Copyright © 2011 Don H. Meredith
All Rights Reserved
(including those claimed by educational institutions and boards!)

Forestry projects, by themselves, can create good habitat; but coupled with other development, they can be detrimental.

It seems every time I go into the field, I find more reasons to be concerned about what is happening in our province. This year’s moose and elk hunt was no exception. Because of lack of luck in the draws, our team had not been in our favorite hunting area in northern Alberta for three years. It is a piece of provincial forest well north of highway 16 that has supported a healthy population of  moose in the past. This year we got our draw and made our trip back to our traditional hunting grounds. After a few days of checking on familiar trails and sites, we saw or heard way fewer moose or elk and a lot more oil, gas and forestry activity than we ever had before.

Now, I know what I am describing could very well be an anecdotal situation, a one-off as it were. However, I know it’s not. I’ve talked with lots of anglers, hunters, biologists and yes, oil field workers, who report similar situations across the north, not to mention what has already occurred south of highway 16. The pace of resource development in this province is frenetic and shows no sign of slowing down. But at what cost?

I am not opposed to resource development. We all need resources to live the lives we do, and resource development creates jobs and wealth. We are indeed blessed to live in a province with so many resources that can be developed. However, must we do it at such a pace that we threaten the environmental, social and cultural values that make Alberta what it is?

As Mark Boyce, Catherine Shier and Matthew Pyper outlined in last month’s Alberta Outdoorsmen, we need parks and protected areas to ensure healthy populations of wildlife of all kinds, including game to hunt and fish to angle. Many of these areas need not restrict hunting but should restrict vehicle traffic (as in the Willmore Wilderness) as it has been proven, over and over again, the more vehicles allowed into an area, the less wildlife will remain. The Land-use Framework (LUF) is supposed to address these issues but as Boyce et al. pointed out, the one draft plan that has been produced (Lower Athabasca) is sorrowfully lacking in sufficient protected areas to secure the future of the woodland caribou, let alone other species.

Good quality habitat is crucial to any land-use plan.

While the LUF stumbles along through its bureaucratic quagmire of establishing committees, holding hearings, preparing reports and generally dragging its feet (LUF has been around since 2007 and only two of the proposed seven watershed committees have started work on their plans), it’s business as usual in most of Alberta. If one were to be cynical about the process, it would appear that industry is jamming ahead to develop as many resources as the market will bear before any real regulatory control is applied. That’s great for investors and others with little concern about the future of the province, but it could very well be disastrous for our fish, game and environment, as well as our tourism and cultural industries.

Now, I know the value of public participation in government decision making. It is necessary for governments to get the public involved so all viewpoints and concerns are represented in the final decision. However, sometimes I feel public involvement is often used as a tool to delay or indeed defeat a decision. To my mind, the process is designed (whether by intent or default) to frustrate the volunteers who donate their time, energy and expertise to assist the decision makers. I have sat on too many government-sponsored committees and groups where the time and energy of the volunteer members are bogged down in bureaucratic minutia that delays any progress that might force the government to act.

Of course, it doesn’t help to have a government that can’t think beyond its four-year mandate or understand its responsibilities to ensure environmental and cultural values. The sale of public land in southern Alberta is a good example of this lack of foresightedness. As Brad Fenson related in News, Views & Notes in last month’s Alberta Outdoorsmen, despite previous public outcries to preserve our ever decreasing natural grasslands, the government continues to sell this valuable endangered species habitat to agricultural interests with no more justification than it will make money for a few. No wonder we lose respect for a government which seems more concerned with the future of corporations than the future of the province.

And it’s not just the provincial government. Last August, the federal government released its long awaited draft woodland caribou recovery plan. It is a prime example of government interference in a scientific matter. Any resemblance between that plan and an actual recovery strategy is purely coincidental. Because conserving habitat would have a negative effect on the frenetic pace of petroleum development in the north, the plan allows for up to a 95% reduction in caribou habitat. Instead of protecting habitat, it recommends the increased killing of wolves, moose and deer in caribou areas to reduce predator mortality. Although hunters may get excited about increased opportunities to hunt these animals, the strategy doesn’t make sense if you are not going to protect where the caribou live. The recovery plan is a sham and must be an embarrassment to the biologists who see most of their work and recommendations ignored. If allowed to stand, this plan will mean the end of the caribou in Alberta and another reason for the province to be shunned.

