displaying “sciencebased harvest management” and conservation plans from 1995. (For full text version of this webpage,
see Appendix A).

The limitations of strictly science-based management, at the foundational level, are also
evidenced in the dispute over grizzly bear population numbers. Grizzly bear population
estimates have been disputed by researchers and biologists, and these arguments have been
reported by the media. For example, one such article published by CBC reports, “Biologist
Paul Paquet from the Raincoast Conservation Foundation says it's extremely difficult to do a

11

proper count and there could be as few as 6,000 grizzlies in B.C.” (The Canadian Press,
2014). This is in contrast to the often-cited estimate of 15,000 provided to the Province by
their scientists, and reveals that even within the scientific community there exists debate. At
a more complex level, overreliance on primarily science-based wildlife management fails to
address the intricacies of the grizzly bear as situated within a B.C. society composed of
humans (and non-human actors).
Over the past several decades, there are indications of shifts in B.C. towards resource
management that is more holistic and attempts to incorporate social, cultural and economic
aspects alongside environmental concerns (i.e. in the case of ecosystem-based management
used in the GBR). The shift in the management framework in the GBR does not signify an
overall change in management approaches for natural resources in the remainder of the
province, but rather illustrates one case where a shift does seem to have occurred (Howlett,
Rayner, & Tollefson, 2009). The call to include other types of knowledge outside of
traditional Western science, including ethics, public input, traditional ecological knowledge
and/or social values is also present in much of the current literature surrounding wildlife
management (Artelle et al., 2018; Eichler & Baumeister, 2018; Fox & Bekoff, 2011;
Madden, 2004; Vernon, Bischoff-Mattson, & Clark, 2016).
The history of grizzly bear management in B.C. is complex. The unclear delegation of
specific ministry responsibilities cited by the Auditor General report (2017) reflects this. The
shifting geography of grizzly bear population calculations and management is also
complicated. In the mid-1980s, grizzly bear populations were being estimated using
densities based on habitat, and Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) zones
(Hamilton & Austin, 2002). By the early 1990s, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was
being used in re-mapping these density estimates (Hamilton & Austin, 2002). In 1995, the
12

current management structure for grizzly bears was developed. The current system is based
on Grizzly Bear Population Units (GBPUs) (See Appendix B). These are used to estimate
populations, and to track grizzly mortality, including deaths related to both hunting and nonhunting causes (Artelle et al., 2013).
The GBPUs were originally delineated based upon sub-populations of the species
(Hamilton & Austin, 2002). In 2000, the boundaries of the GBPUs were re-drawn to more
closely coincide with harvest Management Units (MUs). This was done to make it easier to
manage overlapping units, especially in the case of hunting regulations (Hamilton & Austin,
2002). The joining of the GBPUs and MUs was important, because management goals such
as population targets and land use plans are established using these units and the
reconfiguration of them reduced overlap (Hamilton & Austin, 2002).
Another potential challenge in grizzly bear management “on the ground” is inadequate
attention to the human context (Chaffin, Gosnell, & Cosens, 2014). The absence of cultural
and social considerations in management plans can sometimes lead to long-lasting, adverse
opinions or an unwillingness by members of the public to consider or act upon science and
management information. For example, perceptions of biologists treating grizzly bears in
inappropriate ways by Indigenous community members caused distrust in the Kluane region
of the Yukon, and the collapse of multiple attempts at collaborative grizzly bear management
planning (Clark et al., 2014). Considering social processes, norms and values pertaining to
grizzly bears could have been of great benefit to those in charge of grizzly bear management
in that case.

13

Claims about the social acceptance of grizzly bears hunting
When examining B.C. Government announcements about the current grizzly bear hunt
ban, official government discourse suggests a shift from science-based decision making, to
one that places greater emphasis on social factors. For example, the official explanation of
2017 changes to the grizzly bear hunt was that changes were being made to better reflect
“social values” (CBC News, 2017). This is different than suggestions captured in media
coverage of the 2001 moratorium on grizzly bear hunting. In that case, science was
frequently cited as a basis for the proposed three-year ban on grizzly bear hunting. Quotes
such as the following reflect the emphasis on science: “Interim NDP leader Joy MacPhail
defended the halt imposed in the months before the election. ‘A three-year moratorium made
perfect sense,’ she said. ‘We decided to err on the side of science.’” (Lunman, 2001).
In theory, science is still a key aspect of grizzly bear management in B.C. But, as
elsewhere, B.C. seems to be creating more space for “human dimensions” considerations.
For example, prior to the most recent cessation of all grizzly bear hunting in December of
2017, the MFLNRORD asked for citizen input on two policy intent discussion papers
(Government of British Columbia, 2017). According to the government, this elicited almost
4,200 responses to these papers. There is little information on the geographical distribution
of these responses, or on respondent demographics. The government did, however,
characterize 78% of respondents as being opposed to the hunting of grizzlies (Government of
British Columbia, 2017). The government also held meetings with different stakeholders and
First Nations, between October 4, 2017, and November 2, 2017, to gain further insights. The
government website offers few details on which groups participated in this process, why, or
what the outcomes were. This project seeks to ask exploratory questions about the role that
science and public opinion are currently playing in B.C. grizzly bear management.
14

Study rationale and research questions
My primary objective was to study contributing influences on the decision-making
process that led to the 2017 B.C. grizzly bear hunt ban. I was interested in the relative roles
played by different influences 1) as conveyed on the government website and through
associated government documents, 2) as represented by the media, and 3) as perceived by
those involved either directly (if/when possible) or indirectly. For example, since November
2017, Hon. Doug Donaldson of the MFLNRORD has made multiple claims in the media
about the attitudes of B.C. residents concerning the hunt of grizzly bears. How accurate and
representative of British Columbians are these claims? What significance do they have in the
decision-making process that led up to this recent change in policy? I investigated such
questions in an attempt to ascertain if B.C. is indeed in the midst of a shift away from
wildlife management decisions based on scientific information, to one prioritizing social
factors in conservation management. Although the government cites social factors as the
major influence on the decision to ban the grizzly hunt, such a shift would contradict claims
in government documents that grizzly bear management is primarily influenced by “the best
available science” (Figures 1 & 2; Appendices C & D).
Therefore, my first research question is:
1. How is/was science, and/or public opinions on grizzly bears and the grizzly
bear hunt (or perceptions of these) incorporated into decisions regarding the
2017 grizzly bear hunt ban in B.C.?
To speak to this, I examined how public opinion and science have affected the recent course
of the B.C. grizzly bear hunt ban. For the purpose of my research, I decided to treat all
iterations of the hunt ban as an evolution of the 2001 moratorium on grizzly bear hunting into
the total ban on grizzly hunting that is in place today. The emphasis in this project, however,
15

is on the 2017 ban and ban extension. I have analyzed influences on the decision to enact the
2017 complete ban of the grizzly bear hunt and also considered the role of those influences
on the two prior iterations of the ban (the 2001 moratorium and the 2017 trophy hunt ban). I
paid particular attention to the context surrounding the case of recent grizzly bear hunt bans
in B.C. (i.e. social, political, scientific, economic, etc. climates).
These considerations allowed me to explore my second research question:
2. Are we in the midst of a significant change in public attitudes and policy
regarding the grizzly bear as a species, or the grizzly bear hunt?
The overall purpose of this research was to determine how different contributing factors (i.e.
science, social values, etc.) appear to have been weighed in the decision to enact the ban, and
if there have been changes between current and past processes in B.C.
Although my research focuses on one species – the grizzly bear – within the specific
context of B.C., my findings could have implications beyond the species and the province.
Grizzly bears can be categorized as large carnivores, charismatic megafauna, and an umbrella
species within their ecosystems (Dempsey, 2010). There is conservation-related research for
each of these classifications, and the framings of changes to the hunt, and public perceptions
of grizzly bears in B.C. could allow for generalizability of my findings within such
categories. Furthermore, decision-makers and others in neighboring provinces and U.S.
states that have grizzly bear populations and current/future hunting regulations may also be
interested in my findings, as similarities may exist across jurisdictions, populations, and
hunts/bans.

16

Chapter 2 – Methodology and methods
Approach: qualitative case study
I used a case study as the methodology for my project because it allowed me to both
ground my topics of interest in a material geography (B.C.), while also connecting it to
broader themes such as claims of shifts in perceptions of wildlife and narratives about
hunting and conservation (Yin, 2006). Also, a case study approach allowed me to explore
the ban in depth using document review, interviews, and related analysis (Yin, 2006). There
are several definitions of a case study, but a commonality that connects them all is the idea of
intensive study of a case within its context (Yin, 1981). To me, that contextual element of
investigation explains why case studies can be used as foundations or “building blocks” for
additional research (Thomas, 2011). I will make suggestions regarding future research in
Chapters 5 and 6.
Furthermore, I chose to use a case study because I wanted to triangulate on a topic, using
several data sets. I wanted to approach the new grizzly bear hunt ban from several angles, to
understand it as a unique process and outcome in B.C., but also nested in wider contexts.
Baxter and Jack (2008) suggest that “…a case study is an excellent opportunity to gain
tremendous insight into a case. It enables the researcher to gather data from a variety of
sources and to converge the data to illuminate the case” (p. 556). Since case studies have to
be delineated, I have defined my case as the 2017 complete ban on all hunting of grizzly
bears in B.C. I decided to treat this ban as the result of evolving policy decisions. The
complete ban and the partial trophy hunt ban that preceded it were foreshadowed by the 2001
moratorium put in place by the New Democratic Party of B.C. before they lost power that
same year. The change of government that followed resulted in an end to the moratorium
within a year of its implementation.
17

My research includes the evolution of the ban over time. Case studies can be longitudinal
when the same case is revisited at different times, especially when research methods involve
the analysis of media discourse or policy document (Baxter, 2016) . My project involves
analyses of media framings of the hunt, bears, and other related concepts. It also includes an
analysis of themes, narratives, and claims in interviews with experts, and an initial
exploration of policy documents. Considering the resulting data and analyses situated in
context, allows for consideration of the history of the ban within past contexts, as a case
study (Yin, 1981).
Using a case study is also appropriate because the ban has been imposed in one particular
place (B.C.), and because I employed mixed methods to gather and analyze the necessary
data (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The two methods I used to collect data were: 1) systematic
review of policy documents and media samples; and 2) analysis of expert interviews. My
data analysis included content analysis, which examined texts both quantitatively to search
for surface topics (e.g. topic counts and topic associations), and qualitatively (e.g. recording
sub-themes and particular vocabularies and words used) for deeper themes (Dunn, 2016). I
used thematic analysis to identify overall themes, and then examined the construction of and
relationships between those themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The combined retrospective has
provided context-related insights into my second research question – about whether or not we
are in the midst of a significant change in B.C. attitudes and policy regarding the grizzly bear
trophy hunt. Case studies can also be used to test or to develop theory (Baxter, 2016).
Through my research, I have sought to test claims about the social climate and its influence
on bear hunt management decision-making process (and the ban).

18

Some have contested the generalizability of the case study approach (Baxter, 2016) but a
case study can produce general findings. I agree with the assessment by Flyvbjerg (2006)
that:
One can often generalize on the basis of a single case, and the case study may
be central to scientific development via generalization as supplement or alternative
to other methods. But formal generalization is overvalued as a source of scientific
development, whereas “the force of example” is underestimated (p. 228).
Elements of a single case can be related to other cases. For instance, it is reasonable to
believe that aspects of my analysis could be helpful to those responsible for moose or caribou
hunt management in B.C. It might also be useful for those managing bear hunts and
populations elsewhere. Different cases of hunt management might include common
narratives and debates about population numbers/trends, sustainability of the hunt, habitat as
an important consideration in management, etc. Similarly, decision-makers and other
grizzly-interested parties in states and provinces outside of B.C. with grizzly bear
populations, hunts and/or hunt bans may also be able to draw useful material from this study.
Adapted grounded theory
One of the goals in this thesis was to compare and contrast expert opinions on the hunt
and ban with messages in the media, to get a sense of divergence and overlap between the
two. For this work, I employed adapted grounded theory, the principles of which are
described by Charmaz (2008) as: “(1) minimizing preconceived ideas about the research
problem and the data, (2) using simultaneous data collection and analysis to inform each
other, (3) remaining open to varied explanations and/ or understandings of the data, and (4)
focusing data analysis to construct middle-range theories”. Grounded theory is used to
search for concepts grounded within the empirical data to generate or contribute to theory
(Burck, 2005). During my data analysis, I sought out themes I anticipated to find as
19

indicated in relevant literature, but also: 1) allowed for themes to emerge from the data; 2)
performed initial steps towards data analysis while continuing to collect data (i.e. at times
editing and/or adding questions in the semi-structured interview based on reflections of
interviews I had already completed); and 3) maintained a journal during data analysis in the
interest of implementing constant comparison analysis when searching for themes (Strauss &
Corbin, 1994).
Theoretical framework: political ecology
Political ecology can be broadly defined as the study of power relations within society,
emphasizing economy and politics (formal and informal) and how the environment changes
over time in response to such factors (Robbins, 2004). From its beginnings, the field of
political ecology has acted as somewhat of a bridge between the natural science of ecology
and the social sciences of cultural ecology (Walker, 2005). Many political ecologyinfluenced scholars also focus on how environmental decision-making and its impacts affect
local, Indigenous, and marginalized populations, particularly in the Global South (McCarthy,
2002). This imbalance towards studying groups located in the Global South or “developing”
communities can be attributed (at least in part) to interest in the entry of such communities
into capitalist market systems. Political ecologists, many of whom are geographers, are
interested in the intersection of politics and environmental decision-making, particularly in
terms of the roles of relationships and power dynamics, in contexts ranging from local to
global (Robbins, 2004). In the last twenty years, political ecology has increasingly been
applied to cases in the Global North, including both North American and European contexts
(McCarthy, 2002; Walker & Fortmann, 2003).
As a field of study, political ecology allows scholars and activists to employ both
biophysical and social sciences, as they see fit, to study human-environment relationships
20

through hierarchies of power (Rocheleau, 2008; Walker, 2005). However, these relationships
are often not linear in nature or influence. So, political ecology has moved into exploring the
dynamics of complex webs of power relationships (Rocheleau, 2008). Given the various
influences of experts, non-expert government, interest groups, and non-human actors in my
study of the grizzly bear hunt ban, political ecology seems an appropriate lens to help me
study the interactions and context of the web of actors involved in the ban. Political ecology
allows me to explore the relative power of these actors and factors involved in the policy
decisions which resulted in the ban. Political ecology is also interested in investigating
environmental phenomena as they occur both in the physical realm and in the socio-cultural
realm (Robbins, 2004), and this ban reflects and impacts both.
The involvement of the general public in addition to First Nations and stakeholder groups
during government consultation, combined with a tradition of making management decisions
based on the “best available science”, makes the grizzly bear hunt ban a unique and complex
case, suitable for examination through the lens of political ecology. Political ecology
encourages the examination or deconstruction of environmental decision-making processes.
Political ecologists argue that this should be done in order to reveal key influences, examine
key discourses or vocabularies, and to consider networks and connections forming the
superstructure for resource management in a particular place. Political ecologists also
advocate for tracing environmental decision-making back through time in order to discover
and document key influences on process and outcomes (Robbins, 2004). As an applied
framework, political ecology supports the longitudinal aspect of my research. According to
Rocheleau (2008), “critical applied geographers could and should move across scales of time
and space, as well as bridging the barriers between critique and technique in resource
management” (p. 717).
21

My research, as presented here, will become part of the bridge between the approach used
in decision making in the case of the ban, and the assessment of such. I will also tailor
different outputs from this research for different audiences, given the mix of applied and
academic interests in this project. Political ecologists support diverse knowledge
mobilization and the idea of for communicating research using a different “voice” depending
on the audience (Rocheleau, 2008). In the following section, I will detail my research design.
The design reflects interests in different types of knowledge, perceptions, framings,
discourses, and processes, as they relate to power, outcomes and influences.
Research design
In order to address my research questions, I developed a research design comprised of
three separate, but related phases: 1) a media survey, 2) interviews with experts, and 3) a
policy review of key documents and internet-accessible materials. These three phases
received focused attention, but also overlapped during my research process. I began with the
media survey, and conducted expert interviews as I was completing analysis of the media
survey. I reviewed policy documents and related texts throughout my project.
I focused my media survey on claims about public perceptions of the grizzly bear
hunt/ban, and common framings of and comments on the ban, the hunt, grizzlies, and bears
more broadly. For this phase, I chose a purposive sample of articles from Canadian media
outlets (n = 496), emphasizing several publications based in B.C. This sample was designed
to include a diverse set of sources in terms of their sizes (circulation numbers and frequency),
home office locations (urban/rural), and approaches (reputations for political leanings). I
attempted to retrieve and examine all articles, editorials, interviews, and letters to the editor
regarding the grizzly bear hunt and portrayals of related public opinion (2000 – 2018). At the
same time as I carried out my media survey, I interviewed experts with considerable
22

knowledge of grizzly bears (n = 30), some of which were involved in the hunt/ban decisionmaking or frequently quoted by or mentioned in the media coverage of the ban. In my policy
review, I sought to cover documents related to decisions on the grizzly bear hunt and grizzly
management in B.C., from 2000 until today, including reports produced for the government,
information found online through the B.C. government website (https://www2.gov.bc.ca) and
government-authored documents. The analysis of the collected data represents a novel set of
consolidated information on the human dimensions of the ban and its history.
Data Collection
Media survey
One of my first research tasks was to compile a history of the grizzly bear hunt and bans
as presented in the media. I did this through a review of all articles that resulted from a
search of the phrase “grizzly bear hunt” on the website for each publication that I chose for
the media survey (Table 1, p.24). My selection of media outlets aimed to include
publications with different main audiences (e.g. rural; urban) to ensure that I was collecting
samples across diverse geographies. I sought to include some newspapers circulated in
northern or rural areas of the province, where populations may be more directly affected by
the grizzly bear hunt ban (e.g. via loss of guiding income).

23

Table 1: Names of publications included in media sample focused on the ban of hunting
grizzly bears in B.C.

Publication
Canadian
Broadcasting
Corporation
Dawson Creek
Mirror
Prince George
Citizen
Salmon Arm
Observer

No. of
articles/
Starting year
80 / 2000
12 / 2011
15 / 2011
17 / 2015

Terrace Standard

20 / 2011

The Globe and Mail

264/2001

The Tyee

9/2005

The Vancouver Sun

79 / 2009

Rationales for inclusion
HQ location/
Market
Weekly Circulation
Toronto, ON /
National
Dawson Creek, BC/
Dawson Creek Area
Prince George, BC/
Prince George
Salmon Arm, BC/
Salmon Arm, BC
Terrace, BC/
Terrace, Stewart,
Hazleton, New Hazleton,
Dease Lake, Inskut, Ness
Valley
Toronto, ON/
National
Vancouver, BC/
British Columbia
Vancouver, BC/
Vancouver

N/A2
9385 (Thursday
distribution only
68,502 (print/digital)
2,000 (print)

9,000 (print)
2,149,124
(print/digital)
N/A2
869,571 (print/digital)

I had originally intended to search for articles dating back to 1990 in order to include more
than two changes in B.C. governments (from New Democratic Party, to BC Liberal Party,
and back). However, the number of articles (n = 764) included in the search from 2000 –
present was more than anticipated, so I decided to end the sample there. The final decision to
limit the scope to the period from the year 2000 to present was also based on a preliminary
review of articles retrieved from The Globe and Mail (chosen because it had the most articles
from 2000 - present at n = 406) from the original idea of 1990 through 2000. The articles

2

Data not available, despite efforts to find publicly available figures and contact publications directly.

