Big City Politics and The Bear On My Porch
I am not going to rant about the cancellation of the spring bear hunt – despite what the title of my post might indicate. I read a great article today that eloquently ‘pens’ some of my concerns regarding a trend in environmental policies being made in reaction to opinions of those who live in large cities. The cancellation of our spring bear hunt was due to an emotional campaign of some rich individuals living in a ‘Big City’ (no names). That’s all fine and dandy, but us small time guys have had to live with the changes in policy and a growing number of bears in our area.
Like the one that woke me in the middle of the night 2 years ago. It ran along the whole length of my house by rubbing its body fur along my siding. I shudder wondering what would have happened if the bear’s visit was earlier in the day and our dog or neighbor’s kid were playing out back.
Our new Minister of Natural Resources is not a hunter or an angler. Her perspective is definitely all urban and not rural. She is probably more than capable, but I am worried her ‘big city glasses’ will taint the reality of rural living and resource management. My crossed fingers hope I am wrong.
Back to the article.
I will list a few of quotes from the article that illustrate what I am trying to say. The first is this,
Urbanization has serious consequences for rural people. Not only does their political influence diminish, but also they and their resource economies are increasingly at risk from urban-based environmental policies. Urbanization creates a disconnection from the processes that put food on tables, gas in vehicles, and shelter over heads. Many urbanites obtain their environmental information from television, a medium that is more interested in drama and conflict than in reality.
I don’t understand how someone who enjoys hamburgers, fish sticks, turkey dinners, and chicken stir-fry can honestly turn their noses up at people who hunt and fish. Granted, this happens with small town community members as well. I hate to use too big a brush.
Another section I liked in the article was,
…examples exist in agriculture, trapping, hunting (especially seals), and mining, whereby these activities are carried out within the bounds of environmental sustainability, and yet the pressure to eliminate or seriously curtail them continues to increase. Usually at this point in the discussion, an activist will jump up and ask, “Don’t you care about the environment?” or the person will cite an example of a bad practice that caused a conservation catastrophe. These types of objections hide the urban belief that any resource harvesting is automatically bad for the environment.
Despite emotional arguments to the contrary (by anti-hunters/anglers/trappers), science has demonstrated that hunting/fishing/trapping are beneficial resource management tools.
Just to get a slight ‘jab’ at the global warming crowd, this is an interesting point,
Notwithstanding the public polling on climate change, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will not improve wildlife management, clean up a single waterway or save one species from extinction. Canada is responsible for a mere six per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, so we could shut down the entire country and still have done nothing.
Here we are throwing all kinds of money and resources into Global Warming endeavors and our own Natural Resources and Management budgets keep getting smaller. I would rather we determine if we are in an earth warming cycle or if our situation is truly a ‘doom and gloom’ incoming fireball.
Read the Entire Article HERE. I would be interested in knowing what you think?
Dear Bill,
I think the answer is to split Ontario into two provinces so that area south of Lake Simcoe, east of Kitchener and west of the Ganaraska River could become a new political entity called Nut Bar Land. Its laws would apply only to those who live there and they would be called Nutbarstanis.
Ontario could return its old values and the nutbarstani vote would have no influence on the populations of what would now be called Old Ontario. Those whose ancestors did the work of nation building could finally breathe a sigh of relief.
In Old Ontario quiant traditions like one man one vote would apply.
Ontarians could make a request to Germany for foreign aid in the shape of the Berlin Wall most of which is still standing. After all they gave us Robert Shad, why not the wall just to make amends.
It could be used to surround and fence in Nut Bar Land so children in Old Ontario would once again be safe from bears, drug dealers and pimps.
Old Ontario could be supported by taxing anyone who wants to leave Nut Bar Land with daily fee of $100 per day. Nutbarstanis would have to sign in and out as they visited old Ontario on tourist visas.
They could of course leave Nutbarstani if they didn’t like it. The option of swimming across Lake Ontario to the USA ought to be left open to Nutbarstanis.
In return people in Old Ontario would be required to visit a platform on the wall from time to time to toss over enough food and magic mushrooms to keep Nutbarstani culture placid and happy.
In Nut Bar Land one man one vote would mean the Liberal idea that if you give me one vote in perpetuity, I will give you a Canadian citizenship plus benefits(including free detal care which Canadians cannot get) regardless of your criminal record. It would also mean I also give you more political influence than the next guy if you have lots of money.
Robert Shad, Lloyd Axeworthy, convicted felon George Soros, Maurice Strong (the real father of Global warming) and environmentalist and fruit fly sex expert David Bazooki (who still thinks farmers cut down all the trees on the prairies?) would all likely think its a good idea.