Why should you be worried? Because the conservation of caribou and other endangered species habitat also provides habitat for other game and non-game species—creating important refuges from which these species can maintain their populations in the rest of the province. Want better hunting for moose, deer, and yes, grizzly bears? Provide refuges in the form of protected areas. They don’t have to be large, but their development must be coordinated so that they work as intended.

Which brings me back to my question, why the rush to develop as much oil and gas as possible? I know the markets are there, but they are going to be there for a long time. Despite the justified concerns over global warming and other environmental issues, use of oil and gas is not going away any time soon. Our economy and yes our culture are intrinsically married to these resources whether we like it or not. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t find ways to use the resources more efficiently and cleanly, and help develop alternative sources of more environmentally friendly energy.

Our unhindered rush to develop these resources is giving the province a bad name, not to mention the push-back, coming from both inside and outside the country, against the proposed pipeline projects. If we truly had a land-use strategy in place that preserved our wild, environmental and hunting heritages as well as our ability to develop our non-renewable resources over an extended period of time, the world would be looking at Alberta a lot differently. It can be done. It just takes some intelligence, foresight and a will and desire to want to get it right for future as well as current generations. But those attributes seem to be in short supply in our governments.

So, what’s wrong with that?

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

For the first time in decades, the incumbent Progressive Conservative government is not assured a victory. Sure, it currently has a lead in the polls that indicates it could seat another majority government, but it is not assured. There has been a shuffle in Alberta politics, and there are some new parties and new leaders on both sides of the fence. So, it will be an interesting election when it is called.

All that said, the policies of most parties in terms of the environment and fish and wildlife are lacking in clear thought and direction, and that is a problem. For too long our government has pushed protection of the environment and conservation of our fish and wildlife resources to the back burner while it tries to exploit as much oil and gas resources as fast as possible. So, we have a unique opportunity in this election to bring forward what truly protects our long-term health and prosperity.

So, what’s wrong with that?

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

[Note: The following was first published in the May 2011 Alberta Outdoorsmen.]

Copyright (C) 2011 Don H. Meredith

We don’t do it enough. When we do, we are often criticized for supposedly not understanding where society is headed. Yes, defending hunting can be a lonely job. Of course, it’s not that difficult when you are talking to like-minded individuals who happen to agree with you. But that is indeed the problem: it’s too easy to talk only to ourselves and not so easy to talk to those who not only don’t understand hunting but who might be called upon to decide its future.

Long-time readers of this column know that “why people hunt” is a pet subject of mine. What drives us to hunt? Why are we so passionate about it? And conversely, why are opponents to hunting so passionate about their positions? That is why when I saw the book, Hunting—Philosophy for Everyone: In Search of the Wild Life (2010, Wiley-Blackwell), I had to read it. [Order it Now:  Canadian $$ or US $$]

The book is an anthology of essays about hunting, why it is so important for some and not for others. The essays are written by a wide variety of hunters and non-hunters from around the world, some who are philosophers and others who are not. This is not light reading but neither is it difficult. The book is part of a series, “Philosophy for Everyone,” that attempts to bring philosophy out of academia and into the realm of everyday life by using clear language without “talking down” to the reader. In Hunting, each essay is short enough to be read in a sitting and provides much food for thought. If you are not concerned about what motivates you to hunt or others not to understand why you do, this is not the book for you. If, on the other hand, you are concerned about the status of hunting in our modern world, then this book is a must read.

The editor, Nathan Kowalsky, (St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta) grouped the essays into four sections: 1) the morality of hunting, “The Good, the Bad, and the Hunter;” 2) what it is really like to hunt, “The Hunter’s View of the World;” 3) how hunting fits into nature and conservation, “Eating Nature Naturally;” and 4) the role of hunting in our culture, “The Antler Chandelier: Hunting in Culture, Politics, and Tradition.” Now, it is impossible for me to review all 19 essays in the space of this column, so I will just touch some of the highlights.