24

found during this decade (1990 – 2000), using the same search term, did not appear to have
very much relevance to the history of the 2017 hunt ban. It is for these reasons that in the
end, the media survey began in 2000 instead of 1990.
Expert Interviews
To gain insights into grizzly bear management in B.C., with a focus on the recent ban, I
also needed to engage with experts. I began conducting interviews with identified experts
after receiving approval from the UNBC Research Ethics Board (see Appendix E). I used the
method of peer-referral in order to increase my sample size. Peer-referral is a method by
which one research participant facilitates contact between fellow associates or colleagues
who might be interested in the project with the researcher (Christmann, 2009). I was either
provided names and contact information of potential participants, or my information was
shared by interviewees with other potential candidates (see Question 10 of Appendix F –
Interview guide). In order to recruit experts, I began identifying key actors through contacts
suggested to me by my supervisor, Dr. Zoë A. Meletis and my committee member, Dr. Chris
Johnson. I also introduced my project to the local office of Fish and Wildlife (part of the
MFLNRORD), in Prince George, B.C. and inquired about potential participants.
Each interviewee provided their informed consent to participate in the project. I used
alpha-numeric codes to maintain the confidentiality of each participant. I also screened
published text and removed identifying details (e.g. positions and regions). Furthermore,
interviewee contact information was stored separately from interview data (both electronic or
hard copy). All raw data were kept in locked UNBC offices on password protected
computers/laptops. Only my supervisor, transcriber, and other team members have access to

25

the raw data. The transcriber signed a UNBC confidentiality form and was trained in
respecting and protecting data before beginning the work.
I used a semi-structured interview guide to direct the interviews (see Appendix F). This
approach allowed flexibility in the flow of the conversation while maintaining a level of
consistency in the main topics addressed across all interviews (Dunn, 2016). I asked
participants about their involvement in the decision-making process, individual connections
to and personal values concerning grizzly bears, and perceived relevance of factors in the
formulation of the ban. After obtaining participant consent, I recorded each interview with
an audio recorder. Recording the interviews was invaluable in allowing me to re-listen to
parts of the interview for content on which I wanted clarification. I transcribed interviews at
a later date and used field notes to keep track of any recurrent themes that arose and
connections or insights that became apparent (Charmaz, 2008), including the appearance of
new themes. I also noted atmospheric components (e.g. laughter; pauses) when relevant.
I sought to interview a broad range of expert in order to explore a wide array of
perspectives. I separated the participants into five main categories. I based these categories
on main actor types represented in media coverage of the ban, in order to facilitate
comparisons between the data sets while searching for themes. Most interviewees held more
than one role, and could have been placed in two or more categories. I assigned each
participant to a category based on my interpretation of their primary identity through their
responses. In all, I conducted 30 interviews spread across the categories of: conservation
groups/non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (n = 4); First Nations (n = 4); government (n
= 7); hunters/guide outfitters (n = 9); and scientists/biologists (n = 6). Seven of the
interviewees were women and 23 were men; eight interviews were conducted in-person and
22 were completed over the phone.
26

During the interviews, I tried to remain sensitive to the fact that my research topic could
be controversial and divisive. Changes to hunting legislation have real-life consequences for
people directly involved with the hunt. For these reasons, and to generally reduce risk and
discomfort for participants, my supervisor and I took great care in designing the interview
portion of my research. Questions were formulated to minimize leading questions, and to
minimize risk and discomfort for the interviewee.
In preparation for the interview portion of my data collection, I performed two pilot tests
of the interview guide before using it in the field. One was conducted in-person with an
environmental academic person who is not connected to this research, but who was
previously employed by the Province. The second was conducted over the phone with a
current conservation-related government employee (not connected to this project). These
allowed me to test both modes of delivery (in-person; on the phone) with people who have
similar kinds of expertise and experience to those who will be invited to participate in the
interviews.
Policy Review
I included a policy review in my research design in order to answer policy-related
questions about the role of public opinion in the ban, and to complement my media survey
and interview data. I began by locating policy documents related to grizzly hunt
management from 2000 to present day. My initial search, for documents authored by the
government in relation to grizzly bear management or the ban, yielded few results. Those
that were authored by the province (see Appendices C & D) were procedural manuals that
described policy and harvest procedure. The content of each document was similar, so I
decided to expand my search in order to include documents that informed government policy

27

on grizzly bear management and harvest. I also included news/press releases made during
the announcement of the ban that can be found on the B.C. government website.
Through my search for scientific reports on grizzly bear management, I also found
documents compiled for use by MFLNRORD and the MECCS to inform decisions on grizzly
bear/grizzly bear hunt management (Boyce, Derocher, & Garshelis, 2016; Auditor General,
2017; Peek et al., 2003). I used these documents as the primary sources for the policy
review. I also found “News Releases” (see Appendices G, H & I) and general information on
grizzly bear management through the B.C. Government’s website. I, along with my
supervisor and my committee members, decided that analysis of any additional documents I
found authored by or provided to the government about grizzly bear management, the hunt,
or the ban would be included in the policy review component of this project. I used a total of
five core documents from 2001 through 2017.
Data Analysis
Media Survey
To analyze the media survey data, I used thematic analysis to look for emergent themes
and concepts present in coverage of the grizzly bear hunt ban. In addition to including
articles written by journalists or the Canadian Press, I also included opinion pieces and letters
to the editor as representations of public opinion. I used the qualitative analysis software
NVivo to organize themes under different nodes, which allowed me to refine emergent and
expected themes through the separation or combination of nodes. Expected themes were
based on a combination of relevant literature, casual perusal of media coverage of the ban
prior to the start of my project, and official announcements. For example, based on official
announcements, I began coding for public opinion, politics, and science separately as major

28

themes for the basis of the decision to enact the ban. I then began separating texts under
these codes into those in favour of or opposed to each of these factors. I also considered their
potential influence on the decision to enact the ban.
Although I expected to find major themes such as public opinion and science, a majority
of the coding I completed at the initial stage was to do with emergent codes. For instance, I
began with the node “bear: portrayal” because investigating media portrayal of grizzly bears
was a focus of this project. After the first round of coding, I had 12 different “portrayals”.
After completing my second round of analysis, I was able to collapse some of these nodes
into 5 main themes for media portrayal of bears. Searching for emergent themes allowed me
to consider how themes were composed and constructed, while also thinking about
relationships between themes and actors – typical inclusions in political ecology-informed
work.
Unanticipated themes emerged as I coded the media articles. For example, I expected to
find the theme of a geography-based divide regarding opinions of the ban. I expected this
based on the literature and the distributions of both human and bear populations in B.C. I
considered whether claims of public opinion were reported generally (e.g. about B.C. as a
whole), or whether claims included specific suggested geographies (i.e. rural versus urban).
While investigating claims in the media about opinions held by “urbanites” in the “lower
mainland”, an unexpected theme emerged. Some articles suggested that there was little to no
difference of opinions on the grizzly bear hunt between urban and rural British Columbians.
By beginning with expected themes, and allowing others to emerge, I was able to complete a
comprehensive thematic analysis of my media dataset.

29

Expert Interviews
I completed 30 interviews with experts. My main objective in interviewing those with
grizzly-related positions in government, recreation or conservation, was to learn from people
closely involved in or well-informed on the ban. In order to keep good records of my
interviews I recorded and then later transcribed the interviews. I then uploaded text files into
NVivo. This enabled me to analyze and compare interview data with my media survey data
in the same program. I analyzed the interview data in search of themes which coincided with
or diverged from those present in the other two data sets (media survey; policy documents).
I used a similar thematic coding process for the interview data as I did for the media
survey. I searched for both expected and emergent themes. However, I had more expected
themes to emerge from the interview analysis than from the media survey. This is partly
because I used a semi-structured interview guide and therefore knew most of the topics that
were likely to be discussed (see Appendix F). I was also heavily engaged in thematic
analysis of the media survey before most interviews were conducted or coded. Thematic
analysis of my interview data was also informed by my field notes and relevant literature.
Policy Review
As the final portion of my data analysis, I investigated language and claims present in
government-authored documents related to grizzly bear management, and those that the
government points to as informing management decisions, to triangulate in answering my
research questions. I did not complete a collective analysis of documents collected as part of
the policy review. Instead, documents were analyzed individually because of differences
among them. For example, I did not find it appropriate to include procedural manuals for the
harvest of grizzly bears (see Appendices C & D) produced when the B.C. Liberal Party was

30

in power with news releases authored by the New Democratic Party on the ban. I chose
instead to analyze the content and language of each document in this data set in order to gain
insights into the types of information that has historically informed policy. I compared and
contrasted the analysis of this data set with those of my media survey and expert interviews.
Chapter 3 – Literature review
A critical component of addressing my research questions involved a review of academic
literature relating to public opinions of wildlife, and past and current trends in management
practices. The following section contains summaries of these and related topics. I begin by
discussing relevant literature in political ecology as it pertains to wildlife management and
the 2017 B.C. grizzly hunt ban. This is followed by a section on animal studies, including
the anthropomorphism of bears. I include this since the projection of human characteristics
on to grizzly bears is prominent in the media and no doubt factors into public perceptions of
bears and bear hunts. I also review studies on perceptions of wildlife, specifically grizzly
bears and other large carnivores, and factors that influence these perceptions. I then provide
biological information about grizzly bears, and influences that affect population numbers. I
follow this with an overview of traditional, science-based management approaches to grizzly
populations, highlighting associated limitations. I do this in order to showcase the role of
science as a central component in developing policy for grizzly bear management. I end my
literature review with a short discussion of emerging frameworks in resource management,
including adaptive management, and recommendations for greater inclusion of social context
in natural resource management (Artelle et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2014; COSEWIC, 2012;
Fox & Bekoff, 2011; Housty et al., 2014; Richie et al., 2012).

31

Political ecology
Political ecology of wildlife management/conservation – a focus on hunting
Political ecology has frequently been used to frame or analyze natural resource and
wildlife management, as well as conservation initiatives. Political ecologists investigate the
power dynamics involved in natural resource management, including access, and control of
land and resources. Socio-economic factors such as class, education level and gender can
play a major role in access and control of access to different resources, including wildlife and
game for hunting (Robbins, 2004). For instance, trophy or sport hunting has historically been
critiqued as a privilege afforded to the elite; namely wealthy, white men (Boulé & Mason,
2019; Preece & Chamberlain, 2009).
The sport hunting community has influenced North American management decisions
through monetary donations to different organizations and powerful connections within their
social network. An example can be found by looking at the formation and conservation work
of Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC). DUC was formed in 1930 in order to acquire and create
ideal habitat for waterfowl, with the goal of increasing and managing populations for
sportsmen (Loo, 2011). Loo explains one aspect that contributed to the conservation
achievements of DUC:
To a great extent, the organization’s success in saving wetlands was attributable to the
influence of its wealthy and well-connected leadership and the dollars it could bring to
bear on the task. DUC’s officers and directors were certainly well positioned to open the
doors of various government ministries, but they often found those doors were already
wide open (pp. 191).
Conflicts over water and land use that arose between DUC and neighboring ranches or farms
were usually decided in favour of DUC (Loo, 2011) The powerful relationships possessed by

32

DUC is one aspect of the organization that facilitated its conservation endeavors, and
amplified its political influence.
It has also been argued that trophy hunters have had a major influence on the NAMWC
(Eichler & Baumeister, 2018; Feldpausch-Parker, Parker, & Vidon, 2017). The NAMWC is
the model upon which Canada and the U.S. have based wildlife management practices, and is
focused on game species admitting in the summary, “Game species have received greater
management attention because of public interest and desires, funding mechanisms, and the
management intensity necessary for species that are harvested” (Organ et al., 2012, p. 30).
Although the NAMWC was popularized in the mid 1990s, the tenets upon which it is based
have informed wildlife management since the late 19th century, which illustrates the enduring
power hunters have over management practices.
The persistent power of science in wildlife management
In this thesis, I was also interested in exploring the relative role of science in grizzly bear
management. In this vein, I read about the role of science in North American wildlife
management. Principle 6 of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAMWC)
asserts that “science is the proper tool to discharge wildlife policy” (Organ et al., 2012).
Science as the basis for natural resource and wildlife management is widely accepted. Even
when utilizing the best available science, large carnivore populations are notably difficult to
manage, due in part to their complex role in ecosystems as apex predators (Bergstrom, 2017;
Loo, 2011; Treves et al., 2017). Furthermore, science-based management of large carnivores
can include methods of lethal control that can have unintended consequences and have been
criticized for being inhumane (Bergstrom, 2017; Foran, 2018). Yet despite missteps such as
these, science continues to persist as the foundation for wildlife management decisions.

33

As political ecologists are wont to point out, science and scientific debates are also
susceptible to political forces. A recent paper by Darimont et al. (2018) speculates that
politicians might manipulate inherent uncertainty in scientific estimates in order to feign
support of publicly favoured results in contentious management decisions. Further, open
debate by scientists on numbers like population estimates for a species could be used for
political gain (Treves et al., 2017). In their paper Predators and the public trust, Treves et al.
(2017) warn that “public trust in science may dwindle and the credibility of scientific
evidence in policy debates and legal proceedings may erode” (p.266) in a scenario where
science becomes influenced by political forces.
Another way in which science can be used to influence power dynamics among actors, is
illustrated through the privileging of “Western” science over other forms of knowledge. The
science referred to in the NAMWC is Western science, reflecting a power imbalance in
policy decisions, as it excludes other forms of knowledge, such as traditional ecological
knowledge. In their critique of the NAMWC, Eichler & Baumeister (2018) explain, “The
“true” knowledge determined by the scientists does not take into consideration Native
methodologies, thus disrespecting Indigenous communities and disregarding their ability to
make autonomous conservation decisions” (p. 81). This is an example in which science is
used as a mechanism to privilege one group in society over another.
Wildlife values and the urban/rural divide
Political ecologists study the influence that socioeconomic factors have on power
dynamics of actors in populations. Some of these factors include average education level,
economic status, and place of residence (Manfredo, Teel, & Bright, 2003) and have been
correlated with a difference in social norms and values that inform attitudes towards wildlife.

34

Higher levels of education and economic status, as well as residence in urban areas all
correlate with a decrease in utilitarian attitudes towards wildlife, according to the literature
(George, Slagle, Wilson, Moeller, & Bruskotter, 2016). Therefore, when urban populations
control a disproportionate amount of political power through votes, they are able to influence
popular constructions of conservation issues. This could be the case with the grizzly bear
trophy hunt ban, given the increasingly urban nature of B.C.’s population.
However, there are some recent studies that dispel this apparent divide and its influence on
attitudes towards wildlife/natural resource management (Dwyer & Childs, 2004; McFarlane,
Stumpf-Allen, & Watson, 2007). Migration of individuals and families from an urban setting
to a rural area and vice versa, as well as increased participation of urban residents in
ecotourism are cited as possible reasons for the softening of these geographical divides
(Dwyer & Childs, 2004; Huddart‐Kennedy, Beckley, McFarlane, & Nadeau, 2009). Indeed,
positive attitudes towards animals, and large carnivores in particular, are also associated with
experience and exposure (Kellert et al., 1996). The literature suggests possible influences on
perceptions of and relationships with wildlife, but also emphasizes their complexity and
context-specific nature.
Animal studies
Animal welfare
Animal welfare is different from but related to animal rights. It involves considerations of
the humane and ethical treatment of animals (Foran, 2018). The animal welfare literature
contests the anthropocentric view of animals as a commodity that should be dominated and
exploited by humans (Belicia & Islam, 2018; Preece & Chamberlain, 2009). Instead, animals
are seen to “have intrinsic value or worth, irrespective of their utility to other animals,

35

including humans” (Fox & Bekoff, 2011, p. 129). Individuals within a species are also
afforded their own value as individuals, separate from that of their species as a whole (Foran,
2018; Lorimer, 2007). This ontology challenges the dualism of humans as being separate
from the natural world, including animals.
The belief that the life of each individual animal within a species is important seems to be
gaining momentum across Canada, but wildlife management policy does not fully reflect
this. In his book The Subjugation of Canadian Wildlife, Foran states, “The number of people
who continue to accept the instrumental, humane use of animals as a cultural norm but who
would never consciously harm any living creature is growing. So is the number of those who
recognize a wild being’s inalienable claim to life” (Foran, 2018, pp. 71-72). Foran continues,
addressing the lack of action by Canadian citizens to incite change in management policies
and practices, explaining:
But approving of wild animals and wanting to see them thrive in the wild, while
trusting wildlife management to use the tools of science and common sense to strike a
balance between human interests and wildlife health, is not the same as demanding
that wild animals be treated as individuals, that lethal solutions be abandoned, and
that ethical standards apply to nonhumans (pp. 72).
Much of the literature on animal studies in the social sciences and humanities seeks to further
develop our view of animal-human relationships, in part through softening or eliminating the
divide between humans/society and animals/nature. This has not yet translated into current
policy decisions or management frameworks.
In practice, the treatment and management of wildlife does not place emphasis on
individual lives, but rather looks at the health of the entire species (Foran, 2018).
Management decisions continue to be influenced by the way in which society views nature.
The ways in which wildlife and other animals are perceived is “materially affected by our
degree of identity with the animals at least as much as by the logic of moral consideration”
36

(Preece & Chamberlain, 2009, p. 250). Ethical, moral and emotional considerations, among
others, are factors that inform human perceptions and treatment of different categories of
animals, including wildlife. Such factors change over time and across cultures, continuously
informing our relationship with animals.
Animal-human relations
Indigenous communities and cultures around the globe have unique relationships with the
environment, including wildlife. Many of these relationships include foundations of respect,
of a mutual understanding of individual places within nature, and of related responsibilities
(e.g. humans respecting other apex predators, or hunting prey species in sustainable ways)
(Housty et al., 2014). Some species of wildlife hold a particularly distinctive status among
certain cultures as kin or even a type of deity (Preece & Chamberlain, 2009). These types of
connections to wildlife help to foster a reciprocal relationship between humans and nonhumans (Panelli, 2010). Indigenous peoples of North America, including First Nations in
British Columbia share similar epistemologies, and grizzly bears occupy a highly revered
space within some communities (Bieder, 2005; Kellert et al., 1996). Stories about bears vary,
with bears having a role in the creation of humankind, possessing healing powers, or
controlling the change of the seasons (Bieder, 2005). These tales depict the spiritual
relationship that Indigenous peoples of North America share with bears, resulting in taboos
and ceremonies (Bieder, 2005).
With the introduction of Western or colonial values, a more utilitarian view of nature and
wildlife developed in North America. Here, wildlife was/is perceived primarily as a resource
to be exploited by humans, especially for economic gains (Foran, 2018). This designation as
a resource is reflective of the human-nature binary and the hierarchical inferiority of wildlife

