By Mark Hall
This question brings together a few things we need to think about: wildlife management, democracy, and culture, specifically in the context of provincially regulated hunting in Canada. To better understand the discussion, let’s talk about what hunting regulations are, and how they work in Canada.
Hunting regulations are the rules and laws of how and when you can hunt wild animals. As the method of allowing qualified Canadians to hunt, kill, and keep wild animals, hunting regulations are typically put into place under the authority of a statute. In Canada, the issuance of hunting regulations in each province is generally done using an Order in Council (OIC) which is a process of a government that has no requirement for the legislature to debate the issue. However, this process does not eliminate the obligation of a government to consult with First Nations regarding the approval of new hunting regulations.
Hunting regulations can be part of larger scale wildlife management and conservation plans, where the goals and objectives for wildlife are identified; some of the larger plans are developed in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders, and in consultation with First Nations. While some plans provide guidance and policy for wildlife managers, other plans have statutory authority. Hunting regulations are the methods used to carry out the objectives of higher-level plans and can legally binding in some cases. On occasion, there will be more than one way to develop a plan for achieving a particular wildlife objective; in those cases, the choice of plan will likely depend on the hunting tradition, values, and preferences of the hunters in that area.
As an example, a wildlife management goal could identify a sustainable harvest level for grouse in a particular geographic location. There are two possible approaches to achieve that goal: a short early fall season with a high daily bag limit, or a longer season with lower daily bag limits. Both approaches can meet the sustainability requirements, but the decision may ultimately rest on how hunters want to experience hunting in that area.
In general, wildlife management and conservation goals contain social and traditional aspects of hunting, which can be incorporated into regulatory structures. With respect to species, the options for developing hunting seasons may be limited.
Hunting regulations generally have the same elements across the country. Season dates are included in hunting regulations, outlining the periods of time in which hunting is allowed for specific species based on biological and behavioral characteristics. Bag limits are specified in hunting regulations to prevent overhunting; by limiting the number of animals a hunter may harvest in a single day or season. License and tag requirements are provided to ensure law enforcement officers can validate compliance. Weapon restrictions outline the type of firearms or archery equipment that are authorized for hunting certain game animals. Some areas and species are protected to ensure conservation efforts or public safety. Hunter education requirements are also established to require hunters to prove completion of safety courses prior to purchasing a license or tag. Harvest reporting and check-in requirements require hunters to report their harvests, or check-in their harvested animals at designated locations.
Whether non-hunters should have a say in establishing hunting regulations creates opposing viewpoints.
Those supporting non-hunter input suggest that because wildlife is a public resource in North America, all citizens have a vested interest in its management. They reference conservation priorities, protection of biodiversity, and humane treatment of animals as significant concerns that non-hunters may bring to the table to counterbalance hunting interests. Another perspective is democratic representation, arguing that policies affecting public land and species should represent the values of the broader population, not just the interests of hunters. Additionally, non-hunters use wilderness areas for recreational purposes such as hiking, photography, and camping, and therefore have a legitimate interest in having a voice in the development of hunting seasons and regulations to mitigate potential conflict between users.
On the other hand, opponents argue that non-hunters do not have the ecological knowledge, practical experience, and cultural understanding required to make informed decisions regarding hunting seasons and quotas, especially where options reflect hunter preferences. They also express concern that urban populations that are often far removed from the areas where wildlife lives can unduly influence hunting policies, potentially ignoring long-standing traditional practices. Finally, some perceive increasing participation by anti-hunting groups in the regulation development process as a growing threat to hunting rights and traditions, including hunting with dogs and hunting bears, wolves and cougars.
Others suggest that while non-hunters should participate in discussions of wildlife management goals during broader wildlife planning processes, they should not become involved in direct debates regarding the establishment of hunting regulations, which should be the domain of hunters.
Some wildlife planning boards and advisory tables have found a middle ground by including a diverse range of participants, such as hunters, Indigenous Peoples, scientists, and public representatives, to create well-informed, fair, and representative decisions. Nevertheless, it is still crucial that all parties can set aside their own interests to prioritize wildlife conservation and accommodate a wide diversity of sustainable uses, social values, and rights.
So, what’s my position? My view is that the everyone should contribute to wildlife management plans, as these plans affect both conservation and societal values. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation treats wildlife as a public trust. Everyone should be able to provide input on wildlife management goals and conservation strategies. If there are no clear objectives or management plans, stakeholders must first insist on their development to ensure that both wildlife objectives and hunting regulations are logical.
In recent years I notice that public input opportunities on specific hunting regulations often becomes a platform for anti-sustainable use campaigns. Therefore, I believe that licensed hunters should primarily provide feedback on detailed hunting regulations, since they are directly invested in these traditions, practices and values.