Fair chase is a common subject in the morality section. In his essay, “But They Don’t Shoot Back: what makes fair chase fair?” Theodore Vitale probably gives the best description of the concept. He is a professional member of  the Boone and Crockett club, as well as Chair of Philosophy at Saint Louis University. He takes issue with the common misconception that fair chase is fair to the animal being hunted. Of course it is anything but. The animal has not asked to be hunted and its “choice” between escape or losing its life is patently unfair. Vitale argues that fair chase must refer to the hunter and not the hunted. He states that fair chase requires “that the hunter hunts in a manner that is conducive to his or her own well being and to the well being of the community” (both human and natural). Modern “sport” hunters do not hunt for subsistence but for the experience. Therefore, these hunters must hunt in a “fair” manner that allows each to learn and come to understand his or her role in nature as well as the broad human community. Following the rules and being ethical is just the beginning.

In “A Shot in the Dark: the dubious prospects of environmental hunting,” Lisa Kretz—a vegan philosopher, takes a completely opposite view. She argues that hunting is anything but ethical, and that it is not an activity that is in anyway conducive to the well being of the environment. Those are fighting words to anyone who is passionate about their hunting, and I must admit that she got my blood boiling. But you need to hear her out to understand the position of many people in our society who do not understand why we would want to kill something that wants to live. She makes some good points while others are completely off-base, at least in my humble if biased opinion.

Perhaps the most interesting essay in the morality section is that by Tovar Cerulli, a “vegan deer hunter”. In “Hunting Like a Vegetarian: same ethics, different flavors,” Cerulli explains his transformation from someone who only ate vegetables for environmental reasons (e.g., overpopulated world can’t support meat production, cruelty of meat processing industry) to someone who hunted (and ate) deer to achieve the same level of personal and environmental awareness that he could see certain deer hunters achieving.

Jacob Wawatie and Stephanie Pyne describe how aboriginal hunters view the world in “Tracking in Pursuit of Knowledge: teachings of an Algonquin Anishinabe bush hunter.” Through ancient stories that are told to each generation, they describe how it is impossible for aboriginal people to separate hunting from other interactions with nature. It is an essential part of their spiritual as well as biological existence and teaches many skills that help them understand those connections.

How those connections were first made is the subject of the essay, “The Carnivorous Herbivore: hunting and culture in human evolution” by well known and respected conservation biologist, Valerius Geist (Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary). He directly challenges the assertion made by many vegetarian anti-hunters that humans are natural herbivores and not natural hunters. Geist points out that our physiology is that of an omnivore that eats both meat and plants. He backs this up with considerable evidence in our evolutionary and archaeological history that hunting came about out of need, and that it was an important component of the development of our intelligence and culture.

In “Flesh, Death, and Tofu: hunters, vegetarians, and carnal knowledge,” T. R. Kover cranks up the level of the debate by looking at modern society’s wish to ignore the inevitability of death. He argues that anti-hunters are not so much concerned with the lives of animals as they are with avoiding the reality of their own deaths.

If Kover cranks up the heat, James Carmine blows the pot off the stove in the last essay in the book, “Off the Grid: rights, religion, and the rise of the eco-gentry.” Carmine argues that over 100 years of conservation achievement and government regulation are a conspiracy by alleged elites to control the right of hunters to slaughter wildlife at will. His hyper-libertarian view conveniently ignores the realities of biology and an exploding human population consuming fixed resources, while at the same time confirming Kretz’s vision of hunter as blood-thirsty brute. Need we give aid and comfort to the antis?

These are just a few of the fine essays that look at this incredibly complex subject from many viewpoints. If you don’t mind having your convictions challenged or your viewpoint broadened, this book should be on your reading list.

So, what’s wrong with that?

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Copyright (C) 2011 Don H. Meredith

As part of the public debate on the Livestock Industry Diversification Amendment Act (Bill 11) that recently passed the Alberta Legislature, an argument against the bill was advanced that game ranches and indeed hunt ranches should be banned because they don not comply with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model that specifies wildlife to be a public resource that should not be commercialized—an argument I have often advanced on these pages. But just what is the North American Wildlife Conservation Model?

Touted as “the most successful wildlife conservation program in the world,” the North American Wildlife Conservation Model is often described as the prime reason why today we enjoy healthy populations of fish and wildlife on this continent. Indeed, it is the model that was used in the mid-20^th century to establish fish and wildlife conservation agencies in jurisdictions across North America. It also was used to establish similar hunting and fishing laws and regulations across those jurisdictions. However, recent government decisions (e.g., in Alberta, Bill 11 and the Wildlife Diversification Act it amended) and the opinions and attitudes of many both inside and outside the hunting and fishing community indicate use of the model to conserve wildlife is fading, and as a result, our fish and wildlife populations might well be at risk. Why is it fading? Because other than wildlife and fisheries biologists and hunters and anglers active in conservation, most people have never heard of the model; and of those who have heard, far too many do not understand it. So, it is no wonder our politicians “know not what they do.”