37

in such a dichotomy. But even within the resource hierarchy, it seems wildlife is viewed as
almost trivial. Quoting Foran again from The Subjugation of Canadian Wildlife:
Canada’s place as a global economic force is dependent on its exploitation of natural
resources like minerals, fossil fuels, agricultural products, and lumber. Being way down
on Canada’s hierarchy in terms of human benefit, wildlife are very minor players.
Moreover, with their habitat requirements, wildlife often impinge on other resource
extraction. Decisions as to winners and losers in these situations is not difficult to predict.
[2018, pp. 42]
This perception of wildlife as a resource further ingrains the dominant tendency to view
wildlife as a species rather than individual beings. This view of animals is contested by
many animal welfare scholars, who propose that every animal has inherent worth; that simply
existing affords animals the right to be here, and to be respected (Foran, 2018; Preece &
Chamberlain, 2009; Riley et al., 2002).
The perception that has persisted of wildlife as a resource could have certain associated
benefits. Non-indigenous, North American hunters tend to view wildlife as a harvestable
resource. Thus, it is within hunters’ best interests to ensure that populations remain healthy
enough for harvest each year (Feldpausch-Parker et al., 2017). The NAMWC focuses on
hunters and their roles in conservation (Eichler & Baumeister, 2018). This is namely done
through conservation revenues garnered from hunting and the objective to maintain
population levels for future generations (Organ et al., 2012). Although hunters have been
framed as stewards of wildlife, it is unclear if this extends to large carnivores, like the grizzly
bear, which are often in competition for resources and habitat with humans (Treves, 2009),
and are rarely hunted explicitly for sustenance or wildlife management.
Perceptions of wildlife
The idea that wildlife has value, whether as a resource or intrinsically, is often
accompanied by the purview that it should be protected (Cashore, 2014). However, not all
38

species are viewed equally in the eye of members of the public and other experts. Grizzly
bears, for instance, are commodified and treated as a natural resource for exploitation and/or
conservation, by both the B.C. public and Canada more broadly. Scholars and practitioners
have researched economic advantages of different uses of grizzly bears, such as bear viewing
and trophy hunting (Honey et al., 2016). As I have discussed in the previous section, the
commodification of grizzly bears as a resource does not consider the value or rights of an
individual bear.
Grizzly bears, and sometimes the hunting of them, are also linked to important cultural
values and practices for many First Nations (Hamilton & Austin, 2002). Factors in addition
to cultural affiliations and values have also been found to influence individual perceptions of
grizzly bears and other large carnivores in North America. These include gender,
stakeholder/community affiliation, education/economic status, etc. and the social norms that
exist within each of these (Bruskotter, Vaske, & Schmidt, 2009; Preece & Chamberlain,
2009). Exposure to and knowledge about specific species are also factors that influence
human opinions of species. This is especially important in the case of large carnivores such
as grizzly bears, which have associated risk factors that can contribute to human fear of the
species (Houston, Bruskotter, & Fan, 2010; Johansson, Sjöström, Karlsson, & Brännlund,
2012; Thornton & Quinn, 2009).
Attitudes towards wildlife are species-specific, and also context specific (Bruskotter et al.,
2009; George et al., 2016). For example, the charisma associated with large carnivore
species, such as wolves or grizzly bears, often elicits emotional responses from various
stakeholders and the public, which can influence management policy and practice (Bruskotter
et al., 2009; Kellert et al., 1996). However, context can also be an important variable. A
grizzly bear viewed from a safe distance, catching salmon in the wild, will likely be
39

perceived differently than a grizzly bear prepared to charge while in close proximity to an
observer. The former situation has associated benefits (e.g. an opportunity to appreciate an
animal’s majesty and ecological role in “nature”), whereas the latter would likely leave the
human feeling vulnerable and frightened because of perceived risks and potential negative
outcomes. The relative risk and/or benefits associated with an animal have been found to be
key components of general perceptions of bear species (Booth & Ryan, 2016).
The grizzly bear has experienced varied historical representations and reputations
throughout North America, over time. Throughout history, grizzlies have been 1) revered
and respected; 2) feared and loathed; 3) regarded as pests or nuisances; and 4) seen as an icon
of North American wilderness (COSEWIC, 2012; Kellert et al., 1996). They can be viewed
through various lenses including scientific, economic, political, cultural and social ones.
They are also considered as a focal species by some biologists and conservationists, meaning
that they are sensitive to human impacts, changes in habitat and can be representative of
ecosystem health (Dempsey, 2010). Perceptions of grizzly bears are also influenced by the
human-like attributes we project onto them through anthropomorphism and charisma.
Anthropomorphism and nonhuman charisma
Anthropomorphism is the projection of human characteristics onto animals (Daston &
Mitman, 2014). These characteristics (i.e. emotions; personality attributes; social
relationships; physical similarities; etc.) can be projected onto an individual animal, or an
entire species (Daston & Mitman, 2014). Anthropomorphism (i.e. portraying and viewing
bears to be human-like in various ways) can influence public perceptions of wildlife. These
public perceptions can then play an important role in the formation or alteration of laws and
policy, as these often reflect cultural changes in society (Preece & Chamberlain, 2009). Most
natural scientists and biologists tend to try and avoid anthropomorphic sentiments towards
40

their subjects, as these types of feelings are thought to have negative consequences on the
“unbiased” ideologies of these branches of science (Lorimer, 2007; Preece & Chamberlain,
2009).
Aside from characteristics which we humans often project onto animals, individual
animals and entire species also possess their own inherent charisma. This nonhuman
charisma has been afforded to many different species, including large carnivores and grizzly
bears through the designation of the animal as charismatic megafauna. Lorimer (2007)
defines nonhuman charisma “as the distinguishing properties of a nonhuman entity or process
that determine its perception by humans and its subsequent evaluation” (p. 916). They also
describe this charisma as being comprised of ecological, aesthetic and corporeal. While
charisma can be interpreted as either positive (cute and cuddly, etc.) or negative, it can prove
to be an asset in promoting public awareness and opinion of certain conservation issues
(Collard, 2013; Dempsey, 2010; Hovorka, 2018). Nonhuman charisma can affect the power
and influence a species has on its own conservation, with animals operating as actors within a
network, possessing their own agency (ibid.).
Non-human agency
There is a growing body of literature that affords non-humans and animals, not only the
attributes of sentience and cognition, but also their own agency (Fox & Bekoff, 2011).
Nonhuman agency is the power an individual (human or non) has to influence and alter the
world around them (Dempsey, 2010). In the paper, Tracking grizzly bears in British
Columbia's environmental politics (2010), Jessica Dempsey explores the impact of the nonhuman actor, the grizzly bear, in the formation of the GBR. Dempsey describes the role of

41

the bear as:
The grizzly bear in the GBR is not an inert, passive object that environmentalists use as a
pawn in their games, or just a symbol. The grizzly bear is a nonhuman whose presence in
the space and in its past and present relationships with others, influences the `state of
affairs', helping give shape to new political-economic geographies in B.C. (p. 1142).
This stance attributes value and power to grizzly bears and their position within humannonhuman networks.
Not all nonhuman agency is created equal. Charisma (and other characteristics) that
grizzly bears possess facilitates their impact on conservation campaigns such as the
formation of the GBR. It influences their agency and helps to allow for the alteration of
environmental politics in habitat they occupy, which extends to other flora and fauna who
may not be granted the same level of influence. As Hovorka explains, “animal lives are
shaped by their power relative to other animals, as enmeshed with human relations and
orderings in hierarchical networks. Thus, human-animal relations necessarily shape the haves
and have-nots of animal social groups (i.e. animal-animal relations)” (Hovorka, 2018, p. 5).
Hovorka continues, while referencing Dempsey (2010), that in the case of the grizzly bear in
B.C., “human privileging of grizzly bears brings with it policies and resources that other
species do not directly receive (although they may benefit indirectly)” (p.6).
Natural resource and wildlife management
Science behind the grizzly bear population
In addition to being science-informed, conservation efforts are often designed to consider
the protection-related classification(s) of an animal species as related to population numbers
and population health (Artelle et al., 2018). Thus, sound population science is central to
conservation assessment and protections. While a good deal of scientific research has been
focused on bears and grizzly bears more specifically (Hamilton, Heard, & Austin, 2004;
42

Housty et al., 2014; McLellan, Mowat, Hamilton, & Hatter, 2017), there is still a fair bit of
uncertainty about the grizzly bear population, its health and mortality rates in B.C., at least
according to some researchers (Artelle et al., 2013; McLoughlin, 2003; Peek et al., 2003).
Grizzly bear population numbers are, however, very difficult to determine for a number of
reasons (Mowat & Strobeck, 2000). First, the home range of grizzlies can be quite large
(Gibeau et al., 2002). For instance, the average range for a female bear is approximately 400
km2 (Interim Assessment Protocol for Grizzly Bear in British Columbia, 2017), while a
subadult (after separation from its mother until breeding maturity is reached) male grizzly
bear male can be cover over 11,000 km2 (Gau, 2004). This, among other variables (e.g.
topography; habitat types; food availability) makes estimating the total number of bears in
B.C. using regional populations or using geographical parameters difficult.
Other determinants of population fitness, such as reproductive productivity, also need to
be evaluated when trying to establish and assess population numbers (McLoughlin, 2003).
Female grizzlies are often considered separately from the total population, as their survival
and reproductive success are crucial to the future of the species (Hamilton & Austin, 2002).
Grizzly bears have slow reproductive rates (Artelle et al., 2013) and female grizzlies do not
reach sexual maturity until relatively late ages as compared with other species. Grizzlies
produce their first cubs at age six, on average (COSEWIC, 2012; McLellan et al., 1999).
Cubs also stay with their mother for up to two years, and the mother does not mate during
this time (COSEWIC, 2012). Another consideration is that according to some studies,
females are thought to be most susceptible to human impacts on the environment (Gibeau et
al., 2002).
Grizzly bear cubs, like all young wildlife, face many struggles when it comes to surviving
to maturity. Adult males are known to kill cubs in order to draw their mothers away from
43

their care, and mate with reproductive females (Wielgus & Bunnell, 2000). Even when cubs
do survive attacks from competing cannibalistic males, they face many other obstacles to
survival. Because grizzlies are an apex species, without any natural predators, survival of
individual grizzly bears is largely influenced by anthropogenic impacts (Artelle et al., 2013;
Linke, McDermid, Fortin, & Stenhouse, 2013). Human activities such as logging, coal, oil
and/or gas extraction, and the roads created to undertake these activities can have major
effects on grizzly bear habitat, and therefore their population numbers (Gibeau et al., 2002;
Linke et al., 2013). Encroachment of neighborhoods into grizzly bear habitat can also cause
habituation to humans, increasing the likelihood of human-caused mortality (Gibeau et al.,
2002).
Science behind conservation
In the past several years, there has been much debate concerning grizzly bear population
estimates and uncertainty in mortality rates in relation to the B.C. hunt, particularly with
respect to the B.C. trophy hunt (Artelle et al., 2013; McLellan et al., 2017; McLoughlin,
2003; Mowat & Strobeck, 2000). BC’s grizzly bear populations are thought to be able to
withstand a maximum (sustainable) total number of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities
between 4% and 6% of the population (McLellan et al., 2017). The most widely cited study,
performed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC),
estimated the population to be approximately 15,000 in BC (COSEWIC, 2012). However,
the COSEWIC report and other studies concede that the current population estimates are
exactly that – estimates – and are therefore inherently uncertain (Artelle et al., 2013; Boyce et
al., 2016). Yet, studies do exist which present findings that support the sustainability of the
hunt (Boyce et al., 2016; McLellan et al., 2017). Therefore, while the hunt may be highly

44

regulated and sufficiently managed, not having established, precise population numbers
presents a problem when calculating sustainable percentages of that population that can be
designated for harvest. Currently, there are procedures within the management of the hunt
that do “not adequately account for uncertainty in populations and unreported mortalities, and
is not transparent as to how the ministry considers uncertainty when allocating hunting
licences” (Auditor General, 2017, p. 7).
Scientific-based management, focused on biology and ecology, has however been the
standard for grizzly bear management in B.C. (Hamilton & Austin, 2002). Top-down
management, typically overseen by a government agency has been the framework typical of
most conservation approaches (Chaffin et al., 2014). In recent decades, it has become
increasingly evident that this style of management has many problems. First, the science
itself can be imperfect. Although it is supposed to provide factual information gathered
objectively, this may not always be the case. Objectivity can be compromised, and scientific
findings can be interpreted in different ways, which can make it difficult or impossible to
reach a consensus (Ludwig, Hilborn, & Walters, 1993). Furthermore, science-based
management can be carried out in diverse ways, and is not carried out in a political vacuum.
One branch or ministry of the government, could for example, wield an unfair amount of
power over decision making (Clark & Slocombe, 2011). For instance, a case study of the
Foothills Model Forest in Alberta (Clark & Slocombe, 2011) revealed that simply reshuffling one group of participants involved in a collaborative project for grizzly bear
management caused the failure of a well-researched and designed grizzly bear conservation
strategy. Finally, human and social factors that affect the ecosystem, and bear populations
within it, are not usually given adequate consideration within top-down science-based
management (Chaffin et al., 2014).
45

Growing interest in holistic management
Since the early 2000s, a more inclusive type of resource management style termed
adaptive governance (also commonly referred to as adaptive co-management) has been
growing in popularity in B.C. (Chaffin et al., 2014). Adaptive governance avoids
oversimplifications that can be associated with bureaucratic science-based approaches, by
incorporating complexities of the social climate into ecosystem management plans. This is
done, for example, by including input from stakeholder groups and communities during
decision making processes (Ascher, 2014; Richie et al., 2012). Adaptive governance as an
approach positions natural resources and their management contextually, and requires a
flexible framework, allowing for adaptations to address changes in contributing social and
ecological factors (Chaffin et al., 2014). It is a more holistic approach which calls on related
actors to understand conservation as best practiced when emphasis is placed well beyond
governance of a single natural resource, or a single ecological area (i.e. a forest or
watershed). The management scale employed in this case is one of social-ecological
systems, with greater appreciation for “human dimensions” as part of the environment
(Cheng, Kruger, & Daniels, 2003).
Chapter 4 – Findings
Official rationale and evidence of public opinion for ban implementation
Doug Donaldson, Minister of the MFLNRORD, suggested that the official basis for the
2017 grizzly bear hunt ban was “mostly a social values issue” (CBC, 2017). Media coverage
of this notably different type of announcement (i.e. in contrast with claims of “the best
available science” that often accompany conservation and management announcements) set
the foundation for criticisms, praise and other reactions. Reactions captured by the media are
from members of the general public, representatives from non-governmental organizations
46

involved with grizzly bear conservation, people whose livelihoods had incorporated the now
illegal hunt (e.g. guide outfitters), grizzly bear scientists, representatives and staff members
from different political parties, and members of some First Nations communities.
Official government statements about the ban, also captured in the media, repeatedly
presented the ban as stemming from and reflecting public opinion. For example, one article
in the Tyee, “NDP Government to End Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunting” (Gilchrist, 2017)
suggests:
“By bringing trophy hunting of grizzlies to an end, we’re delivering on our commitment to
British Columbians,” Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource
Operations and Rural Development, said. “This action is supported by the vast majority of
people across our province.”
A public opinion poll conducted by Insights West in February 2017 found strong
opposition to trophy hunting across Canada (80 per cent), including 90 per cent of British
Columbians.
Proclamations such as this, which characterize this new ban as representing the values of a
majority of British Columbians are commonplace in media coverage of the announcement.
The lack of public support for the hunt is presented as a fact, and often supported by statistics
from polls conducted by Insights West (a market research company in Vancouver) and the
government consultation process. The government’s public consultations preceding the ban
(October 2017 through November 2017) were comprised of two parts: 1) responses to the
policy intent papers on the government website; and 2) meetings with First Nations and
various stakeholders. The number of responses to the online papers (4,180) and the
percentage of those responses who were in favour of the ban (78%) are available on the
government website (see Appendix G) and are often cited as supplemental proof of public
opinion supporting a ban. Details concerning which or how many First Nations communities
or stakeholders were involved in the meetings are not discussed in the government’s
47

description of the consultation process in their statement (see Appendix H), nor are they
specified in media coverage.
Public opinion by the numbers
There are very few instances in which polls or the first aspect of government-led public
consultation (online responses to the policy intent papers) are questioned in present media
coverage of the 2017 ban. The following excerpt illustrates a common way such statistics are
presented:
Forests Minister Doug Donaldson said the decision came about during the ministry's
consultation process on implementing the end of the trophy hunt, first announced in
August. "It's mostly a social values issue," Donaldson said. "When it comes down to it,
this species is seen as an iconic species for B.C., and people just weren't willing to accept
the hunting of grizzly bears anymore in this province."
According to Donaldson, 78 per cent of almost 4,200 respondents called for an end to the
hunt altogether. (CBC News, 2017)
The percentage presented and the word iconic suggest a shared valuation of the species as
important. No breakdown of geographic distribution or demographics for online consultation
respondents is provided.
Polling results, which are also presented as factual data for public opinion across the
province, tend to be reported with slightly more detail. As reported in one Vancouver Sun
article:
About three-quarters of rural British Columbians oppose the grizzly bear trophy hunt,
according to an Insights West poll conducted in March for an ecotourism group.
The poll found an average of 74 per cent opposed grizzly trophy hunting in five Liberal
ridings: Kamloops-North Thompson, Boundary-Similkameen, Fraser Nicola, Cariboo
North and Kootenay East.
A 2015 Insights West poll found that 91 per cent of British Columbians oppose the grizzly
trophy hunt (Pynn, 2017).
This excerpt also suggests a perceived split between opinions of urban and rural residents. I
will discuss this in greater detail later.
48

Polls are also present in media pieces on the 2001 moratorium, although they are not as
prevalent. Details such as who conducted the poll, or information on who was polled is not
provided by the media coverage of polling on the 2001 moratorium. Similar to the 2017
numbers, the results are presented as being province-wide. For example, in The Globe and
Mail article, “B.C. ban on hunting grizzly bears may be temporary” (Matas, 2001) states, “A
group of 68 biologists have called for a moratorium until comprehensive population studies
were completed. More than 100 tourism operators have also called for an end to the hunt.
The most recent public-opinion poll, taken five years ago, showed 77 per cent of British
Columbians wanted a ban”. The inclusion of scientists and other stakeholders’ opinions in
this example lend further credibility to the numbers presented.
In contrast to the media survey, the experts that I interviewed were aware of the polls and
consultation process, and questioned and critiqued them. For one, the phrasing of poll
questions, specifically, was met with skepticism by 5 of 30 of interview participants, as
evidenced in this response by participant G3:
I saw those polls and I questioned their validity, like I question the validity of any poll.
Part of it is the way the questions are worded, can influence the answer that people give. I
mean if the question is “do you support the barbaric slaughter of grizzly bears for the
purpose of trophies?”, people are going to say no. And if the question is posed, you know,
“do you support the scientific management to have a sustainable harvest of grizzly
bears?”, people may have a different answer.
This participant continued to question the scope of the polls by asking, “So, how valid are
polls, you know? I just question all of them, all the time. Do they really get a representative
sample? Do they sample enough people? What are the other biases? Things like that”.
Similar questions regarding validity and scope are also present with respect to the online
portion of government consultation.

49

Experts also made suggestions about possible particular geographies of opinions.
Comments about geographies of correspondents emerged as a prominent issue in the
interview data concerning polls or public consultation. The theme of rural/urban divide in
B.C. was discussed by 19 out of 30 (almost two-thirds of) participants. Some interviewees
raised questions about places of residency represented in online responses, and the role that
urban influence might have played.
The comprehensiveness of feedback gained from the online policy intent papers was also
challenged by some experts. For instance, H9 stated:
I don't care whether it’s to open or to close but, if it's done by polls and public opinion, it
needs to be a little bit more robust than 4000 people submitting on a website when they
don't even know if they were B.C. residents, or it was a campaign or whatever.
Participant G7 confirmed the suspicions of H9, stating
I think you have to say where you’re writing from. I don’t know if there’s any kind of
tracking though. Like, did you, you know you said you’re from Prince George, but you’re
from Vancouver – I don’t know. But I think that engagebc is a lot further along than…
we simply posted it on our website - the proposal - so obviously we couldn’t track… well,
let’s just say that 90% of the comments came from Vancouver – we just wouldn’t know.
These statements suggest that some grizzly-interested experts questioned the validity and
inclusiveness of the provincial government’s engagement process, as well as the
corresponding results.
Public opinion resulting from meetings
With respect to the second aspect of government consultation before the ban, the meetings
conducted with stakeholders and First Nations, little information can be found on government
websites or in the media. Vague statements such as “Emails and letters were also sent to
wildlife stakeholders and non-government organizations involved in grizzly bear research
and management. Several meetings were held with most of these organizations” and
“Meetings were also set up with First Nations” are found on the B.C. government website
50

(see Appendix G). The media coverage is similarly lacking in detail when it comes to this
part of the process. For example, one CBC article reports, “Donaldson said the consultation
process also involved face-to-face meetings with hunting associations, guide outfitters and
First Nations” (CBC News, 2017). These examples illustrate a lack of transparency in the
consultation process.
Data from both the media survey and the interviews suggested a distrust of this
consultation process. In media coverage, questions arose about both: a) who was consulted;
and b) the legitimacy of the motives behind the consultations. The media also captured
certain stakeholder groups and members of First Nations communities expressing frustration
about exclusion from the government consultation period. In one article, comments by John
Rustad, the MLA for Nechako Lakes and the former Forests and Aboriginal Relations
Minister in the recent B.C. Liberal government, was paraphrased as asking “why Donaldson
would announce the policy and the deadline without consulting resident hunters, guideoutfitters or aboriginal communities” (Fletcher, 2017). Another example states:
Mark Werner of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. said he was disappointed that his
group wasn’t consulted extensively during development of the new regulations. He argued
that the true threat to grizzly populations isn't hunting. "If you want to do something great
for grizzly bears, let's work on habitat. Shutting down small businesses in this province
isn't going to help grizzly bears," Werner said (Johnson & Lindsay, 2017).
In both examples, frustrations over lack of access to the decision-making process by certain
groups or organizations is evident.
In my interview data, expert opinions of the second part of government consultation on
the 2017 ban echo many of the same criticisms present in the media. Experts raised the lack
of consultation with certain stakeholder groups and First Nations, and questioned the
geographic distributions of those consulted during the government process. Expert N2

51

illustrated these ideas, stating:
Well I definitely think that there should have been more consultation with First Nations,
with guide outfitters, with people who live in remote areas in the north. I think the
decision was largely based on opinions of people who live in the south. You know, animal
lovers and what not. I don't think that the safety of people in the back country was really
taken into consideration, or how many ungulates are taken by grizzlies. So, the
predator/prey ratio in our area, you know that wasn't taken into consideration, so…
In reference to the legitimacy of the consultations (i.e. whether the result was pre-determined
by government), participant H1 said:
Well I was on the team with the B.C. Wildlife Federation 3, which the government consults
with. We were consulted in terms of the initial response from government, which was
requiring meat to be – all edible portions to be brought out. We were not consulted on the
ban.
When asked to clarify that this response was referring to the initial trophy hunt ban, rather
than the expansion to the full ban, the participant explained, “Right. So, yeah. We weren’t
given any heads up other than maybe the day before the announcement was made, on the
December decision”.
Summary of overview of public opinion on government consultation processes
The motivations for and the legitimacy of the government-led consultation process was
met with varying degrees of skepticism in both the media sample and the interviews I
conducted. Both questioned the comprehensiveness of the consultation including
geographical distribution, whether those who responded provided an accurate representation
of the province, and if some groups/organizations were disproportionately represented.

