| |
| Naomi Yamamoto, BC Minister for Tourism and Small Business, zeigte sich bei einer Veranstaltung der Handelskammer auf Vancouver Island (Salt Spring) gänzlich uninformiert, als sie die Trophäenjagd auf Grizzlybären aus finanziellen Gründen verteidigte. Die Trophäenjagd bringe der Provinz schließlich „hunderte Millionen“ Dollar ein und sei deshalb für den Haushalt der Provinz unersetzlich. Sie erklärte: „I would never kill a grizzly bear … but grizzly bear hunting brings in hundreds of millions of Dollars to British Columbia. If we eliminate grizzly bear hunting, what would we do to generate the extra revenue to pay for health care, education and all those things that people are demanding?“ Mit dieser ebenso naiven wie unhaltbaren Aussage, mit der sie unreflektiert die Behauptungen von Minister Steve Thomson, der für die Trophäenjagd in BC zuständig ist, übernahm, verursachte sie eine Welle der Entrüstung. Ihre Aussage lässt Fragen aufkommen, ob sie als Tourismus-Ministerin nicht völlig ungeeignet ist. Die falschen Behauptungen der Ministerin zu den Einkünften aus der Trophäenjagd sind längst widerlegt und so grenzt es an eine bewusste Falschinformation der Öffentlichkeit, was sich die Ministerin leistete. Vor allem Ökotourismus-Veranstalter und die Coastal First Nations, welche ein einseitiges Verbot der Trophäenjagd auf Bären in ihren Territorien erklärt haben, sind entsetzt über die Aussagen der Ministerin. Trish Boyum von Ocean Adventures bezeichnete die Ministerin als „seriously misinformed on several fronts“. Trish Boyum sagte: „As a family that has built a successful boat based eco tourism business specializing in bear viewing, we know that bear viewing and bear trophy hunting are not compatible … The Minister seems to ignore the fact that a recent study conducted by the Centre for Responsible Tourism at Stanford University, found that bear viewing in the Great Bear Rainforest brings 11 times more revenue to the province than bear trophy hunting in the same area.. and.. 50 times more jobs than bear trophy hunting! Given the numbers and the cost of bear trophy hunting to the government, it seems that British Columbians (even the 9 out of ten that oppose this kind of hunting), are subsidizing trophy hunting of our bears.“ |
| Chris Genovali, Executive Director der Raincoast Conservation Foundation nannte die Äußerungen Yamamotos „baffling“ und entgegnete ihr in der Huffington Post (It makes more economic sense to shoot grizzlies with cameras than guns), im Times Colonist und in anderen Zeitungen. Nachfolgend ist der Artikel „Grizzly bear more useful alive than dead“ von Chris Genovali wiedergegeben, der am 18. Juli im Times Colonist erschienen ist: |
| „One can only conclude that Naomi Yamamoto, provincial minister of tourism and small business, was poorly briefed with regard to the grizzly bear hunt after reading about her recent speech on Saltspring Island. |
| Having B.C.’s tourism minister put forth the notion that the proliferation of oilsands pipelines and oil tankers, along with the escalation of a host of other industrial-scale resource extraction activities, would somehow be compatible with a robust tourism industry based on the natural beauty of the province is dubious. But for Yamamoto to suggest that bear viewing is compatible with the trophy-killing of bears, and then disproportionately claim that the grizzly hunt is a chief economic driver for the province, is inexplicably out of touch. |
| Contrary to Yamamoto’s assertions, there is no ecological, ethical or economic justification for continuing to trophy-kill B.C.’s grizzly bears. |
| The ecological argument is clear – killing bears for ‚management‘ purposes is unnecessary and scientifically unsound. Although attempts are made to dress up B.C.’s motivations in the trappings of ‚sound science‘, the province is clearly driven by an anachronistic ideology that is disconcertingly fixated on killing as a legitimate and necessary tool of wildlife management. |
| Paul Paquet, senior scientist at Raincoast Conservation Foundation, large carnivore expert and co-author of a 2013 published peer-reviewed paper on B.C. bear management, states: ‚We analyzed only some of the uncertainty associated with grizzly management and found it was likely contributing to widespread overkills. I’m not sure how the government defines sound science, but an approach that carelessly leads to widespread overkills is less than scientifically credible.‘ |
| The ethical argument is clear – gratuitous killing for recreation is unacceptable and immoral. Polling shows that nine out of 10 British Columbians agree, from rural residents (including many hunters) to city dwellers. |
| In their 2009 publication The Ethics of Hunting, Michael Nelson and Kelly Millenbah state that if wildlife managers began ‚to take philosophy and ethics more seriously, both as a realm of expertise that can be acquired and as a critical dimension of wildlife conservation, many elements of wildlife conservation and management would look different.‘ |
| During her Saltspring appearance, Yamamoto attempted to downplay widespread public concern about the grizzly hunt by stating: ‚It’s not like a bear gets killed every day.‘ |
| Given that an average of 300 grizzlies and 3,900 black bears (according to the B.C. Wildlife Federation) are killed for trophies in B.C. annually, the minister’s statement is not only flippant, but callous to the disturbing amount of carnage inflicted on bears in this province every year for the most trivial of reasons – recreational trophy hunting. |
| The economic argument is clear – recent research by the Centre for Responsible Travel at Stanford University says that bear-viewing supports 10 times more employment, tourist spending and government revenue than trophy hunting in B.C.’s vast Great Bear Rainforest. |
| Notably, the CREST Stanford study suggests the revenue generated by fees and licences affiliated with the trophy killing of grizzlies fails to cover the cost of the province’s management of the hunt. As a result, B.C. taxpayers, most of whom oppose the hunt according to poll after poll, are in essence being forced to subsidize the trophy killing of grizzlies. |
| For Yamamoto to suggest that banning the grizzly bear hunt would jeopardize the province’s ability to ‚generate the extra revenue to pay for health care, education and all those things that people are demanding‘ is astoundingly off-base. |
| The 2014 CREST Stanford study reaffirms what Coastal First Nations, the eco-tourism industry and conservation groups like Raincoast have been pointing out for years – keeping grizzly bears alive generates significantly greater economic benefits than killing them via trophy hunting. |
| In 2003, Raincoast and the Centre for Integral Economics released the report Crossroads: Economics, Policy, and the Future of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia, which compared revenues generated by grizzly viewing versus grizzly hunting. |
| Even more than a decade ago, when the bear-viewing sector of the ecotourism industry was in its nascent stage, viewing grizzlies was bringing in about twice the annual revenue as grizzly hunting. |
| Our analysis showed that in the long term, it makes more economic sense to shoot grizzly bears with cameras than to shoot them with guns. Over the course of a grizzly’s life, the bear can be viewed and photographed hundreds of times, generating tremendous economic wealth for B.C. |
| However, a grizzly bear can only be shot and killed once.“ |
| © Times Colonist |
| |
 zurück |