For that reason, I am starting this series of columns on the model to help AO readers understand its history and significance to fish and wildlife management and perhaps persuade others of its importance to the survival of not only our fish and wildlife but our very connections with the land and environment.

I must give credit where it is due. Perhaps the most helpful articles I’ve read about the model are the series Shane Mahoney wrote for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s Bugle magazine in 2004 and 2005. Also quite helpful were the technical papers Mahoney wrote with Valerius Geist and John Organ in the Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in 2001 (66:175-185), Geist wrote with Organ in Northeast Wildlife in 2004 (58:49-56), and an opinion piece (“The Antler Religion”) Matt Knox wrote for the Wildlife Society Bulletin (35:45-48) in 2011. The latter was the catalyst for this series (thank you, Bill Samuel).

A Very Brief History

Everyone should have access to hunt.

The model cannot be understood without first understanding the environment that caused it to be created in the first place. As I and others have related in these pages and elsewhere, wildlife was in big trouble in North America at the turn of the 19^th to the 20^th centuries. Large numbers of fish and game species were under threat of extinction because of uncontrolled hunting, commercialization and habitat destruction.

It was concerned anglers, hunters and trappers that first raised the alarm in the 1800s as they saw expanding industry and settlement destroying habitat and displacing many species. They created new publications to spread their concerns, such as Forest and Stream (later changed to Field and Stream) and American Angler. As well, they formed the first conservation organizations to lobby governments to take responsibility for managing the resources and ensuring there would always be fish and wildlife to enjoy. Many of these people were immigrants or the progeny of immigrants and did not want to see fish and game and their habitats controlled by private landowners with the resultant loss of access, as was the case in much of Europe.

Prevailing notions among the people during these times (and still held by some, today) were that resources were inexhaustible; all human activities to increase settlement, industry and wealth were good, and the resultant impact on the environment was negligible. Outdoors people were seeing this was not true but it wasn’t until George Marsh published his book Man and Nature in 1864 that decision makers began to take notice. Marsh argued that many ancient civilizations had collapsed as a result of degradation of their environments through overexploitation. He pointed out that deforestation led to erosion and loss of soil productivity. Marsh showed how this was happening in many places in North America. He argued there are limits to what our environment can handle, that exploitation must be controlled and that our own self-interest should prevent short-sighted wasting of resources.

These were powerful words, backed up by considerable evidence, and they influenced the minds of many budding conservationists, including Gifford Pinchot (early pioneer of the U.S. Forest Service who created government forest reserves), Theodore Roosevelt (founder of the Boone and Crockett Club and President of the United States), John Muir (naturalist whose writings helped establish the national park system in the U.S. and the need to set aside wilderness from industrial exploitation) and George Grinnell (conservationist and hunter who helped turn the tide against many species facing extinction).

Although Canada, because of its much lower human population, wasn’t seeing as much destruction of fish and wildlife as the U.S. was in 19^th century, what was happening south of the border was a concern to Canadian conservationists. As a result both countries set policies through law or court decision that established the basic principle that wildlife resources are owned by no one and governments hold these resources in trust for the benefit of all citizens, present and future. Governments therefore had to protect the resources and ensure their continuing viability.

Wildlife is a public resource.

As government agencies were created and people hired to do the work, it became apparent that good science was needed to provide the necessary information to get the work done. Thus, universities and colleges established new departments to educate biologists in wildlife and fisheries management. Likewise, in 1933 Aldo Leopold published his now classic Game Management which became the textbook establishing wildlife management as a science.

The Model

Such ground work in both the United States and Canada led to the development of what today is called the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. As currently defined by The Wildlife Society in 2007, the model contains seven components:

• Wildlife as Public Trust Resource—no one should own wildlife.
• Elimination of Markets for Game—no one should profit from the sale of wildlife, living or dead.
• Allocation of Wildlife by Law—wildlife use should be allocated by law.
• Wildlife should only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose—either food, fur, self defence or property protection.
• Wildlife are considered an International Resource—and require international cooperation in law and regulation.
• Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy—and should be independent of partisan politics.
• Democracy in Hunting—ensuring every citizen the right to hunt and access to hunting areas.