3

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is an organization that represents and advocates for resident hunters, outdoor
recreationalists, etc. According to their website (https://bcwf.bc.ca/), their mission is “To protect, enhance and
promote the wise use of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,” and to:
 Ensure public access to recreational and outdoor activities, fish and wildlife resources and crown land.
 Provide science/fact-based solutions for its members and other stakeholders in B.C.

52

Sometimes, a higher level of skepticism was also expressed. One CBC article stated,
“There's also the question of whether the consultations have changed the government's mind
on any topic, or just provided cover for what it already wanted to do” (McElroy, 2018).
Both the expert interviews and the media sample include critiques of the public
consultation process employed by the (previous) Liberal government regarding proposed
changes to hunting regulations for grizzly bears and wolves in 2005. In that case, the Liberal
government also collected public feedback through their website. However, the criticisms
then mainly center on technical issues and timeframe, as evidenced in an article entitled
“Consultation on hunting changes botched: environmental group” (Carter, 2016) published
by the Dawson Creek Mirror:
Due to widespread technical difficulties, the proposals were re-opened for feedback on
Jan. 8 with a deadline of Jan. 31. "During the initial consultation period, Pacific Wild was
contacted by dozens of individuals who found the site difficult to use or were unable to
open new accounts," the group said. One B.C. resident, Joan Hendrick, who learned of the
opportunity to provide feedback via Pacific Wild's Facebook page, said she tried
repeatedly to enter her comments but was unable to.
In an interview about the same proposed hunting regulation changes, conducted by Radio
West (2015), Dr. Chris Darimont, (described as a professor and activist with Raincoast
Conservation Foundation by the author, but self-described as a “hunter and naturalist”)
suggests imbalances or biases in the process. He is quoted as saying, “the lack of notice
about the consultation period is fairly typical, and shows the government has "preferred
constituents" on these matters — especially those involved in the trophy hunting business”
(CBC Radio, 2015).
Criticisms about which “public” was consulted and how, the short consultation timeframe,
and whether or not those consulted constitute a valid representation of the populace of B.C.
are present in media coverage. At times, these critiques involve questions about the
53

geography of responses. Regional differences within the province – namely the split between
urban and rural, whether real or perceived – is a prominent theme in my data. I will now
elaborate on this theme.
Geographies and cultures of public opinion in B.C.
The suggested divide between British Columbians that emerged during my media analysis
is one of a perceived split between urban and rural populations. At times, people seem to
conflate the descriptor “rural” with “hunter”, contrasting hunters with urbanites. For
example, one CBC article states, “Many hunters, however, say that the trophy hunt is
important to B.C.’s wildlife management strategy, and is largely misunderstood by people in
urban areas” (CBC, 2013). Another example published in an opinion piece suggests, “The
lines are drawn. City folk don't understand how important it is to British Columbia's already
depressed rural economy to kill bears. To hear the guide/outfitters tell it, the rural economy is
death-based” (Sullivan, 2001). A majority of articles I reviewed (23 out of 31) that contained
themes concerning geographies of public opinion about the hunt tend to reinforce this theme
of the existence of an urban/rural divide on hunt-related understanding and/or opinions.
The idea of a split between urban and rural residents is also strongly represented in the
expert interview data. The theme of a perceived (and yet not well articulated) urban/rural
divide, and the influences of such on the decision to enact the ban are discussed by 19 out of
30 – almost two-thirds of participants. Talk of public opinion is often associated with a
perceived lack of bear-related connections and/or knowledge on the part of the majority of
B.C. residents (who live in urban centers or the lower mainland). Often, members of the
public are portrayed as not very knowledgeable about grizzly bears, the management of
grizzly bears, and hunting. This theme appeared in 63% of the interviews that I conducted.
The idea that the majority of the public are misinformed or disconnected from bear
54

management was also often associated with the split between rural and urban geographies in
the province. Participant N4 illustrated this association by saying:
And if we continue to rule for the masses in this sense - the people that are uninformed we will see caribou disappear, for instance. And that would be a real travesty, for all of us.
And it all, it comes down to misinformation, people not understanding the realities of
nature. It's urbanization. What the hell are you going to do about it? I don't know, other
than bring management back to the local level.
This response references caribou population-related concerns as potential outcomes of
possible increased grizzly bear populations (and therefore predation). This was a common
argument in favour of the hunt, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Softening of a geographical divide
Interviewed experts seemed to agree that the population of B.C. is split between urban and
rural opinions on the grizzly bear hunt. Media coverage however, includes a theme counter
to this. The idea that geography or place of residence is unlikely to impact opinions on the
grizzly hunt is present as an outlying theme in the media coverage. There are also
suggestions that any existing urban/rural divide may be softening over time. Articles that
include the argument that no divide exists within the province almost always reference one of
the Insights West polls. For example, an article published on the Prince George Citizen’s
website states:
About three-quarters of rural British Columbians oppose the grizzly bear trophy hunt,
according to an Insights West poll conducted in March for an ecotourism group.
The poll found an average of 74 per cent opposed grizzly trophy hunting in five Liberal
ridings: Kamloops-North Thompson, Boundary-Similkameen, Fraser Nicola, Cariboo
North and Kootenay East. A 2015 Insights West poll found that 91 per cent of British
Columbians oppose the grizzly trophy hunt. (Vancouver Sun & Prince George Citizen,
2017)
This example is one of the rare instances in which some details (i.e. specific regions polled
and how they voted) of the poll being referenced are included. More often than not, the
55

articles referencing this Insights West poll only mention the results as stated in the headline,
“New poll shows 74 per cent of rural British Columbians oppose grizzly trophy hunt” (Pynn,
2017). They typically do not discuss or question the geographic distribution of opinions,
related patterns, or polling practices.
Further, some editorials and columns use strong language to emphasize the unity of
opposition to the hunt, and the absence of a divide on the issue. For instance, a column
published by The Globe and Mail (Mason, 2015) quotes the vice president of Insights West,
Mario Canseco:
A conversation with two hunters does not create a provincewide trend, in the same way a
conversation with two vegans does not create a provincewide trend. The argument of
urban versus rural has been thrown about with no evidence whatsoever to try to create a
controversy over trophy hunting.
Canseco then claims that “ there is no controversy” and that “trophy hunting is thoroughly
despised throughout the province” (Mason, 2015). By contrast, 29 out of 30 interview
participants suggested that indeed, there is likely a strong correlation between
geography/place of residence and opinions on the grizzly hunt.
Experts expanded on this discussion by presenting factors that they see as contributing to
an urban/rural divide on opinions about grizzly hunting. They identified two major perceived
influences: 1) misinformation; and 2) connections/lack of connections to grizzly bears. The
information (or misinformation) that informs public opinion was discussed by many
interview participants, often alongside statements about connections with grizzly bears,
nature and/or land. Interviewee attention to factors that they believe shape public opinion is
important given that government announcements stressed public opinion as central to

56

enacting the ban. For example, participant H6 combined these two factors by stating:
In my opinion there’s been a lot of misinformation out there, and people have made the
link that hunting grizzly bears is morally wrong, because it's just quite an easy sell. You
can sell someone who doesn't hunt, or doesn’t have an attachment to the wilderness, you
can show them a picture of a dead animal and they can make a judgement in about a split
second. But to explain the whole story behind wildlife management and what you do and
why you hunt, I mean you gotta sit down with someone for several hours.
H4, when asked about public opinion being in favour of the ban stated:
You know that's a difficult thing, the people in rural communities probably aren't but,
politics in B.C. is more or less driven by the large centers like Vancouver, Lower
Mainland stuff like that. There's a lot of people there that don't really have any direct
connection to the land base at all. So, I think that has an influence on it.
Interviewees also noted the role of media in informing the public. Participant N3 spoke to
the significance of media coverage in the 2012 ban in the GBR by saying:
I mean part of it was in 2012, like I said, bears were in the media for maybe a day or two
on the back part of a newspaper. Our strategy was to keep bears in the media all year and
so all the work I told you about, whether it was a documentary, whether was a poll of
British Columbians, whether it was our economic analysis, whether it was some of the
science reports… all of that, we decided to put - saturate the media. Every month there’d
be something different and bears would be in the media all the time. And I think a big part
of it is people just didn't have the information.
Participant H9 also discussed the importance of messaging, including imagery, that the
public received:
Obviously, you know where I come from, the pro-hunting side has done a very poor job of
communicating the value of grizzly bears, the value of wildlife, our role in their
management. I think that we’ve done a poor job of explaining conservation, sustainable
use. And I think that the anti-hunting community did a very good job of imagery and
communicating out their message.
Indeed, competing facts and numbers appear in the media sources I surveyed. These
figures are used in reference to grizzly bear populations numbers, economics of grizzly bear
trophy hunting and grizzly bear viewing. Disagreements between scientists and biologists
are also reported. Finally, misleading language such as “threatened” or “endangered” are
used to describe grizzly bears in B.C. in approximately 50 articles that I reviewed. The
57

public seems to think that grizzlies are at risk, according to a report that summarizes online
responses received by the Province during the consultation before the ban expansion. The
“Engagement Report” provided to MFLNRORD (Alan Dolan & Associates, 2017) lists the
view that grizzly bears are endangered as the third most frequently expressed reason
respondents were in favour of the ban. Grizzly bears are not officially deemed Endangered
in British Columbia or Canada.
Is the public misinformed on hunt/population numbers and sustainability of the hunt?
Media coverage of the ban includes conflicting arguments about the science that informs
grizzly bear management. One theme present is that estimates of the number of grizzly bears
are not fully agreed upon by scientists. The most recent government estimate that B.C. is
home to 15,000 grizzly bears is the most cited population number (Britten, 2016; Kines,
2017; The Canadian Press, 2018). However, there are alternative population estimates and
trends also present in the media, though these alternative figures appear less often. One CBC
article, for instance, states “estimates there are roughly 15,000 grizzly bears in the province,
but those numbers have been disputed by wildlife conservation groups and researchers from
SFU and the University of Victoria” (The Early Edition, 2015). These discrepancies also
span the media temporally. For instance, an article regarding the 2001 moratorium published
in The Globe and Mail states “a temporary ban was necessary to allow time for scientists to
count the bears. The provincial wildlife branch estimates the bear population to range
between 10,000 to 13,000 but anti-hunt groups use the estimate of 4,000 to 6,000 bears”
(Matas, 2001).
In the media, independent scientists are also portrayed as being at odds with each other
when it comes to the accuracy of population estimates and the corresponding sustainability of

58

the hunt. On one hand, an article published by CBC News (2017) showcases independent
scientists’ claims that the government’s grizzly bear population estimate is too high:
About 250 grizzlies are killed annually by hunters in B.C., a number Natural Resources
Minister Doug Donaldson said in August is "sustainable" for the population estimated at
15,000 bears. However, the open letter disputes the claim. "Grizzly bears are a species at
risk," said Wayne McCrory, a bear biologist and Valhalla Wilderness Society director, in
a news release. "For years independent scientists have warned the government B.C. may
have far fewer grizzly bears than we think."
Yet, there are also examples of statements that suggest the opposite, such as “Wildlife
management has 'solid scientific underpinning' and [the] province should accommodate
grizzly bear hunting and viewing” (Fletcher, 2016) . The discrepancies in media coverage of
grizzly bear population numbers and the science which underpins grizzly bear management
is, no doubt, contributing to public confusion.
Some experts mentioned the confusion that the public might experience due to such
inconsistencies in available information. Participant M1 described the challenge of
competing information, saying:
The public gets confused all the time. So, there's two aspects of public opinion: they don't
believe the numbers and they don't believe the scientific conclusions about sustainability
or they just think it’s not right to hunt bears and leads to the same conclusion in both.
Regardless of what they use, they come to the same, the public comes to the same
conclusion.
Participant H6 also commented:
It was one of the most well managed hunts we had, sustainable populations, everything.
And it was thrown out the window. And people have been led to believe that [by] shutting
down the hunt they are saving a species. And the species wasn't at risk for the most part.
These comments reflect not only the perception that public opinion on the ban is based on
incorrect or incomplete information, but also speak to the idea that public opinion favours
personal beliefs and values over scientific concerns – in this case, regarding the sustainability
of the hunt.
59

Arguments in support of the grizzly hunt
In the media sample, hunters are among those quoted as supporting the hunt. They are
often quoted defending their actions with three arguments in favour of the grizzly bear hunt
(Table 2): 1) the economic aspects of the hunt; 2) hunting as a tool to prevent human-bear
conflict; and 3) concern for the animals. The economic value of the grizzly trophy hunt is
comprised of two arguments in the media. The first centers around the income generated
from the grizzly hunt for individuals, small businesses, and communities in remote areas.
The second focuses on the funding for conservation and research that is garnered through
licensing fees for the hunt. Media coverage of conservation funding from hunting licenses is
less prevalent than arguments about livelihoods. The same trend is true in the interview data,
where arguments centered on the hunting as a source of conservation funding occur half as
frequently as those about gains via individual and community livelihoods.
Table 2: Economic arguments supporting the continuation of the grizzly bear hunt in
B.C.
Main point(s)
The ban negatively
impacts livelihoods
and communities
(especially northern
interior/rural)

Sample quotes
“the New Democratic government has abandoned rural British
Columbia with the ban – a move he said will affect hundreds of jobs”
(Bailey, 2017)

The ban decreases
funding for grizzly
bear conservation
via loss of licensing
sales

“hunters in B.C. pay a conservation surcharge on their licenses,
contributing $3-million annually for wildlife management” (Hume,
2014)

“you'd see more hunters coming to those communities, like where I
lived, and it would help those small businesses. You'd see the hotels
fill up and it would be hunting vehicles” (Participant G2)

“Well because the hunt was banned, so our board was for grizzly
bears, was dismantled. So now there is no dedicated - I was just told
a couple days ago - there is no dedicated fund for grizzly bear
research anymore” (Participant S5)

60

The second pro-hunt argument I found in the data was an anthropocentric fear that by no
longer harvesting large, older male grizzly bears for trophy purposes, there would be more
large and aggressive bears and increased human-bear conflicts. This theme is present in both
the media and the interview data. However, some experts suggested habituation as another
reason for increased bear-human conflict. Increased habituation, or lack of fear of humans, is
not presented as a potential cause for increased conflict in the media survey.
Table 3: Arguments for a potential increase in human-bear conflicts post-ban.
Main point(s)
The ban potentially
increases grizzly
bear populations

The ban potentially
increases
habituation to
humans

Sample quotes
“The Guide Outfitters Association warns that, now that the hunt has
been cancelled, well, it just won't be safe to go out into the woods.
More of them damned bears.” (Sullivan, 2001)

“We're going to see a whole bunch of big, old mature grizzly bears.
It's already, we're already seeing it. The big, aggressive male bears they're not scared enough.” (Participant H5)
“Well when you could legally shoot a bear, if it was a good-sized
bear you know it got shot at a few times, they probably got wise or
they died, right? So now, a gunshot doesn't mean anything except
somebody’s killed an animal and there's going to be a gut pile there”
(Participant H4)
“it's too short of a time period to starting saying, “well the hunt’s
gone so their risk-averse nature would change in one season” I don't
think. But, at the same time, that now that the hunt has ended, there's
the expectation that it will - these bears will become emboldened.
And certainly, it’s been the case in the Northwest Territories”
(Participant N4)

Lastly, and least prevalent is the concern for the health of grizzly bears (individuals or the
population). In this argument, the hunt is constructed as an activity that helps alleviate
certain health or population pressures on bears, thus preventing undesirable occurrences. For
individual bears, the hunt is framed as a preventive health measure to prevent older bears
from suffering physical ailments such as decaying teeth. The claim that the hunt is beneficial
for overall grizzly population growth was referred to by one author as “the cub avenger”
61

argument (Erickson, 2017). In this case, it is argued that harvesting large adult males reduces
their known practice of killing cubs. Thus, the removal of predatory males is constructed as
contributing to population growth and renewal.
Table 4: Pro-hunt arguments focused on concern for bears.
Main point(s)
Age-related
ailments

Cub avenger

Sample quotes
“the argument for regulated, properly controlled commercial hunting
is that the money that goes from shooting a very old infirm animal
goes back into the protection of the other species”(Davison, 2016)
“they [large adult males] are notorious for eating cubs in order to
breed that female again. Taking large boars can in fact potentially
increase overall bear numbers” (Erickson, 2017)

“you get these older boars that just, they specialize in- usually they'll
kill a lot of calves but also kill a lot of cubs too” (Participant H6)
Portrayals and perceptions of grizzly bears
The media sample I surveyed offered a complex and uneven set of constructions and
portrayals of grizzly bears. All at once, they are portrayed as:
1) positive: the grizzly bear as iconic, a symbol of wilderness, an indicator of ecosystem
health, etc.;
2) negative: a focus on problematic bears – grizzly attacks, “nuisance” or “problem”
bears, competing with humans, having adverse effects on prey populations, etc.;
3) vulnerable: bears portrayed as needing protection, being misunderstood, etc.;
4) a resource: bears as a commodity to be hunted or viewed, as belonging to the public,
etc.; and
5) human-like or anthropomorphic: bears characterised as displaying human
characteristics such as emotion, possessing sentience, etc.
Combinations of these categories of portrayals are also presented in the media. The most
common is the inclusion of negative and positive portrayals (especially concerning well62

known individual bears) in reference to management of human-bear conflict. The most
heavily reported instance, which occurred in Alberta, concerned a well-known bear, Bear
148. Coverage often referred to behavior exhibited by Bear 148 as negative, alongside
community support for saving the bear. This is evidenced in the title of CBC article, “'We
want this bear alive': Thousands rally to save grizzly that's chased humans” (2017). Other
combinations of portrayals (i.e. positive and resource, positive and anthropomorphic, or
resource and anthropomorphic, etc.) occur less frequently.
The expert interview data generally included the same five representations found in the
media survey, with one additional portrayal: bears as not unique from other species. The
interview data were more heavily weighted towards positive opinions about and
constructions of grizzlies. Furthermore, interview participants more often included
combinations of one or more of these portrayals in statements concerning their views of
grizzly bears. For example, participant G3 included elements of positive and vulnerable
(misunderstood) portrayals when describing grizzly bears:
I mean, like I said I worked in the woods for 20 years and never had a gun with me, I had
bear spray, I never had an incident. The only person I know who got hurt by a bear was
because he panicked, turned around and ran off a cliff. So, you know it was his fear that
hurt him, it wasn't the bear. Like, he literally turned around and ran off the cliff cause this
bear was there. And he probably just could have stayed calm and he wouldn't have been
hurt at all.
Similarly, participant H2 described grizzly bears as positive, negative, resource and
vulnerable:
Normally there’s no issue but um… problem bears would get a few chances to not be
problem bears before they got shot. Um, now when there’s no hunt that that’s… they
have no value they’re just, they’re just not the same prestige among the hunting
community now. So instead of the first time they come into camp and cause trouble
they’ll probably get shot, where before they’d come in two, three times and everyone
would tolerate it and… I mean people are worried about their health and welfare;
obviously bears come into camp and I think that tolerance will go by the wayside with, in
this new world order. Which is sad.
63

Participant S1 presented a combination of positive, negative and vulnerable portrayals in the
following statement:
Oh, I’m definitely on the positive side. It's just part of western Canada ecosystem. I think
they bear the brunt of a lot of stuff that's not their fault. There's a lot of misconceptions
that I constantly try and work through, like I do a lot of human wildlife conflict stuff and
just even saying it in that order people like to put bear human conflict. But all those
conflicts start because of people so I keep trying to say human bear conflicts, so it's just a
lot of perception work to try and get stuff through.
The combination of different portrayals that emerged from the expert interview data are
indicative of the complex nature of valuations assigned to grizzly bears by experts.
However, all responses included positive perceptions as part of their combinations.
The positive portrayals of grizzlies forwarded by the experts support the idea that
increased exposure and knowledge corresponds with more positive opinions (Houston et al.,
2010; Johansson et al., 2012; Thornton & Quinn, 2009). Yet, despite the generally positive
attitude towards grizzlies that emerged from the interview data, I found one representation of
grizzlies (not present in the media survey) that was unexpected. This view was that grizzly
bears are not unique as a species. One participant, H1, illustrated this idea by stating, “My
personal opinion is… I don't know they… I don't like the word iconic with any species.
They’re a top predator, there should be grizzly bears on the landscape, there should be
objectives for how many bears there are in a grizzly bear population unit both of females,
males and cubs. And there should be objectives for habitat – like, I don't want to see them
disappear”. Participant M1 shared a similar perspective, “I don’t think of bears as different,
ecologically than any other species. I don't think there is something special about bears, or
grizzly bears, or anything”.