Wildlife as Public Trust Resource

Just who owns wildlife? Is it the land owner, the government or all citizens? That argument has been going on for millennia, ever since people stopped hunting and gathering as a way of life and began forming agriculture communities where the idea of someone actually owning a piece of land and controlling what is grown on it first came into play. If someone could own land to raise a crop, what about the wild land outside the croplands? Could someone also own it and the wild animals on it?

As communities coalesced into nations, the leaders of those nations often convinced their subjects they were special messengers of God, if not God incarnate, and could dictate who owned what. Thus, all lands within the nation were decreed the property of the leader (chief, king, queen, emperor) and were only granted to worthy citizens with the proviso they could just as easily be taken away. Similarly, when it was pointed out that wildlife freely passed from one piece of land to another, many sovereigns decreed that land and wildlife were separate entities owned by the sovereign, and he or she could designate who could hunt and who could not.

As pointed out by Aldo Leopold (Game Management, 1933), Roman emperor, Justinian (A.D. 527-565), is first recorded as decreeing that land owners had the right to prevent others from hunting game on their lands. King Henry VIII of England (1509-1547) took a particular interest in game management during his reign, for example decreeing that waterfowl and their eggs were not to be hunted from May 31 to August 31 for conservation purposes. He also placed bounties on certain predators to protect game and domestic stocks. Subsequent kings and queens of England expanded upon those decrees to 1) protect land owner rights, and 2) conserve wildlife for the benefit of the sovereign and his chosen associates.

Although these sovereigns established their authority over the allocation of wildlife, those allocations were usually made to privileged land owners at the expense of common folk who often worked for those land owners. Indeed, the plight of these peasants was often dire, and many were charged with poaching as a result of a need to find sufficient food to feed their families.

Such were the memories that many brought to North America when they immigrated here to escape harsh conditions in Europe. When they landed in the various colonies, they found seemingly unlimited resources, including fish and wildlife. They felt that access to these resources was a sacred right and wanted to ensure their governments would not restrict access just to the wealthy and well connected. However, it was not until 1842 that the United States Supreme Court began to establish the legal precedent that it was the responsibility of government to hold wildlife and wild lands in trust for all of society. As a result, most wildlife legislation and subsequent court decisions in the U.S. and Canada have since reflected this “public trust doctrine.” Wildlife is owned by no one, but government is responsible for keeping it in trust for the benefit of all citizens, present and future.

Obviously, a government allowing people to own wildlife by keeping it behind a high fence for the purpose of making a profit is an abrogation of its responsibility to uphold the public trust doctrine. Biologists, conservation organizations and concerned individuals made that point to the Alberta government back in the 1980s when game ranches were first proposed, and it was repeated time and again when game ranches got into trouble over tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease for example. However, it wasn’t until those ranches proposed to sell fenced hunts that the Alberta government finally got the message and belatedly stepped in to stop the canned hunting sacrilege. But game ranches remain a costly symbol of what has gone wrong with wildlife policy in this province.

Elimination of Markets for Game

One of the key factors that nearly drove much of our wildlife to extinction in the 19^th century was the market hunting of animals for their hides, feathers and meat, which often involved a great deal of waste. Hunters and anglers were the first to see the problem and led efforts to eliminate markets by making it illegal to sell wildlife or their parts for profit. In other words, there should be no monetary value placed on our wildlife. Its value to us as a society is in how it enriches our life experiences.

This pillar of the conservation model goes hand in hand with the public trust doctrine to ensure there will always be wildlife. However, once again game ranches challenge this pillar. Corralling wild species to sell their parts or to offer unearned trophies to shooters cannot help but be construed as providing a commercial market for our wildlife. Now, we are witnessing the sale of elk and deer stock bred for superior antlers that would normally not be found in nature. Such practice and markets devalue the wildlife experience for all of us.

Allocation of Wildlife by Law

Eliminating markets for game did not include eliminating all wildlife use. People enjoy wildlife in many ways without trying to make a profit from it. Yet, some of those uses, if not regulated,  could threaten wildlife’s existence. Thus, there had to be laws made to ensure use of wildlife did not threaten the resource. Once again, anglers and hunters led the charge to make sure such allocation was made to all in a fair and democratic manner, and did not revert to special, well-connected elites (as was the practice in Europe). Such democratic manner ensured that all citizens could participate in wildlife conservation and the forming of policy. As with most things democratic, citizens have to constantly be vigilant to ensure these rights are not taken away.