64

Framings of hunters and grizzly bear hunting
The homogenization of hunters and hunting is a theme present in both the media sample
and the interviews. There was a lot of confusion about hunters. In general, hunters were
framed in three ways in the media that I surveyed. They were portrayed as being:
1) sport/trophy hunters (specifically; distinctly);
2) general hunters, without delineations regarding motivations to do with sustenance
and/or trophy capture; and
3) consumptive use or sustenance-oriented hunters.
I will focus on the portrayal of sport/trophy hunters here, as it is largely how grizzly bear
hunters are described in media coverage. In reference to the grizzly hunt, there is frequently
a distinction made between hunting for food and trophy hunting, in the media sample.
Articles often stress that since most people do not eat grizzly bears, grizzly hunting can only
truly be categorized as trophy hunting. Some examples refer to the risk of consuming bear
meat such as, “While bear meat can be eaten, the B.C. government does not condone the
practice because of concerns that predators such as grizzlies could be carrying a parasite
which can cause trichinosis” (Mason, 2015). More often, grizzly meat is presented as low
quality, unappetizing, and only to be eaten if no other meat is available. For example, as this
columnist states, “if you happen to live so far off-grid that grizzly meat is a source of protein,
OK, happy dining” (McMartin, 2016).
The idea that grizzly meat is rarely the primary motivation for grizzly bear hunting is also
prevalent in the years leading up to the ban. For example, similar claims are made in a 2015
Radio West interview with Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver: “grizzly bears aren't
commonly killed for their meat, which isn't considered to be appetizing and is subject to
trichinosis if not cooked properly” (Radio West, 2015). This claim was also the basis of
65

criticism for the first iteration of the ban. The media frequently reported on a potential
“loophole” that could allow trophy hunters to continue hunting grizzlies for trophies under
the guise of a meat hunt. Concerns such as “Hunters throughout the province can circumvent
the law by removing a portion of meat from a bear’s carcass and claiming the kill as food,”
(Wadhwani, 2017) are prevalent in coverage of the first iteration of the ban.
These examples contrast grizzly hunting with other forms of hunting in which meat is the
primary motivation. Very few articles present the argument that people eat grizzly meat,
which essentially frames the grizzly bear hunt as a trophy hunt. This contrast extends to
grizzly bear hunters, ergo suggesting that hunters who participated in the grizzly hunt are in
favour of trophy hunting. Language such as “blood sport” (Vancouver Sun & Prince George
Citizen, 2017), “wildlife murder” (Brend, 2017) , and “slaughter for pleasure” (Bramham,
2016) are only some of the terms used in the media in reference to trophy hunting/hunters.
The grizzly bear hunt and those that participate are further vilified via representations of
meat hunts, which are framed as more respectful and less wasteful in that they are carried out
by hunters who consume their kills. Consumptive hunters are often portrayed as being
supportive of the initial trophy hunt ban (due to the requirement to harvest meat), creating a
“good hunter” versus ‘bad hunter” discourse. In fact, during the time period before the total
ban of grizzly hunting was announced, representatives of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, an
organization that advocates on behalf of resident hunters, appear in one article stating, “the
federation doesn’t object to the NDP commitment. ‘We think that if you’re hunting wildlife
that you should utilize the whole animal and that’s been part our policy and is consistent with
this announcement,’ he said” (Nagel, 2016).

66

My expert interview data reflected the idea that trophy hunting and not sustenance is the
main motivation for hunting grizzlies. As examples, participant N2 stated, “the fact that
they’re hunted not for their meat, not for harvesting for food”. Participant S2 expressed the
belief that “hunting of any species is a societal decision based on values. We don't hunt bald
eagles; I don't think we should be hunting grizzly bears. They're not used for food, it's a
mostly a trophy hunt, its poorly enforced”. And participant V1 explained:
Its grizzly bear hunting - the trophy hunt is what people considered the guide outfitters to
do and the domestic hunt was something that the domestic people in British Columbia did
and then that wasn't a trophy hunt. Whereby all of it was a trophy hunt because nobody
eats grizzly bears. So, I would just like to go on the record saying that it was the closure of
the grizzly hunt because all of it was a trophy hunt and if you say trophy hunt then people
just think of the international visitors.
Only three out of 30 participants suggested that hunters eat any portion of the meat they
harvest from grizzly bears.
The motivations and associations with common constructions of the dual portrayal of
hunting found in the articles I reviewed, and well beyond, are illustrated in Figure 3 (p.68).

67

Trophy/Sport

Consumptive Use

Slaughter for pleasure Promoting
Respectful
Ego-driven
Sustenance-based
conservation
Bragging rights
Local tradition
Wealthy/foreign
Cultural tradition
"Cub savior"
Total utilization of animal

Figure 3: Diagram of motivations and attributes for different types of hunting, as found in the media
sample. Note: the degrees of overlap between the two main constructions of hunting receives
scant attention.

Ethical/moral arguments against the grizzly bear hunt
There is one final theme that emerged in the media and interview data – comments about
the ethics of grizzly hunting. Statements about ethics and morals appeared as distinct from
other factors involved in the debate about the grizzly bear hunt. I am separating out this
theme due to the frequency with which words such as ethical and moral were used explicitly
or alluded to, in the media. And while there exists a difference between morals, ethics and
values in the literature (Fox & Bekoff, 2011), including differences within each of these
terms (i.e. value orientations versus core values) (Zinn, Manfredo, & Barro, 2002), I found
no evidence that the media and/or those quoted in the media drew a distinction between
them. An example that quotes biologist Paul Paquet (Raincoast Conservation Foundation)
shows, morals and ethics are used interchangeably: “but the bigger question is the moral one,
he said. ‘Is this ethical, to be hunting bears? That's really what's at issue” (Moore, 2014).

68

Ethics/morals, are present in the arguments made by those for and against the ban,
although they are not employed in the same ways. In the media, those who are for the ban
are connected with these terms most often, but the framing of that connection varies. For
example, proponents of the ban use ethics/morals as a basis of their argument, such as the
claim made in a commentary published by Dawson Creek Mirror (2017) that, “A true ban
aligns with society’s dominant moral compass. Consistent polling data have shown strong
opposition to the grizzly hunt, even in rural areas and among hunters.” 4 In contrast, those
against the ban portray the argument surrounding ethics/morals in a negative light, likening it
to arrogance or naivety in some instances. For example, in a Vancouver Sun article (Palmer,
2016) , the following quote is included in reference to those proposing/supporting the ban,
“Also taking a swipe against urban New Democrats on the issue was Kootenay MLA Erda
Walsh. ‘It’s unfortunate that they act so moralistic about it. They don’t live here and they
don’t understand the issue.’”
The presence of ethics/morals and the viewpoint of each side of the debate is made
apparent in The Globe and Mail article, “The business of grizzly bear trophy hunting: 'Does
the bear care?'” (Mason, 2015):
In an hour-long conversation, Mr. Ellis and I debated this subject. I told him I did not
think the issue was whether the trophy hunting of grizzlies should be stopped because
their numbers are dwindling, rather because it is simply wrong, period. How did his
organization [Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.] defend, on moral grounds, the practice
of killing grizzlies for sport?

4

No author is credited with this commentary, but the following is found in italics as the bottom of the piece:
Chris Darimont, Kyle Artelle, and Paul Paquet are scientists at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation and
scholars at the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University.
Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation.
Faisal Moola is the David Suzuki Foundation’s director general for Ontario and Northern Canada and a
conservation-policy expert at the University of Toronto.

69

"We don't," Mr. Ellis told me. "We don't try to morally defend someone's personal
decision. There are people who like it and some who don't. We have a free country and we
have choices. But I think people have this notion that if we stop the trophy hunting of
grizzlies, there will be more grizzlies."
And there might be. But again, I don't think that is the issue. For most people, the issue
revolves around the ethics of what is being done.
Ethics and morals are similarly present in the interview data, but the word value is also
included as an analogous term. Most participants included these terms in reference to the
hunt, and to discuss members of the public against the hunt. Participant S2 used ethics to
critique grizzly bear hunting on the coast of B.C., saying:
…it’s important regarding fair chase in a hunt to be ethical. The animal is supposed to
have a chance to get away, and I just did not see that on the coast. I’m not speaking
about hunting bears in the mountains. I have no idea how that's done in British
Columbia.
Interviewed experts also seem to pit morals/ethics against science. Participant S5 stated,
“But as a scientist, what if I told you that you can't do that because I don't think it's morally
right. But you did. Right?” Participant S2 described the roles of ethics/morals in the debate
on the ban, particularly their use by those in favour of the ban:
So, I don't think that [the numbers/science] is disputable. And I think what happened then
is they realized that - I know they realized that, because I had a talk with them about it and
said that this is ridiculous. You know you can argue this on a moral or ethical standpoint
or you can argue it because you don't eat the meat of grizzly bears.
Ethics and science are often mentioned together both by interview participants and in the
media. Both also tend to be included in arguments in favour of basing policy strictly on
science, and excluding ethics/morals. Other experts expressed the viewpoint that ethical,
social and cultural considerations should be included alongside science in the management of
wildlife and natural resources. Ethical concerns regarding the grizzly bear hunt were often
linked to the topic of animal welfare, by participating experts.

70

The grizzly hunt and animal welfare
Animal welfare or animal rights are topics intertwined with any type of hunting, but they
are a focal point in the case of trophy or sport hunting. As I have discussed, the grizzly bear
hunt is predominantly portrayed as a trophy hunt in media coverage that I surveyed. This
includes arguments about animal rights. In one opinion piece published by Dawson Creek
Mirror2, for example, the writers criticize current management practices in terms of their
ethical framing of human-animal relationships:
The government, however, wrongly assumes that the sole purpose of wildlife populations
is to serve the needs of the communities that hunt them. That presumption is clearly
woven into provincial policy without proper scientific support, and represents a devolution
of wildlife management away from the fundamentals of applied ecological science and
environmental ethics to a largely utilitarian and agriculturalist approach.
This example highlights the idea that wildlife, and individual animals have the inherent right
to exist, outside of any benefit they may provide to humans.
There is some evidence that this belief may be increasing among the general public in
B.C. as well as outside the province, and that concerns about animal welfare extend beyond
trophy hunting. For example, (Mason, 2015) reports:
The Insights poll also canvassed Albertans and British Columbians on other issues related
to the treatment of animals and found some surprising results. Nearly two-thirds of
Albertans (64 per cent) favoured keeping animals in zoos and aquariums, but only 48 per
cent of British Columbians did. While 55 per cent of Albertans supported using animals in
rodeos, only 32 per cent of British Columbians shared that opinion.
This theme of wildlife possessing intrinsic value, irrespective of any value as a resource or as
a source of entertainment for humans, is also present in media coverage of bear viewing.
There are some articles that criticize the viewing of grizzly bears. The predominant framing,
however, is that bear viewing (especially in contrast to the trophy hunt) is that viewing offers
a positive, non-consumptive economically beneficial utilization of grizzly bears.
One of the only major animal welfare issues present in the interview data is attention paid
71

to the unknown and potentially negative effects that the bear viewing industry may be having
on bears. Five participants mentioned the need for increased research on bear viewing
industry. They stressed the importance of managing such activities so that they do not affect
the feeding habits, or reproductive patterns of bears. When asked about where to spend
hypothetical funding within grizzly bear management, participant G2 stated, “use those sort
of resources for creating a regulatory framework for grizzly bear viewing, because that
activity has grown so much and we don't have a lot of legislation around it.”
Portrayal of First Nations in the media:
A final theme that emerged when comparing the media survey to the interview data was
the one-dimensional portrayal of First Nations’ views on the grizzly bear hunt. The media
sample includes a singular portrait of First Nations and the hunt (Coastal First Nations 5 are
mentioned specifically in many articles) as being opposed to the grizzly bear hunt.
Some articles include quotes from First Nations individuals elaborating on the
significance of grizzlies to their communities. One article is about a B.C. man (Mr. Sheppe)
who had a family tradition of hunting and was drawn for grizzly license after years of entries
into the lottery. He then forfeited his tag after a conversation with a boat operator who he
originally had hoped would provide transportation to a remote area for the hunt (Hume,
2015). According to the article, the story goes that:
They talked about the importance of bears to First Nations.
"Bears are like family. If you have a bear lost, it's a family member down," Mr. Willie
said.

5
“Coastal First Nations is a unique alliance of nine Nations living on British Columbia’s North and Central
Coast and Haida Gwaii. Each Nation has its own distinct culture, governance and territory.”
(https://coastalfirstnations.ca/our-communities/)

72

"It really hit me," Mr. Sheppe said. "I never had the opportunity to go hunt one before, so I
was pretty excited about this [hunt], but my views have changed. Something in my spirit
has switched and I'm ready to start a new chapter and try and help promote saving these
bears."
Virtually all media coverage positions First Nations as of uniform opinion – against the hunt
and for the ban.
The expert interview data includes this same suggestion. When speaking about the grizzly
hunt, participant N3, an Indigenous person, explained, “And all our stories we have about
wildlife are about respect. This is something that was very disrespectful, you know. So here
we are teaching our youth how to conduct themselves in our territory, while other people
could come and still do this… exact opposite.”
Participant S1 described their experience with First Nations, stating:
No, we have some First Nations here that didn't support the hunt, ever. We did our
allocation process 2 years ago, and so we did all our consultation meetings and they were
around moose and grizzly bear. And out of one of those First Nation meetings actually
came a letter to the Minister requesting that the grizzly hunt be shut down, and that was
from one of our First Nations just out of Fort St. James.
A number of interviewees suggested that First Nations were not necessarily in favour of the
hunting of grizzly bears, but are definitely against the ban. As participant N2 explained:
I don't completely agree with trophy hunting for grizzly bears because you know I like to
eat meat, and a grizzly bear hunt doesn't really do that. So, I mean, I haven’t ever shot a
grizzly myself. I don't really see the need to. At the same time, I don't see, you know I'm
not going to disagree with anybody who wants to shoot one for a trophy, it's just not
something I do for myself; I don't see the need to. But I am very respectful of them. First
Nations, you know we say things like you don't really talk about bears and you don't say
anything negative about them because they can hear you so, I don't know I feel like I
really came from a complex background when it comes to grizzly bears and how I feel
about them. I disagree with the ban. So, I mean, I guess that says that I am for grizzly
bear hunting, just not for myself.
In contrast with the media sample, some interviewed experts mentioned the diversity of
opinions among First Nations. For example, in reference to the breadth of participants I was
attempting to interview, participant G2 questioned, “Oh, on the First Nations one, are you
73

talking to… cause one of the challenges we’re finding is some First Nations are anti-hunting
grizzly bears and, whereas others want to hunt grizzly bears.” Overall, the experts I
interviewed were aware of the varied opinions within B.C.’s Indigenous population with
respect to the grizzly bear hunt. Whereas media coverage did not include First Nations being
opposed to the ban, interviewees acknowledged heterogenous Indigenous stances on the hunt
and the ban.
Chapter 5 – Discussion
In this chapter, I will examine my results as they connect to the literature review,
presented in Chapter 3, and as they pertain to my research questions:
1. How was science, and public opinions on grizzly bears and the grizzly bear hunt (or
perceptions of these) incorporated into decisions regarding the grizzly bear hunt
ban in B.C.?
2. Are we in the midst of a significant change in public attitudes and policy regarding
the grizzly bear as a species, or the grizzly bear hunt?
To speak to these two questions, I will discuss the role of science in grizzly bear management
decisions. This will include criticisms of how science has been included (or not) in the 2017
grizzly bear hunt ban, and suggestions for future improvements. I will consider public
opinion and whether or not increased stakeholder input seems to have informed the decision
to enact the ban. I will draw from political ecology scholarship in order to examine factors
that inform public opinion such as an existing or perceived urban/rural divide in perceptions
of bears and bear hunting, and to raise questions about how such differences may have
affected political aspects of the ban. I will also discuss current framings of hunters in the
media I surveyed, and hunter roles in conservation. This will be followed by ethical
74

considerations with respect to the grizzly bear trophy hunt. I will end this discussion with a
dominant narrative presented by the media about First Nations perspectives on the hunt. I
will also be presenting comparisons and contrasts between themes present in my three data
sets.
Science in grizzly management: for the hunt or for the species?
The findings from this research project suggest that science had a minimal influence
on the decision to enact the 2017 ban on the hunt of grizzly bears in B.C. There was not
new data or analysis to prompt a ban, and few of the experts that I interviewed offered
evidence of scientific support for the ban. Recurring themes concerning the role of science in
the decision in interviews include: 1) the idea that wildlife management has been, is, and
should be primarily based on the best available science; 2) calls for more precise science in
terms of population estimates; and 3) criticisms that science is being devalued in the decision
to enact the ban. Such themes are present both in government documents and in the
interviews I conducted. Furthermore, the idea that the hunt was sustainable, and managed
strictly with the best available science occurs across all data sets, including media coverage.
In terms of science-identified threats to grizzly bears, the hunt does not really register in
interviews or policy documents—scientific data and opinion suggests that habitat
fragmentation and degradation (not the hunt) are the largest threats facing the health of
grizzly bear populations.
To further speak to the topic of science in grizzly bear management, I will consider grizzly
bear management in two separate but related categories: management of the species, and
management of the hunt. Through my data analysis and continuous reflection on the results,
I found at least two different focuses/utilizations of “science”, when used in reference to
grizzly bear management. There is science involved with the management of the grizzly bear
75

hunt and there is the science that informs the management of the grizzly bear species.
Leading up to the ban, the science behind the management of the hunt became deeply
entwined with management of the species – population and mortality estimates were
primarily used to determine in which populations a hunt was viable and what percentage of a
population could be harvested sustainably (Boyce et al., 2016; Hamilton et al., 2004). It is
important to examine “science” as being applied and framed in these two different ways (for
the species; for the hunt) in order to try and understand what the “best available science”
means in post-ban grizzly bear management.
Often times, the science referred to across all data sets was in reference to the
management of the now illegal grizzly bear hunt, rather than about grizzly bear
management more generally. Debates about the accuracy of grizzly population numbers
and mortality rates are the most frequently cited aspects of scientific debate in the media
(CBC, 2017; Matas, 2001). Such discussions are often presented with respect to the
sustainability of the hunt. The experts I interviewed, on the other hand, agreed that science
was not the basis for the ban. In their views, the hunt was managed sustainably, so no proven
scientific rational for changes to the hunt existed. Government documents and information
available on their website are also mainly concerned with management as it relates to the
hunt (see Appendices C & D). This primary focus on managing the hunt rather than the
species is reflected in the oft cited Auditor General’s report, The audit found the
management of the hunt to be adequate, but all other areas of grizzly bear management to be
lacking (Auditor General, 2017). While the science did not seem to feature prominently in
the discussion to ban the hunt, the hunt seemed to influence the science.
All of my project data sets suggest that science should be the basis of B.C.’s grizzly
bear management framework. The data acknowledges that the use of science should be
76

supplemented with other considerations such as traditional ecological knowledge, Indigenous
law, public opinion, and stakeholder input. The media sample, the expert interviews, and
most government documents call for science to be a foundation for wildlife management.
Further, each data set reveals gaps or inconsistencies in scientific data and knowledge,
suggesting that more (not less) science is needed to truly understand and manage bears in
B.C. Participant S10 acknowledged this by stating, “our decisions sure better be founded in
good science, and that includes local and traditional knowledge, too”. Interviewees point out
that identifying objectives and goals, such as how many grizzly bears are wanted/needed on
the landscape, beyond numbers to do with the hunt, needs to be addressed. They suggest that
we have not fully considered such questions about grizzly bears in B.C. Experts interviewed
also suggested that habitat conservation and restoration deserve more attention in terms of
how to best support B.C.’s grizzly bear population. For example, when asked where
hypothetical funding should be spent for grizzly bears, Participant G7 responded, “quite a bit
should be put to ensuring that there’s adequate habitat for grizzly bears”. This theme did not
receive similar attention in the media.
A lack of attention to habitat is clearly identified as the biggest threat to grizzly bears
across the interview and policy data. Habitat-related concerns are somewhat present in the
media sample, but the main media narrative remains centered on the controversy of the hunt.
Habitat may not be at the foreground due to the impact improved habitat conservation could
have on B.C.’s human population in unpopular or otherwise difficult ways. Grizzly bears
often have to compete with humans for habitat. They occupy and use spaces that we, for
example, like to dedicate to land uses associated with extractive industries (e.g. oil and gas
exploration and extraction) and recreational activities (e.g. all-terrain vehicle riding;
mountain biking; camping). Restrictions placed on these types of activities could affect a
77