Wildlife should only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose

Hunting game for meat is a legitimate use of wildlife.

It is one thing to allocate wildlife use but another to waste that use as was often the case in the 19^th century when much game was killed “for sport” and left to rot. Such waste could not be tolerated if we were to keep our wildlife and benefit from it. But what is legitimate use in terms of killing wildlife? Over the years, such use has been defined in law and court ruling as killing for food, fur, self-defence and protection of property. Hunting for a trophy is not illegal as long as you also use the meat.

Wildlife are an International Resource

Waterfowl are protected by international agreement.

It is obvious that wildlife and fish do not recognize human-made borders. So if species are to be conserved, jurisdictions often have to cooperate. Perhaps the best example of international cooperation is the Migratory Bird Treaty that was negotiated between the U.S. and Canada in 1916. This was necessary at the time because many bird species had been driven to near extinction for their feathers to feed a fashion trend in hats. However, if the problem was only recognized in one jurisdiction and not in another, the effort to protect the animals could be futile. Thus, the two nations came together to pass legislation that ensured all migratory birds received protection on breeding as well as wintering grounds. The legislation allows officials to synchronise hunting and other regulations so that species are conserved.

Although international treaties are necessary, in most cases agencies can coordinate activities without having to go the political or diplomatic route. Meetings between respective officials to address specific issues often occur where problems can be solved under already existing legislation.

Science is the Proper Tool

Scientific study has long been the basis for wildlife management in North America, beginning with the early expeditions to explore and map the continent where naturalists were employed to document the plant and animal life found. As the numbers of game declined, it was hunters, fishers and trappers who demanded that science be used to set policy. Individual observations were one thing, but the proper assessment of a problem required rigorous scientific study where the extent and nature of the problem could be determined and effective solutions found.

Such study had to be free of political interference. Although it is politicians who make the ultimate decisions, often for political reasons, they should do so with the best information available. Proper science provides that information, although the conclusions may be ignored or distorted by the bureaucrat or politician receiving them. Such is the nature of our political process where many interests must be considered, for better or worse. However, a well informed public ensures that the politicians’ feet are held to the fire.

Democracy in Hunting

Fundamental to the North American model is that every citizen should have an equal opportunity to hunt and fish. You will note that of all the uses we make of wildlife, hunting was specifically singled out in the model. This is not surprising given that it was hunters and anglers who pushed to have fish and wildlife protected for future generations. They realized the experiences they were having in field and stream could easily be lost. They also did not want the European system that allowed hunting only to the land owner and privileged classes. By democratizing hunting, they ensured that every citizen would have a say in how fish and wildlife was to be managed, including non-game wildlife. In doing so, they also ensured that agencies provided information to the concerned user so that informed decisions both in and outside of government could be made.

It is adherence to these seven pillars of the model that are responsible for the abundance of fish and wildlife we enjoy today. Yet, each of these pillars is continually threatened by special interests who either do not know of or understand the model, or who choose to ignore it. Our human population both in Alberta and the world is exploding. Each new citizen requires certain resources to maintain life and even more resources to ensure a high quality of life. Fish and wildlife are often sacrificed to provide those resources, in effect reducing the quality of life for all.

I’ve already mentioned the example of Alberta’s Livestock Diversification Act and its amendments that in effect ignored the first two pillars of the model: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource and Elimination of Markets for Game. But that’s just the most obvious abrogation of responsibility with regard to wildlife our short-sighted politicians have achieved.

For decades, the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division was one of the most respected fish and wildlife agencies in North America. Today, it is a mere shadow of its former self. Continuous budget and manpower cutbacks have made it impossible for the agency to fulfill its mandate to conserve fish and wildlife for future generations. The reasons are obvious. As Premier Klein stated back in the early 1990s, Alberta is “open for business.” Fish and wildlife conservation got in the way of much of that business and the government turned a blind eye to any argument that such conservation was important to the long-term viability of the province. The long-term is not on the agendas of most politicians. Thus, the consequences of those decisions will be borne by future generations.