large percentage of the population of B.C., particularly in certain regions of the province.
Banning a relatively small scale, low participation grizzly bear hunt might be more popular
and less disruptive. It is also important to note that grizzly bears and grizzly bear hunting do
not occur equally in all parts of BC—the hunt was concentrated primarily in the Northern and
Kootenay regions of the province, far from our largest, most populous urban centers.
Banning a hunt is likely easier and more politically palatable than improving habitat
conservation. Habitat conservation is the primary concern for the conservation of grizzly
bears according to the interviewed experts and key science-informed government documents.
Therefore, the media emphasis on the hunt, which tends to be framed as controversial,
obscures the issue by making the hunt seem more important than it likely is, with respect to
grizzly conservation. The impact of this media focus deserves further research. If the
decision to enact the ban is truly a reflection of public opinion in B.C. (primarily against the
hunt), then additional research should be done to determine if public concern is grounded in
a) a desire to improve the conservation of grizzly bears, or b) a dislike for or opposition to
trophy hunting (specific or general). To date, there has been no substantive qualitative
academic research to determine conservation perceptions, opinions, and priorities, with
respect to grizzly bears in B.C.
Furthermore, the notion of potential constraints on human activities as the result of habitat
conservation needs to be explored. Recent vocal objections raised about the new caribou
recovery plan (Kurjata, 2019) suggest that limiting human recreational activities in order to
preserve/restore habitat is a complex undertaking that requires care and consideration of
multiple human dimensions of the environment. This includes values in favour of species
conservation but also values the needs of human recreational alongside or above habitat
conservation, even in rather extreme cases where species numbers are definitely on the
78

decline (Coogan et al., 2018). Such conflicts reveal the powerful roles that anthropocentrism
and utility play in valuations of nature and wildlife.
The interview data in this project were collected from grizzly-related experts with
personal connections to the species. Further research that focuses on non-expert attitudes
towards grizzly bears would illuminate how opinions of grizzlies are formed in the absence
of personal and professional experiences with them. This is important in determining if
public opinion of grizzly bear conservation is more likely to be influenced by perceptions of
grizzly bears or the ethical debate about trophy hunting. Non-sustenance hunting and
trapping of other species, such as wolverine, lynx, beaver etc. continues in B.C., yet these
practices have not received nearly as much media attention. So, it remains unclear to what
degree anthropomorphic and charismatic characteristics projected onto grizzly bears by
humans influence public opposition to the grizzly bear hunt.
It is also important to remember that lack of widespread outcry to the ban does not signify
agreement or support for, nor even apathy towards the ban. We need more data to determine
true perspectives on the ban and grizzly bear conservation across the province in order to
gain holistic understanding of the public’s stances on both, and which interventions they
would be willing to support to further grizzly bear conservation in the province.
We do not know what will happen if science and/or public opinion suggests that the
ban should be modified or reversed. The history of North American wildlife conservation
is replete with examples of hunts opening, being modified, or closing in order to deal with
inter-species imbalances deemed to be problematic or undesirable (Kellert et al., 1996;
Treves, 2009). B.C. also currently supports a wolf cull in order to attempt regulating
predator-prey relationships in parts of the province (Shore, 2019). By the end of this project,
however, it was unclear to me whether or not there is room for the grizzly hunt ban to be
79

modified or reversed in a case where the science deems grizzly population numbers to be
growing beyond a sustainable size and/or where human-grizzly interactions are deemed to be
increasing in negative ways. Additionally, there are variables posing threats to the grizzly
population in B.C. that are not addressed by imposing a hunting ban. For example, there
have been recent reports of starving grizzly bears on Vancouver Island due to an inadequate
salmon supply (CBC News, 2019). It is interesting to think about what might happen if the
hunt of grizzly bears, even if only as a management tool to balance predator/prey
populations, needed to be re-instated in B.C.
Public opinion was the main influence on the ban but not in a straightforward way
My findings indicate that public opinion/societal values were the major influences on
the decision to enact the ban but that this was based on very limited and specific public
input (e.g. via polls and government consultation). Furthermore, both the interviewed
experts and the media sample include questions about whether public opinion is an
appropriate foundation upon which to make such decisions. Some experts raised
questions about the strength of the data presented regarding public opinion. They questioned
whether the polls or government consultation were truly representative of B.C. Criticisms
included the small number of people polled, the short time frame of the consultation process
and the lack of geographical information for the resultant numbers and percentages the
government cites as representing the majority of B.C.
Public opinion was presented as the driving force behind the ban by the government and
the media, and the experts I interviewed agreed that public opinion/social values informed
the ban. Public opinion as the impetus for the ban implementation is portrayed
positively at times, and negatively at others. Interviewed experts critiqued and questioned
the apparent increased influence of public opinion on the ban as concerning since it
80

represented a departure from scientific management of grizzly bears. This dissatisfaction
with the reduced role of science concomitant with an apparent increased emphasis on social
values is prominent among those quoted in the media and among interviewees in favour of
the hunt. Participant H6 described the frustration felt within their community:
I think that no matter what the decision is, the facts should prevail. And that's where we
kinda failed as hunters and we have for many decades – and not even hunters but just
people who value wilderness and wildlife and who are out there in the bush, are the kinda
people who put our heads down and don't put our nose in other people's business. And we
always go and have arguments based on facts, and this was very difficult. I really saw this
go around the hunting community is – you have all the facts on your side, and it doesn't
matter.
The data also includes concerns about the politicization of the hunt, with the hunt being
framed as a political “stunt” to bolster support for the New Democratic Party (NDP). The
NDP included the ban of the trophy hunt as part of their political platform when running for
election, making the implementation of the ban a fulfillment of a campaign promise. The
politics behind high profile, controversial decisions involve a complex web of interactions
between politicians, industry, interest groups, party platforms, mandates, etc. that are beyond
the scope of my investigation. It is also difficult to disentangle politics from public opinion.
In theory, however, the party in power is supposed to reflect the majority of British
Columbians’ wishes. While it is easy to cast the Liberal party as “pro-hunt” and NDP as
“anti-hunt”, the reality is much more complicated. Constituencies associated with candidates
from each party have different degrees of connection with the hunt/ban, for instance. The
future of the ban after the next election in B.C. might illuminate additional revelations about
the role of politics and parties in grizzly bear management related decisions. For now,
however, claims about politics cannot easily be investigated in a meaningful way. The
discourse about grizzly bear hunt management continues to include discussions of politics on
multiple sides.
81

Integration of the public should be improved
Regardless of how the inclusion of public opinion is perceived by the media or by the
experts I interviewed, the participation of the public, and the inclusion of social and
cultural values in the formation of wildlife management policy is something that has
been broadly called for by conservation scholars and practitioners (Artelle et al., 2018;
Fox & Bekoff, 2011; Housty et al., 2014; Madden, 2004; Riley et al., 2002; Vernon et al.,
2016). In the case of the grizzly bear hunt ban in B.C., it could be that decision-makers were
responding to such recommendations. The public consultation process, although certainly
imperfect, indicates that the government is attempting to include factors outside of natural
science when formulating wildlife management policy.
While it is impossible to satisfy all members of the public when engaging with a
controversial practice (i.e. the grizzly bear hunt), the government could take steps to
address decisions viewed as contentious by some. Increasing both transparency and
stakeholder participation during public consultation processes could alleviate sentiments of
distrust in the process (Artelle et al., 2018). The consultation in this case was very limited
and occurred in very specific and targeted ways, rather than inviting broader participation
over a longer period of time. Several interview participants, especially those who were antiban, expressed frustration with the lack of involvement or consultation they experienced in
the decision-making process. Keeping in mind that I interviewed people closely connected
with the hunt, it seems odd that even these individuals indicated dissatisfaction with
participation opportunities.
Another step that government could take to improve consultation and transparency
is to better represent the geographies of opinions and the diversity of opinions collected.
Government (and media) tend to reduce the true complexity of opinions shared in a process
82

once a clear majority is reached, disregarding the opinions of those groups in the minority
(Ascher, 2014). Taking steps to ensure the voices and participation of stakeholders with
opinions that are in contrast to the majority (in this case guide outfitters and hunters
interested in harvesting grizzly bears) would help to legitimize the consultation process
(Boulé & Mason, 2019), and to better represent the true range of public opinion. Improved
openness about participation data and the full range of opinions would also help government
to identify groups that were underrepresented, and to work towards improved inclusion.
Improved inclusion might reduce suspicions about such processes and outcomes.
The urban/rural divide and other key geographies
The theme of urban/rural divide is an important part of my findings and discussion.
Consistent with other studies, geographic divides related to region of residence (rural vs.
urban) are apparent in both the media sample I analyzed and my analysis of the interview
data (Kellert et al., 1996; Manfredo et al., 2003). A purported rural/urban divide with respect
to opinions on the hunt and ban was also expected due to the geographic distribution of
human populations and grizzly bear populations within British Columbia. Grizzly bears have
been extirpated from urban centers in the province. Therefore, only rural residents must
share habitat and coexist with grizzlies on an everyday basis.
In the media, portrayals of hunting and hunters is largely associated with rural
communities. One such example states, “Many hunters, however, say that the trophy hunt is
important to B.C.’s wildlife management strategy, and is largely misunderstood by people in
urban areas” (CBC News, 2013). Interestingly, the experts that I interviewed drew less of a
connection between hunting and living in a rural community. Many participants admitted to
living in more urban areas, or the “lower mainland”, but still identified as being hunters. This
challenges the prevailing urban/rural divide expected with regards to wildlife and hunting
83

perceptions. It also reveals different types of hunting and connections to the
outdoors/wilderness across regions of B.C., reminding us that geographies of leisure,
recreation, and hunting are intricate, dynamic and not determined by one’s residential
address. Nevertheless, we see the power of the urban/rural divide as a discourse for
framing wildlife and other resource-related discussions in that interview participants
and government processes did employ terms such as “urban” (or “lower mainland”,
“Vancouver”, etc.) and “rural” (or “remote” etc.) to describe a split in public opinion
on the ban. This element of discourse and framing of the hunt (as well as other conservation
issues) is problematic because it does not allow for people who have multiple wildlife-related
identities (e.g. conservationist and hunter) or whose address does not have the “correct”
association (e.g. urban hunters; rural-dwelling people opposed to the hunt). This reveals some
of the normative aspects and flawed assumptions built into such discussions, and again
provides a strong rationale for investigating complex patterns within public opinions of
conservation and wildlife management, across the entire province.
The power of the urban/rural discourse also influences how experts frame those
against the hunt. Some interviewees, including urban hunters themselves, suggested that
the majority of the public are against grizzly hunting due to the fact that a majority of the
population live in urban centers. To explain the influence of the urban/rural divide,
interviewed experts often forwarded the idea that people who live in urban centers were too
far removed from grizzly bear habitat. Participant H2 explained it this way: “so people in
Vancouver if you lived on Cordova Street, you probably wouldn’t see a bear in your
lifetime”. Others equated urban living with being misinformed: “they’re so far removed that
they believe any of the propaganda that was put forth in the media” (participant H7). Others
still blamed misguided views of grizzlies on lack of experience with the bears due to
84

geographic distance from them: “they view grizzly bears as these cute, cuddly animals as
opposed to actually dealing with them coming into their backyards” (participant S5). This
ignores or obscures urban hunters and recreationalists, and falsely assumes guaranteed closer
connections between rural people and wildlife.
During my analysis, an alternative framing of the urban/rural divide also emerged.
The government, the media, and interviewees suggested that the urban/rural split with
respect to opinions and attitudes towards wildlife and hunting may be softening or
weakening. They suggested that geographical places of residence are beginning to play
less of a role in public attitudes towards wildlife. For example, government
announcements focused on the unity of public opposition to the hunt. Interviewees who
denied much of a split between urban and rural opinions pointed to the polls in the media. I
had not anticipated finding this suggested weakening of questioning of the urban/rural divide,
but this adds to the (limited) literature that suggests place of residence as having a
diminishing influence on the formation of certain opinions (Dwyer & Childs, 2004; Huddart‐
Kennedy et al., 2009). For example, Kaczensky et al. (2003) found that geographic location
of residence did not have an apparent impact on public opinions towards brown bears in
Slovenia. However, the authors speculate that this could be due to the small size of Slovenia
(Slovenia is just over half the size of Vancouver Island). They also acknowledge that their
findings are in contrast to most literature available on the influence of urban and rural
geographies on attitudes towards large carnivores.
Another study by Dwyer and Childs (2004) claims that in the case of adaptive forestry
management “the differences between what has traditionally been considered urban and rural
are tending to blur over time” as people move from urban centers to rural locations.
Additional research on geographies of opinions and perceptions of grizzly bears in B.C. is
85

needed to better understand connections between beliefs and places of residence. This
changing urban/rural dynamic is another interesting aspect to watch, particularly since B.C.,
Canada, and the world are increasingly urban, but urban/rural tensions remain alongside
different potential exposure to wildlife in situ.
While access to experiences with grizzly bears has a specific geography, the public’s
interactions with bears is complex and varied. People do not need to live near bears to
interact with them. People living in B.C. cities would typically have to travel outside of
urban centers to encounter grizzly bears. Since grizzlies can be encountered in a number of
ways, hunting (of any species), camping, hiking, and other forms of outdoor recreation are
activities that can lead to urban dwellers crossing paths with a grizzly. All of those activities
are accessible to people in many different places in B.C., and are not solely carried out by
rural residents. Conversely, some rural residents have little to no exposure to local wildlife.
It is interesting to note, however, that the bear viewing industry is growing in the province
(Elmeligi & Shultis, 2015). This relatively new addition to B.C. ecotourism could increase
urbanite exposure to grizzly bears (it could increase rural exposure as well, with travel to
viewing sites). The literature suggests this type of exposure fosters inclinations towards
conservation of the species (Belicia & Islam, 2018) but such claims are also hard to prove
and verify. It would be interesting to know the numbers of urban B.C. and Canadian
residents who have visited B.C. bear viewing outfits over the past several years, since
wildlife encounters that occur within safe parameters has been shown to increase affinity
towards certain species (especially charismatic megafauna) in past studies (Penteriani et al.,
2017). Bear viewing brings urbanites “closer” to grizzlies, working against assumptions
about exposure and encounters, but it also represents a different type of encounter.

86

Competition for resources and nuisance encounters are among the main ways that
BC residents interact with bears, and this occurs more in some places than others. For
example, in places like Prince George, urban encounters with black bears are quite common
(Booth & Ryan, 2016). Urban encounters with grizzly bears are less common because of the
more remote spaces they tend to occupy but they can occur. The urban/rural divide here is
real in the sense that in most B.C. cities, urban residents are much less likely to have their
daily lives altered or inconvenienced due to grizzly bears. They have less experiences with
“problem” grizzlies in human-bear conflict. Further, they do not have any grizzly-related
constraints imposed on them—they do not need to adhere to bear-safe practices such as
ensuring garbage is stored properly or fallen fruit is removed from their property. Such daily
factors inform sets of social and environmental norms, and have the potential to contribute to
urban/rural divides about coexisting with large carnivores such as grizzly bears even if
grizzlies are not present (Thornton & Quinn, 2009).
Demographics also influence perceptions of wildlife. Certain demographic factors
known to influence perceptions of wildlife might be more or less prevalent in urban or rural
areas. For example, there might be differences between overall patterns of education levels,
socioeconomic statuses, or exposure to wildlife and hunting, between urban and rural areas
(Manfredo et al., 2003; Thornton & Quinn, 2009). Migration and travel between urban and
rural areas, as well as increases in urbanization or amenity migration to rural areas can also
affect the urban/rural divide or perceptions of it. As Manfredo et al. (2003) suggest:
Factors that have been linked to value shift in modern developed countries include the
growth of affluence and education, expanding urbanization, and increased mobility. We
would infer that the increase of these factors in North America since the 1950s has
spawned a gradual shift away from traditional wildlife value orientations, a trend similar
to what Dunlap (2002) has observed in the growth of environmental protection values
(p.301).
87

The traditional value orientations referenced by Manfredo et al. include utilitarian views, as
well as hunting. All of this suggests that further investigation into how such factors are
influencing public interactions with and understandings of wildlife would help to address my
second research question: whether or not we are in the midst of a significant change in public
attitudes and policy regarding the grizzly bear hunt.
Positive interactions with and/or opinions of grizzly bears featured in the expert
interviews also affect perceptions of grizzly bears. Personal experience with a species is a
known factor that influences perceptions of wildlife (Kellert et al., 1996), and the experts
interviewed all had overall positive opinions of the species. Even responses that included
stories of mauling, destruction of personal property, or fear for one’s life, presented a
generally favourable view of grizzly bears. This fits with the literature that recognizes
personal experiences with a species as contributing to positive perceptions of that species
(Kellert et al., 1996; Peterson & Messmer, 2010).
Public acceptance of hunter motivations
Portrayals of hunters in the media sample focused on exaggerated caricatures and
assumptions about motivations. The three main portrayals of hunters that I found
were: 1) unflattering portrayals of trophy hunters; 2) more generous portrayals of
subsistence hunters; and 3) conflated and confused characterisations of hunters. These
dominant framings reveal normative aspects of how hunting is conceptualized in B.C.
Portrayals of hunter types also vary in the media. At times, there is a clear designation of
“trophy” hunter in media coverage. One article quotes BC Green MLA Andrew Weaver
differentiating between trophy hunters and subsistence hunters, even placing the latter in the
same category as environmentalists by saying, “95 percent of hunters are opposed to killing
unless you eat it. And urban environmentalists are the same. They also support hunting by
88

and large, but believe you should eat what you kill” (CBC Radio, 2015) Other times, the
media does not discern between those who hunt for trophy purposes and those who are
motivated by sustenance, conflating the two through use of the general term “hunter”. An
example seen in one CBC article reads, “Some B.C. hunters say the province's move this
week to ban trophy grizzly hunting is 'wasteful' and misinformed — with one hunter saying
he received death threats for admitting he shot a grizzly” (Brend, 2017). This
homogenization of hunters is problematic because assumptions about the motivation of
hunters seems to play a large role in public opinion of them.
Perceptions of hunting also seemed to be linked to exposure to or experience with hunting.
Experts with personal trophy hunting experience defended the practice, but bemoaned the
negative public opinions of those who participate in it. Participant H6 went as far as to say,
“The premier of the province saying that what I do for a living is something socially
unacceptable. So, okay… but in the same class is a friggin child molester.” Experts with
little to no first-hand trophy hunting experience were primarily critical of the practice, or
sometimes indifferent. Participant S1 explained, “yes, our hunt was sustainable. 99% of it
was a trophy hunt. So, my job has nothing to do with ethics, personal beliefs, whatever,
right? It was a sustainable hunt in most our region so that's why it was open.” Details about
opinions on hunting were related to me by participants as drawing a line between personal
ethics and the science about the hunt. Participant G3 displayed such indifference:
As long as it’s sustainable I was okay with it. But you know, I've seen a lot of grizzly
bears I've never had any desire to shoot one and have it taxidermied at all. But again, it’s
a personal choice but, for me it was not something I’d ever considered doing.
Many experts in science and government made a clear delineation between their occupational
opinion of trophy hunting and their personal views on the practice, whereas interviewed

89

guide/outfitters, First Nations interviewees and members of NGOs did not emphasize such
distinctions.
Archetypal framings of hunters permeated my interviews. Interview participants in favour
of the grizzly hunt frequently mentioned themes of being misunderstood or villainized by
non-hunters. My findings from the media survey suggest that this perception is warranted
and grounded in truth. When searching for portrayals of hunters in the media, the
mention sport/trophy hunters and their motivations (i.e. ego, bragging rights, etc.) are
disproportionately present. Consumptive use or sustenance hunters are much less
discussed. References to sport/trophy hunters occur almost three times as frequently in my
media survey (215 mentions versus 74). These results support recent research by Boulé and
Mason (2019), which point to the role of media in the portrayal of sport hunters.
Hunters themselves, as understood via self-explanation captured in the media and in my
interviews, perceive themselves quite differently than some of the more dominant portrayals
circulating in society. Hunters’ opinions in the media (op-eds written by hunters; quotes
from hunters interviewed), as well as interviewees who identified as hunters, frame hunters
as having a deep connection to wildlife and the land. They also often suggest that this
connection makes hunters more likely to respect and desire to protect related resources
(bears; bear habitat) than non-hunters. There is some literature that supports these ideas
(Boulé & Mason, 2019; Gunn, 2001; Robbins, 2006). Also, revenues generated through the
sale of special hunting-related licenses (both hunting and vehicular), etc. do indeed fund
certain research and conservation initiatives (Loo, 2011). However, the idea of the hunter as
a conservationist, or steward/protector of wildlife has also been heavily contested in much of
the literature discussing animal welfare and wildlife management (Foran, 2018; Preece &
Chamberlain, 2009).
90

The theme of hunters as being misunderstood or viewed in a negative light by the media
also extended to the government consultation process. Both the media survey and
interview responses captured concerns about inadequate inclusion of hunters in the
decision-making process. Government lack of understanding and inclusion of hunters can
prove to be quite problematic. Political ecologists have studied how exclusion or inadequate
inclusion can impact marginalized groups. Exclusion in decision-making processes can
contribute to distrust and disrespect to government and government interventions. It can also
negatively impact local livelihoods, communities, etc. This is especially true in reference to
decisions made concerning land and/or resources that belong to the public (Richie et al.,
2012).
The grizzly hunt – a debate about existence vs. utility
The trophy hunting of grizzly bears raises moral considerations about animal welfare and
humans’ roles in nature as it involves the harvesting of an animal for glory and bragging
rights rather than food. Trophy hunting perpetuates the designation of individual animals as
resources, with little value ascribed to them other than providing beauty, entertainment, and
ultimately, pleasing the hunter (Gunn, 2001; Preece & Chamberlain, 2009). However, antitrophy hunt arguments rarely directly address the hunt in terms of concerns about
individual bears suffering. Most of the arguments against the hunt instead center around
the hunt as a threat to the overall species, or focus on criticisms of humans participating in
such “sport”, as well as questioning what continued acceptance of trophy hunting suggests
about society. Arguments against the trophy hunt in the media and in the interviews often
perpetuate the belief that humans have dominion over wildlife. This anthropocentric view
most often raises questions of what trophy hunting reflects about human society, versus
bears’ inherent existence values and rights to life.
91

Moral considerations about killing an animal for pleasure, to feed one’s ego, or to
assert some type of masculine dominance over a large, dangerous predator are a large
part of the outrage featured in both the media and the expert interviews by those
opposed to the trophy hunt. Questioning where “we” (humans) are as a society is a big part
of this argument as well. What are the implications of allowing the use of wildlife/game as a
resource for leisure and pleasure, and what does it say of our place in the hierarchy, and our
views of wildlife management? Participant S3 illustrated these concerns by stating:
some trophy hunters were actually regarding the trophy as the Instagram or Facebook
photo - not the skull, not the hide, not the baculum, not the claws - the photograph. You
want to talk about repugnant, right? At least, the old days they took that thing and yeah,
they did the swizzle stick with the baculum and I’m horrified by that. But you want to
make me angry, kill a bear for a photograph. That's disgusting. So that was advancing as a
motive for trophy hunting. Concurrently, with the controversy surrounding just the idea
that… you don't need it, so why do it?
The media and the interview data addressing the moral and ethical debate on trophy hunting
focus on the societal implications for humans rather than welfare concerns for grizzly bears.
Only one question about bear welfare received some limited attention—it was about the
potential impacts of bear-viewing (so called non-consumptive use) on bears. In the media
sample, the theme of bear viewing is only really presented as an ethical and profitable
alternative to the hunt. However, experts I interviewed were more vocal about the
ethical concerns connected to this “non-consumptive” use of grizzlies. Potential resulting
impacts and a lack of regulation of bear viewing outfits came up frequently when I asked
interviewees how hypothetical funds for grizzly bear management should be applied. For
example, Participant G7 stated, “I would put money towards a study around the impacts of
commercial bear viewing on grizzly bears”. Potential negative impacts (i.e. habituation to
humans, altered feeding times and locations, etc.) resulting from grizzly viewing operations
and the lack of regulations have been the subject of recent research (Elmeligi & Shultis,
92

2015; Penteriani et al., 2017). The Auditor General report also makes brief mention of the
need to regulate bear viewing (listed after grizzly bear hunting, reducing illegal activities,
reducing grizzly bear/human conflicts) when addressing “managing human threats” (p 7).
Homogenization of First Nations:
The data that I collected suggest that the media failed to adequately explore
differences among First Nations in terms of support and opposition to the grizzly bear
hunt ban. Although this topic does not directly answer either of my research questions, I do
believe it is an important theme that emerged from the analysis. First Nations should also be
considered as distinct from other stakeholder groups due to the fact that they hold rights and
title to their territories and have shared the land with grizzly bears from time immemorial.
These underlying rights and titles should distinguish First Nations from merely having a
stake in policy decisions such as the grizzly hunt ban (Tipa & Welch, 2006; von der Porten,
2013). They should be afforded distinct primary consultation, participation, and decisionmaking power that better represents their ties to the land and wildlife, past and present.
The media coverage that included Indigenous perspectives of the hunt was heavily biased
towards First Nations who framed the grizzly hunt as offensive and deserving of being
banned long ago. Much of the coverage highlighted the Coastal First Nations, which is likely
due to their prominence in the media dating back to the formation of the Great Bear
Rainforest. They also had an independent ban on grizzly bear hunting on their territories that
was implemented yet unrecognized by the government of B.C. in 2012 (Cashore, 2014; Page,
2014). Another reason for the prevalence of Coastal First Nations views as opposed to those
of other First Nations could be the influence gained through partnerships with environmental
groups (also in part a result of the formation of the GBR) (Page, 2014).

93

The interviewees who participated in my research portrayed an alternative side to the
theme of First Nations being unanimously and staunchly against the hunt of grizzly bears. In
addition to the pro-ban First Nation perspective that permeated the media, seven out of 30
interviewees were either members of, or aware of nations holding different opinions
including opposing the ban. While many other actor sets are homogenized at times by the
media (e.g. the conflation of trophy and subsistence hunters), media representation of First
Nations’ opinions on the ban is the most egregiously incomplete.
Limitations of my project
As with all academic projects, I have learned a lot along the way and there are elements of
the project that I understand better now than at the start of my research. First, my proposal
preparation suggested to me that I could expect some limitations related to the collection and
analysis of data. For example, I knew it would be impossible for me to review every piece of
media produced about the grizzly bear hunt ban during the timeframe of the case study (2000
- present). I also knew that not everyone I wanted to interview would be willing and/or able
to participate, representing limits to recruitment.
I was similarly aware that using phone interviews instead of face-to-face
meetings/interviews would impose certain limitations to my interactions with experts and
what I could glean from these. I knew from the literature that phone interviews could be
difficult as I would be limited to only having voice-based interactions—there would be no
social cues or body language available to me to let me know how an interview was going or
whether an interviewee had finished a response or was simply pausing (Christmann, 2009). I
tried to maintain a good pace while conducting phone interviews, and to allow for follow-up
opportunities to compensate for such limitations. Generally, they went quite well and I did
not encounter any major problems. I did, however, have an interview that did not record as
94

planned. To compensate for this, I ended up writing notes immediately after the call ended
since no verbatim transcript would be available. Because I noticed this failed recording
immediately following the interview, I believe the notes capture the main content of the
interview well.
In addition to expected limitations, I also encountered new challenges and limitations
during data collection and analysis. In searching for online articles from publications, I
knew I would not likely be able to access articles as far back as 1990, since some outlets and
sites might not yet be archived online. What I did not anticipate, however, was that I would at
times encounter portions of missing text in some of the online articles that I had downloaded
during data collection. For example, some articles that I had saved from The Globe and Mail
website were missing a small amount of text due to issues related to pop-up ads in online
versions. I attempted to resolve this by using database searches of the news publications via
the UNBC Geoffrey R. Weller Library website for full versions of these articles.
I was able to find many of these articles through database searches, but in some instances
other discrepancies occurred or the database searches were unsuccessful. For example, in
some database searches, I would find the exact same text/content, under a different title and
publication date, making it unclear where one article ended and another began, and how the
article should be referenced. At other times, I was unable to find a complete version of an
online article on the database at all. If I could not find the article on the database, I decided
to simply code the online version I had even if it was evident that a small portion of text was
missing. While I may have lost some text in such articles, the sheer number of articles I
surveyed and the frequent overlap between articles suggest that information potentially lost
from one article was likely represented in another.

95

Another unexpected issue was the high degree of overlap between some articles due to
current practices with respect to sharing or purchasing articles. I had to decide when an
article was distinct enough to be included in my sample. Sometimes, very similar articles
with minimal alterations would appear in different sources. For example, I encountered
articles labeled “UPDATE” but that contained largely the same contents as earlier versions of
the article, with minimal new lines of text. This led to new considerations with respect to
counting and coding articles (e.g. How does the common practice of newspapers buying
content from information clearinghouses impact distinctions between online articles? What
constitutes a new article?). Ultimately, and with the help of my committee, I decided that
one of my interests was the frequencies with which the media present bear and ban-related
theme, and how likely readers are to encounter them. For this reason, multiple versions of
articles, even when very similar, were coded as individual entries since they at once represent
both distinct and repeated messaging, and since readers might be exposed to several versions.
If I were going to begin this project again, there are some things I would approach
differently. First, I would control for my media data more strictly. I would only use
databases to search media articles, instead of publication websites. I would also consider
separating opinion pieces from the general media coverage. I decided in this project to
include such pieces because they were part of the messaging the public received from the
media. However, limiting inclusion to those articles covered by journalists and excluding opeds and opinion pieces might yield different results. Alternatively, it could also be of interest
to look solely at personal opinions captured in the media and therefore only include opinion
pieces and editorials in a media survey. These, no doubt, represent extreme viewpoints along
the spectrum of public perceptions.

96

Chapter 6 – Conclusion
Grizzly bears have been extirpated from the vast majority of the lower United States and
much of southcentral and northeastern Canada. British Columbia is home to habitat for the
largest percentage of grizzly bears within Canada. This places a global spotlight on B.C. for
the management of the species (COSEWIC, 2012; Dempsey, 2010). Thus, the province is in
a unique position to shape the future of grizzly bears in B.C. and elsewhere (COSEWIC,
2012; Dempsey, 2010). With regard to my first research question, the research presented in
this thesis supports the idea that public opinion and social values did influence the decision to
enact the 2017 B.C. grizzly bear hunt ban, in spite of scientific evidence supporting the
conservation/management status quo.
My findings suggest that science is the accepted and appropriate basis for wildlife
management. Post-ban, the science that informs grizzly bear management will have to focus
on managing the species in terms of objectives for population numbers in different areas,
rather than focusing on sustainable harvest numbers for a hunt. The findings presented here
indicate that inclusion of but not deference to other types of information such as public
opinion is key to future grizzly bear management in B.C. However, transparency in decision
processes and a more comprehensive consultation process (including greater attention to
geographical factors) by Government would be beneficial for successful integration of public
opinion. Finally, while the data suggests that habitat loss is the greatest threat facing grizzly
bear populations, no major efforts are being made to conserve habitat. The ban is more
agreeable to the majority of British Columbians than policy changes that would affect land
use (e.g. restrictions on development or recreation to improve habitat conservation).
An inadequate discussion of habitat within policy documents focused on grizzly bear
management speaks to my second research question, on whether B.C. is experiencing a shift
97

in opinion of the grizzly bear as a species, or the grizzly bear hunt as a practice. Overall, it is
difficult to ascertain whether the current perspectives on the management of animal
populations are shifting to reflect an increased concern for animal or nonhuman welfare in
B.C. Support for this shift within B.C. is suggested by policy decisions such as the grizzly
bear hunt ban and the ban of new captive cetaceans in the Vancouver Aquarium (Lindsay,
2018). However, public flare-ups in the ongoing “habitat conservation versus industry”
debate contrast with this perspective. For example, recent approval for the expansion of the
Trans Mountain Pipeline, and the controversy over the caribou recovery plan for B.C.
illustrate the endurance of economic bias in land use decisions, and cases where wildlife
receive less consideration than human wants and needs.
In terms of B.C. resident attitudes towards grizzly bears, I did not find evidence of a shift
in public opinion. My findings reflect that grizzly bears are generally viewed positively by
the public and experts, both as an iconic species and as a resource. I do believe that public
opinions of hunters and hunting may be changing. This is particularly the case with respect
to a growing bifurcation between characterizations of trophy hunters as contrasted with more
“ethical” subsistence hunters. Conclusive evidence of such a shift and corresponding
influences does not yet exist, as far as I know.
Further research is also necessary to determine the exact nature of hunting in B.C. (e.g.
how many hunters are motivated by closeness to nature? How many hunters conserve
wildlife to hunt and vice versa?), as well as the characterization of hunters by B.C.’s public
and others actors. These are questions that must be addressed in trying to determine what
roles hunters play in public opinion, and whether public opinion is indeed becoming more
influential in wildlife management decisions. Such work might provide insights into the

98

political power of hunters and hunting-related groups, and whether this power is waxing,
waning, or staying constant as a political influence in B.C. and North America.
If this were a PhD project, I would seek to situate the ban in a more global context in
relation to trophy hunting. Images of trophy hunters in the media, some of which are
featured on social media accounts, are circulated widely and often are received by the public
with hostile outrage. An entire research project could be done on the role of social media in
reflecting and influencing public opinion on topics such as the grizzly bear trophy hunt.
Scholars have investigated factors that influence public opinion on wildlife and the history of
hunting in North America, but the related influences of social media have yet to adequately
be explored. What happens to perceptions of wildlife when news apps, Google searches, and
other filters tailor information to a person’s interests, leanings, and prior searches? We do not
know how such online information provision is factoring into public opinion on wildliferelated topics in B.C.
Lastly, and most intriguing to me, is the debate concerning the role of ethics in science.
Should scientists embrace taking normative stances? Should they present opinions on certain
issues that reflect their personal morals/ethics? If B.C. is going to move towards an
interdisciplinary, holistic management that includes social values, cultural considerations and
science, what are the roles and consequences for natural scientists who openly inform their
recommendations with input from their own values/morals? After all, experts spend their
careers studying a certain species, and therefore must form opinions that deserve
consideration. Further research on the role of scientists as advocates, and investigations into
the changing role of ethics within the scientific community should also be explored.
Scientific management of wildlife and other natural resources will continue to be the
framework used in B.C. and North America for the foreseeable future. The involvement of
99

other factors like traditional ecological knowledge, ethics, and public opinion in policy
decisions could be beneficial. However, with increased public involvement in policy
formation, the media will continue to be an information source, as well as a major influence.
Should public opinion continue to be a key pillar of policy decisions, the conveyance of
accurate scientific information to the public, via the media, will remain of utmost importance.
Ultimately, it is the government that is tasked with both representing the will of the
people, and managing grizzly bears in a way that ensures the species persists in the province
for future generations. Therefore, the ability of scientists to clearly communicate information
not only to decision makers, but to the public through media outlets, is crucial to developing
a well-informed public, which might in turn be critical to future grizzly bear management in
B.C. By the same token, sound contemporary wildlife management in B.C. should also
include investing in truly analyzing and understanding public perceptions of wildlife, wildlife
management policy, and processes. Without this, conflicts, unsubstantiated
characterizations, and exaggerated claims about the public stand to dominate rather than the
true perspectives of the public, their needs, and factors that endanger the future of “Super,
Natural B.C.” and its wildlife.

Bibliography
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and
dolphins), S-203 (2019).
Alan Dolan & Associates. (2017). Engagement Report Regultory and Policy Changes to the
Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunt.
Artelle, K. A., Anderson, S. C., Cooper, A. B., Paquet, P. C., Reynolds, J. D., & Darimont, C.
T. (2013). Confronting uncertainty in wildlife management: performance of grizzly
100

bear management. PLoS One, 8(11), e78041. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24223134 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078041
Artelle, K. A., Reynolds, J. D., Treves, A., Walsh, J. C., Paquet, P. C., & Darimont, C. T.
(2018). Working constructively toward an improved North American approach to
wildlife management. Science advances, 4(10), eaav2571. Retrieved from
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaav2571
Ascher, W. (2014). Coping with Complexity and Organizational Interests in Natural
Resource Management. Ecosystems, 4(8), 742-757. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0043-y
Bailey, I. (2017, Dec 18). First Nations hunters to be exempt from B.C. grizzly ban. The
Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Baxter, J. (2016). Case studies in qualitative research. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research
Methods in Human Geography (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and
Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2
Belicia, T., & Islam, M. (2018). Towards a Decommodified Wildlife Tourism: Why Market
Environmentalism Is Not Enough for Conservation. Societies, 8(3), 59. Retrieved
from https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/8/3/59/htm
Bergstrom, B. J. (2017). Carnivore conservation: shifting the paradigm from control to
coexistence. Journal of Mammalogy, 98(1), 1-6. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312118535_Carnivore_conservation_Shifti
ng_the_paradigm_from_control_to_coexistence
Bieder, R. E. (2005). Bear. London, UK: Reaktion Books.
Booth, A. L., & Ryan, D. (2016). Goldilocks Revisited: Public Perceptions of Urban Bears in
Northern British Columbia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 21(5), 460-470.
doi:10.1080/10871209.2016.1183730
Boulé, K. L., & Mason, C. W. (2019). Local Perspectives on Sport Hunting and Tourism
Economies: Stereotypes, Sustainability, and Inclusion in British Columbia’s Hunting

101

Industries. Sport History Review, 50(1), 93-115. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1123/shr.2018-0023
Boyce, M. S., Derocher, A. E., & Garshelis, D. L. (2016). Scientific Review of Grizzly Bear
Harvest Management System in British Columbia. Retrieved from
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly-bear-harvestmanagement-2016.pdf
Bramham, D. (2016, Nov 14). Grizzly bears continue to be hunted under Queens canopy.
Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research
in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706QP063OA
Brend, Y. (2017, Aug 19). 'It's so much more than the kill'_ hunters decry ban on grizzly
trophy hunt. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.cbc.ca/
Britten, L. (2016, Jun 2). B.C. auditor general to look into grizzly hunt Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
Bruskotter, J. T., Vaske, J. J., & Schmidt, R. H. (2009). Social and cognitive correlates of
Utah residents' acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 14(2), 119-132. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10871200802712571
Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: The
use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of family
therapy, 27(3), 237-262. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00314.x
Carter, M. (2016, Feb 4). Consultation on hunting changes botched: environmental group.
Dawson Creek Mirror. Retrieved from https://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/
Cashore, B. (2014). In search of sustainability: British Columbia forest policy in The 1990s.
Vancouver: UBC Press.

102

CBC News. (2013, Nov 27). Trophy hunting supported by only 10% in B.C., poll suggests.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
CBC News. (2017, Dec 18). Province ends grizzly bear hunt throughout all B.C. Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
CBC News. (2017, Jul 14). 'We want this bear alive' Thousands rally to save grizzly that's
chased humans. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.cbc.ca/
CBC News. (2017, Oct 6). Grizzly meat hunt is a trophy hunt in disguise, say 38
organizations. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.cbc.ca/
CBC News. (2019, Oct 2). B.C. First Nation feeds hungry grizzlies 500 salmon carcasses
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
CBC Radio. (2015, Mar 5). Is trophy hunting ethical? Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance
scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3).
doi:10.5751/es-06824-190356
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P.
Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155-172).
Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an Integrating Concept in
Natural Resource Politics: Propositions for a Social Science Research Agenda.
Society and Natural Resources, 16, 87-104. doi:10.1080/08941920390174229
Christmann, G. B. (2009). Expert Interviews on the Telephone: A Difficult Undertaking. In
A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing Experts (Vol. Chapter 7, pp.
157-183).
Clark, D. A., & Slocombe, D. S. (2011). Grizzly Bear conservation in the Foothills Model
Forest: appraisal of a collaborative ecosystem management effort. Policy Sciences,
44(1), 1-11. doi:10.1007/sl

103

Clark, D. A., Workman, L., & Slocombe, D. S. (2014). Science-based grizzly bear
conservation in a co-management environment: The Kluane region case, Yukon. In S.
G. Clark & M. B. Rutherford (Eds.), Large Carnivore Conservation: Integrating
Science and Policy in the North American West (pp. 108-139): University of Chicago
Press.
Collard, R. C. (2013). Panda politics. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien,
57(2), 226-232. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cag.12010 doi:10.1111/cag.12010
Coogan, S. C. P., Coops, N. C., Janz, D. M., Cattet, M. R. L., Kearney, S. P., Stenhouse, G.
B., & Nielsen, S. E. (2018). Towards grizzly bear population recovery in a modern
landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1-7. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13259
COSEWIC. (2012). COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus
arctos in Canada, pp. xiv - 84. Retrieved from www.registrelepsararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm
Daston, L., & Mitman, G. (2014). Thinking with animals: new perspectives on
anthropomorphism: Columbia University Press.
Davison, J. (2016). How green are the royals? Great Bear Rainforest will give William and
Kate glimpse of 'stunning' natural world. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
Dempsey, J. (2010). Tracking Grizzly Bears in British Columbia's Environmental Politics.
Environment and Planning A, 42(5), 1138-1156. doi:10.1068/a42214
Dunn, K. (2016). Interviewing. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human
Geography (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dwyer, J. F., & Childs, G. M. (2004). Movement of people across the landscape: a blurring
of distinctions between areas, interests, and issues affecting natural resource
management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 153-164. doi:10.10
16/j.landurbplan.2003.09.00
Eichler, L., & Baumeister, D. (2018). Hunting for Justice: An Indigenous Critique of the
North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Environment and Society, 9(1), 7590. doi:doi:10.3167/ares.2018.090106

104

Elmeligi, S., & Shultis, J. (2015). Impacts of boat-based wildlife viewing in the K'tzim-aDeen Inlet on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) behavior. Natural areas journal, 35(3), 404416.
Erickson, M. (2017, Mar 7). Op-Ed: Grizzly hunt can be managed successfully. Prince
George Citizen. Retrieved from https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/
Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., Parker, I. D., & Vidon, E. S. (2017). Privileging consumptive use:
a critique of ideology, power, and discourse in the North American model of wildlife
conservation. Conservation and Society, 15(1), 33. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393269
Fletcher, T. (2016, Oct 19). Outside experts endorse B.C. grizzly hunt. Salmon Arm
Observer. Retrieved from https://www.saobserver.net/
Fletcher, T. (2017, Aug 14). Grizzly bear trophy hunt to end Nov. 30. Salmon Arm Observer.
Retrieved from https://www.saobserver.net/
Foran, M. (2018). The Subjugation of Canadian Wildlife: Failures of Principle and Policy.
Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Fox, C. H., & Bekoff, M. (2011). Integrating values and ethics into wildlife policy and
management—lessons from North America. Animals, 1(1), 126-143.
doi:10.3390/ani1010126
Gau, R. J., Philip D. McLoughlin, Ray Case, H. Dean Cluff, Robert Mulders, and François
Messier. (2004). Movements of Subadult Male Grizzly Bears, Ursus arctos, in the
Central Canadian Arctic. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 118(2), 239-242. Retrieved from
https://www.canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/cfn/index.php/cfn/article/view/920
George, K. A., Slagle, K. M., Wilson, R. S., Moeller, S. J., & Bruskotter, J. T. (2016).
Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014.
Biological Conservation, 201, 237-242. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716302774
Gibeau, M. L., Clevenger, A. P., Herrero, S., & Wierzchowski, J. (2002). Grizzly bear
response to human development and activities in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta,
Canada. Biological Conservation, 103(2), 227-236.

105

Gilchrist, E. (2017, Aug 15). NDP Government to End Grizzly Bear Trophy Hunting. The
Tyee. Retrieved from https://thetyee.ca/
Government of British Columbia. (2017). Policy Intent Discussion Paper Grizzly Bear
Trophy Hunt Ban. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/docs/20170929-policy_intentgrizzly-trophy.pdf.
Gunn, A. S. (2001). Environmental Ethics and trophy hunting. Ethics and the Enviroment,
6(1), 68-95. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40339004
Hamilton, A. N., & Austin, M. A. (2002). Grizzly Bear Harvest Management in British
Columbia: Background Report. Victoria, B.C.
Hamilton, A. N., Heard, D. C., & Austin, M. A. (2004). British Columbia Grizzly Bear
(Ursus arctos) Population Estimate. Victoria, BC.
Honey, M., Johnson, J., Menke, C., Cruz, A. R., Karwacki, J., & Durham, W. H. (2016). The
comparative economic value of bear viewing and bear hunting in the Great Bear
Rainforest. Journal of Ecotourism, 15(3), 199-240.
doi:10.1080/14724049.2016.1142554
Houston, M. J., Bruskotter, J. T., & Fan, D. (2010). Attitudes Toward Wolves in the United
States and Canada: A Content Analysis of the Print News Media, 1999–2008. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 15(5), 389-403. doi:10.1080/10871209.2010.507563
Housty, W. G., Noson, A., Scoville, G. W., Boulanger, J., Jeo, R. M., Darimont, C. T., &
Filardi, C. E. (2014). Grizzly bear monitoring by the Heiltsuk people as a crucible for
First Nation conservation practice. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES06668-190270
Hovorka, A. J. (2018). Animal geographies III: Species relations of power. Progress in
Human Geography, 1-9. doi:10.1177/0309132518775837
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009). From government to governance in forest
planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest
initiative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5-6), 383-391.
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.01.003

106

Huddart‐Kennedy, E., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., & Nadeau, S. (2009). Rural‐urban
differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural sociology, 74(3), 309-329.
Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1526/003601109789037268
Hume, M. (2014, Jan 8). Ecogroups hope to oust bear-hunting guides from rainforest. The
Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Hume, M. (2015, Oct 4). B.C. man persuaded to give up coveted licence to hunt grizzly
bears. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Johansson, M., Sjöström, M., Karlsson, J., & Brännlund, R. (2012). Is human fear affecting
public willingness to pay for the management and conservation of large carnivores?
Society & Natural Resources, 25(6), 610-620. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.622734
Johnson, L., & Lindsay, B. (2017, Aug 14). B.C. to end grizzly bear trophy hunting after this
season. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Rush, C. R., & Bath, A. J. (1996). Human culture and large
carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 977-990.
Retrieved from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.15231739.1996.10040977.x
Kines, L. (2017, Aug 16). Grizzly bear trophy hunt to be banned in B.C. Dawson Creek
Mirror. Retrieved from https://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/
Kurjata, A. (2019, Mar 21). From reduced snowmobiling to continued wolf cull, wide range
of options in B.C.'s caribou protection plans. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
Lazaruk, S., & Luymes, G. (2018, Jan 18). Vancouver Aquarium bows to pressure to ban
whales, dolphins Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/
Lindsay, B. (2018, Jan 18). Vancouver Aquarium will no longer keep whales, dolphins in
captivity. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/

107

Linke, J., McDermid, G. J., Fortin, M.-J., & Stenhouse, G. B. (2013). Relationships between
grizzly bears and human disturbances in a rapidly changing multi-use forest
landscape. Biological Conservation, 166, 54-63. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.012
Loo, T. (2011). States of Nature: Conserving Canada's Wildlife in the Twentieth Century:
ubc Press.
Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
25, 911-932. doi:10.1068/d71j
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. (1993). Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and
Conservation: Lessons from History. SCIENCE, 260, 17, 36. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1942074
Lunman, K. (2001, Jul 17). Liberals lift B.C. ban on hunting grizzlies. The Globe and Mail.
Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives
on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
9(4), 247-257. doi:10.1080/10871200490505675
Manfredo, M., Teel, T., & Bright, A. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife
changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(4), 287-306. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239795616
Marshall, H., & Ritland, K. (2002). Genetic diversity and differentiation of Kermode bear
populations. Molecular Ecology, 11(4), 685-697. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01479.x
Mason, G. (2015, Oct 2). Opposition to trophy hunting overwhelming, poll finds amid
grizzly debate. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Mason, G. (2015, Sep 26). The business of grizzly bear trophy hunting: 'Does the bear care?'.
The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Matas, R. (2001, Feb 8). B.C. grizzly moratorium may not last: provincial Liberals. The
Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/

108

McCarthy, J. (2002). First World political ecology: lessons from the Wise Use movement.
Environment and Planning A, 34(7), 1281-1302. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/a3526
McElroy, J. (2018, Mar 10). Furious feedback_ B.C. government launching one public
consultation every week. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.cbc.ca/
McFarlane, B. L., Stumpf-Allen, R. C. G., & Watson, D. O. T. (2007). Public Acceptance of
Access Restrictions to Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Country. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 12(4), 275-287. doi:10.1080/10871200701195555
McLellan, B. N., Hovey, F. W., Mace, R. D., Woods, J. G., Carney, D. W., Gibeau, M. L., . .
. Kasworm, W. F. (1999). Rates and Causes of Grizzly Bear Mortality in the Interior
Mountains of British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Washington, and Idaho. The
Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(3), 911-920. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3802805
McLellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the Grizzly
Bear Hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2),
218–229. doi:10.1002/jwmg.21189
McLoughlin, P. D. (2003). Managing risks of decline for hunted populations of grizzly bears
given uncertainty in population parameters. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.
McMartin, P. (2016, Dec 14). Grizzly truth_ Columns I didnt get around to writing in 2016_
Vol. 1 Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/
Moore, D. (2014, Apr 2). British Columbias controversial spring grizzly bear hunt now open.
The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Mowat, G., & Strobeck, C. (2000). Estimating Population Size of Grizzly Bears Using Hair
Capture, DNA Profiling, and MarkRecapture Analysis. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 64(1), 183-193. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3802989
Nagel, J. (2016, Nov 24). NDP vow to ban grizzly bear trophy hunt. Salmon Arm Observer.
Retrieved from https://www.saobserver.net/

109

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia. (2017). An Independant Audit of Grizzly
Bear Management. Victoria, BC: Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia.
Organ, J., Geist, V., Mahoney, S., Williams, S., Krausman, P., Batcheller, G., . . . Regan, R.
(2012). The North American model of wildlife conservation. The Wildlife Society
Technical Review, 12(04).
Page, J. (2014). Tracking the Great Bear: How Environmentalists Recreated British
Columbia's Coastal Rainforest: UBC Press.
Palmer, V. (2016, Nov 27). Vaughn Palmer_ NDP bear hunting proposals could backfire,
again. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/
Panelli, R. (2010). More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and other possibilities.
Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), 79-87. doi:10.1177/0309132509105007
Peek, J., Beecham, J., Garshelis, D., Messier, F., Miller, S., & Strickland, D. (2003).
Management of grizzly bears in British Columbia-a review by an independent
scientific panel. Victoria, BC.
Penteriani, V., López-Bao, J. V., Bettega, C., Dalerum, F., del Mar Delgado, M., Jerina, K., .
. . Ordiz, A. (2017). Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: A review.
Biological Conservation, 206, 169-180. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716311351
Peterson, C. C., & Messmer, T. A. (2010). Can public meetings accurately reflect public
attitudes toward wildlife management? The Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(7),
1588-1594.
Preece, R., & Chamberlain, L. (2009). Animal welfare & human values. Waterloo, Ont.:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, RSBC, c372 (1996).
Pynn, L. (2017, Aug 14). NDP to enact B.C.-wide ban on grizzly trophy hunt, while allowing
hunt for meat. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/

110

Pynn, L. (2017, Aug 15). B.C. grizzly hunter calls new provincial ban wasteful, hurtful to
local economies. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/
Pynn, L. (2017, Mar 30). New poll shows 74 per cent of rural British Columbians oppose
grizzly trophy hunt. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/new-poll-shows-74-per-cent-of-ruralbritish-columbians-oppose-grizzly-trophy-hunt
Richie, L., Oppenheimer, J. D., & Clark, S. G. (2012). Social process in grizzly bear
management: lessons for collaborative governance and natural resource policy. Policy
Sciences, 45(3), 265-291. doi:10.1007/s11077-012-9160-z
Riley, S. J., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., Siemer, W. F., Mattfeld, G. F., &
Parsons, G. (2002). The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
585-593.
Robbins, P. (2004). Political ecology: A critical introduction. Oxford, UK: John Wiley &
Sons.
Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: environmental knowledge and power in
greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37(2), 185-199. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718505000588
Rocheleau, D. E. (2008). Political ecology in the key of policy: From chains of explanation to
webs of relation. Geoforum, 39(2), 716-727. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718507000322
Shore, R. (2019, Sep 12). B.C. predator cull would target 80 per cent of wolves in caribou
recovery areas. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from https://vancouversun.com/
Stefanick, L. (2001). Baby stumpy and the war in the woods: Competing frames of British
Columbia forests. BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly,(130), 41-68.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 273-285).
Sullivan, P. (2001, Feb 12). Opinion - Smarter than the average bear. The Globe and Mail.
Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/

111

The Canadian Press. (2014, Apr 1). Controversial grizzly bear hunt begins in B.C. .
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/
The Canadian Press. (2018, Mar 22). Ban on grizzly bear hunt, new rules take effect April 1.
Salmon Arm Observer. Retrieved from https://www.saobserver.net/
The Early Edition. (2015, Aug 2). Cecil the lion's killer should be extradited, says Born Free
CEO Will Travers. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from
https://www.cbc.ca/
Thomas, G. (2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of
definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 511-521. Retrieved
from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077800411409884
Thornton, C., & Quinn, M. S. (2009). Coexisting with cougars: public perceptions, attitudes,
and awareness of cougars on the urban-rural fringe of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Human-Wildlife Conflicts, 3(2), 282-295. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24875717
Tipa, G., & Welch, R. (2006). Comanagement of natural resources: issues of definition from
an indigenous community perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
42(3), 373-391. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021886306287738
Treves, A. (2009). Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology,
46(6), 1350-1356. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01729.x
Treves, A., Chapron, G., López‐Bao, J. V., Shoemaker, C., Goeckner, A. R., & Bruskotter, J.
T. (2017). Predators and the public trust. Biological Reviews, 92(1), 248-270.
Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12227
Vancouver Sun & Prince George Citizen. (2017, Aug 15). Local hunter takes aim at NDP's
grizzly ban plan. Prince George Citizen. Retrieved from
https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/
Vernon, M. E., Bischoff-Mattson, Z., & Clark, S. G. (2016). Discourses of elk hunting and
grizzly bear incidents in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife, 21(1), 65-85. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

112

von der Porten, S. (2013). Water governance and Indigenous governance: Towards a
synthesis. Indigenous Policy Journal, 23(4). Retrieved from
http://blog.indigenouspolicy.org/index.php/ipj/article/view/148
Wadhwani, A. (2017, Sep 26). Miley Cyrus joins campaign calling for full ban on grizzly
bear hunting in B.C. Salmon Arm Observer. Retrieved from
https://www.saobserver.net/
Walker, P. (2005). Political ecology: where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography,
29(1), 73-82. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/0309132505ph530pr
Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A political ecology of the
‘exurban’Sierra. Cultural geographies, 10(4), 469-491.
doi:10.1191/1474474003eu285oa
Wielgus, R. B., & Bunnell, F. L. (2000). Possible negative effects of adult male mortality on
female grizzly bear reproduction. Biological Conservation, 93(2), 145-154.
doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(99)00152-4
Wildlife Act, c 488 (1996).
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative science quarterly,
26(1), 58-65. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392599
Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely
parallel. In R. B. Johnson (Ed.), Research in the Schools (Vol. 13, pp. 41-47).
Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Barro, S. C. (2002). Patterns of wildlife value orientations in
hunters' families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(3), 147-162. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10871200260293324

113

Appendix A – Government Website (PDF Version)

114

Appendix B – Map of Grizzly Bear Management Units

Courtesy of Dr. Chris Johnson

115

Appendix C – Procedural manual for the grizzly bear hunt prepared by the Ministry of
Water, Land and Air Protection (B.C. government website)

116

Appendix D - Procedural manual for the grizzly bear hunt prepared by the Ministry of
Environment (B.C. government website)

117

Appendix E – Research Ethics Board Approval Letter

118

Appendix F – Interview Guide
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Let me start out by thanking you for agreeing to meet/talk with me today. My name is
Bridget Kinsley and although I am from the east coast of the US, I am currently a graduate
student at UNBC in the Geography stream of the Natural Resource and Environmental
Studies program. I am writing my thesis about the recent grizzly bear hunt bans in BC, and
the history that preceded these bans. My research involves a policy document review, media
analysis and interviews with actors involved, either directly or indirectly, with the decision
making surrounding the bans. I am interested to know how these bans came about, and how
those near and far from the related processes see and understand the bans. I plan to share the
information resulting from this project with academic, applied, and general public audiences.
This project is funded by UNBC and a Real Estate Board grant, but is an independent project.
I have approximately 10 questions about the recent grizzly bear hunt bans here in BC, so
depending on your answer length, the interview should take about half an hour. One we get
started, the first thing that I will ask is for your oral consent to participate. I will record that
you have consented, and the interview will begin. I have also sent you (or will send you) a
copy of the Project Information Letter, that contains all of the information about this project,
as well as contact information.
This interview is completely voluntary and you can skip any question you like, and stop at
any time. If you decide to stop your participation, I will destroy your data and thank you for
your time. The data will be stored in a secure, password protected computers and drives, and
the hard copies will be stored in locked offices at UNBC. Only approved members of the
research team for this project will have access to the data. Any identifiers collected (e.g.
your email address) will be stored separately from the data). Alphanumeric identifiers will be
119

used rather than participant names, to keep data anonymous. The data will be used in written
reports and publications, academic teaching, and oral presentations. This is a low risk
research project approved by the UNBC Research Ethics Board. The potential benefits of
this project are that it will result in new data and new documents to inform discussions of
grizzly bears and their management in BC, and beyond. We will not pay you for
participating in this project, but we greatly appreciate your input.
If you have any questions after we get started, please ask me. If you have questions after
the interview, please contact me at bkinsley@unbc.ca or +1.732.939.2505. If you have any
questions for my research supervisor, please contact Dr. Zoë Meletis, at zoe.meletis@unbc.ca
or 250-640-1260 (cell). If you have any concerns or complaints about this research, please
contact the UNBC Office of Research at research@unbc.ca or 250-960-5852.
CONSENT
Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate.
As mentioned, you can also stop at any time, skip any questions, and remove your
participation at any time, without any negative impact on you. If you agree to consent, I will
record that you have consented, along with the date and time. Consenting to participate also
means that I have read this introduction to you and sent you a Project Information letter. If an
interview is completed, it will be considered proof of consent, along with my recording of
your consent at the start.
Do you consent or agree to participate in this research project?
If yes: Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this project. Your answers will
contribute to greater discussions of the recent bans.
If no: Thank you very much for considering participating. If you would like to participate
at a later time, please contact me at: bkinsley@unbc.ca or +1.732.939.2505.
120

Consent was obtained?

Y ______

N _______ Date and time: ________________

QUESTIONS
1) How would you describe your involvement – directly or indirectly – in the decision
making surrounding the grizzly hunt bans (initial trophy hunt ban in September; total ban in
November 2017)?
2) Can you describe the decision-making process for the two recent grizzly hunt bans, as you
view it?
Additional prompts:
a.

Can you tell us about some positive aspects of the process? Some negative ones?

b.

If you were to go through the process again, is there anything you would change

about the process?
3A) The minister of MFLNRORD, the Honorable Doug Donaldson was quoted as saying that
the grizzly hunt Is “not a socially acceptable practice in 2017”. In your opinion, is the
majority of BC’s population for or against the bans? B) What more would you like to say
about public opinion?

4) Do you think that most grizzly-related professionals support the current ban in BC?
Why/why not?
5A) This study is looking at the influences that science, public opinion, politics, etc. have had
on the policy decision to enact the ban. B) Can you tell me the type of information that you
think received the greatest emphasis or attention during this process?
Additional prompts:

121

a.

Can you tell me how you would weigh different influences - which ones, in your

opinion, deserve the most or least consideration?
b.

Was there any information that you wish had been available or included in the

process, but was not?
6) My research project is intended to be its own study, but it will also inform a larger project
looking at the attitudes of BC residents concerning grizzlies, and the hunt bans. So, we are
curious about individual perspectives on grizzly bears. I was wondering if you could tell me
your personal experience with or any connections you have with grizzly bears or bears more
generally. This could include your childhood, non-professional or professional areas of your
life.
Prompt:
a. How would you describe your personal opinion of grizzlies based on these
experiences?
7) Do you currently live in an area that is considered bear habitat (in general, not only
grizzlies) or where the grizzly bear hunt has taken place, or have you in the past?
Additional prompts:
b. Do/did you live in the southern, central, or northern region of the province?
c. If so, did you witness any changes within the community during the season?
8) Hypothetically, if the MFLNRORD and ME were given $2 million dollars to invest in
grizzly bear management, where, or how do you think that money would be best spent, and
why?
9) Is there anything else that you wanted to add?
10) Do you have any recommendations of other people or groups that I should speak with as
part of this project? And if so, do you have contact information for them?
122

Thank you very much for your time. The information and insights that you provided will be
very useful to this project and to discussions that come from it. I appreciate you speaking
with me today. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions or
concerns, or would like to recommend someone else who might like to participate. Please
feel free to share my contact details with other interested people as well.

123

Appendix G – News release from government website

124

125

Appendix H – Statement from B.C. Government

126

Appendix I – Government announcement of the 2017 ban

127