But must they? It was hunters and anglers that led the fight to establish the North American model. Will we fight to keep it? One thing is for sure, the playing field is a lot different than it was in the early 20^th century when the model was being established. Many politicians hunted and fished in those days, and easily related to the issues their hunting and fishing constituents placed before them. Today, it is rare to find a politician that is sensitive to these issues. Instead they are influenced by lobbyists who bring convincing arguments about achieving short-term economic and political gains.

As well, it has been very easy for these same lobbyists to divide (either by design or circumstance) the conservation/environmental community over side issues, such as the grizzly bear hunt. I use the grizzly hunt as just one example of how easily we are side-tracked from what really matters—the conservation of the resource. In reality few people want to hunt grizzly bears, and much fewer were successful in the draws when the hunt was on. Yet, the much more numerous environmental constituency, that generally does not hunt, was successful in making the hunt a political issue that the government could not ignore. Meanwhile little was being done to protect grizzly bear habitat from human encroachment. We lost our focus, both hunters and environmentalists. We should have been working together to protect bear habitat. But it is much easier to find fault and give away the initiative to those who can’t look beyond their greed. The North American Wildlife Conservation Model is designed to look beyond the greed and focus on what benefits all!

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Copyright (C) 2010 Don H. Meredith

Over the years I have written outdoor articles and columns, I have often been amazed at what catches the interest of readers. Subjects I think should generate feedback do not; while others I assume will be generally accepted generate heated debate. That is also the case with the blog (web log) I write on the Internet. By far my most popular post, year after year, is a short piece I wrote in frustration one day back in November of 2007 on “Why I dislike hunting in high winds.” I was new to blogging and most of my early attempts were read by just a few people. As soon as I posted my high-winds piece, the number of visits to my blog sky-rocketed.

How did it become so popular? People searching for information on the Internet find blogs and other sites through the various search engines available on the web. These engines daily catalogue new and updated web pages by subject, title and content. Obviously there were many people looking for information about hunting in the wind, and for some reason my post was ranking high. Its popularity demonstrated to me the concern many hunters have for how to deal with the wind, especially when it is blowing hard.

Like many elements of the weather, wind can mess with your hunting plans. It can cool you down, determine your direction, reveal your presence or threaten your life. I wrote the blog piece after I cancelled a deer hunt because of the extreme high winds that were buffeting the region that day. I was frustrated because I had been looking forward to getting out but knew my day would not be very productive with that kind of wind. In the blog I discussed how high winds can affect a hunt and how during those winds deer often go into deep bush for security.

Wild animals depend on their senses to protect them from predators, find food, etc. A deer’s senses of smell and hearing are keen and when conditions are not right for those senses to adequately detect what might be coming, the animals will seclude themselves in deep bush where an approaching predator must make a lot of noise to get at them.

A human hunter’s sense of smell is not keen, so we don’t depend upon it so much to find things. We rely more on our eyes and ears. However, it is important to know how our own scent travels in the air and how wind affects sound travel if we wish to get close to game.

Scent

Scents are tiny molecules in the air that are detected by special organs (olfactory system) in an animal’s nose. An animal such as a bloodhound has a large olfactory system and can detect very small quantities of substances in the air; while we humans have much smaller systems and require higher concentrations to be aware of the presence of certain substances.

The detected molecules come from various sources on an animal’s body, and include oils, gases, sweat, urine and sloughing skin. Scents are a major source of communication for many animals and plants and some substances are excreted specifically to transmit information about an animal’s condition or readiness to breed or be aggressive. Some plants excrete scents that attract certain animals, such as bees, to collect nectar and pollen in return for pollinating their flowers.

Although unable to detect many scents in the air, human hunters should be aware of the scents they might be leaving along a trail or in the air and where the wind might be taking them. However, some of our number are not satisfied with just knowing where their scent might be going; they want to eliminate or significantly reduce their scent. Thus, an industry has developed over the last few years built around eliminating or covering up scent on our bodies and clothes. You can now purchase hunting clothing that absorbs your body odor, and special soaps and detergents that will remove all or most traces of your essence from your body and clothing. Alternatively, you can purchase real or synthetic animal urine to mask your scent and attract game to your station. However, even that is not enough for some. Realizing that many odors we excrete are based on some of the foods we eat, some hunters go on special diets weeks before the season begins to further reduce the potential of offending their prey.

Now, I am a traditional, old-fashioned sort of hunter that relies on the good sense of his early training. Although I try to keep my body clean, I realize that I release odors whether I want to or not. In that way I’m a typical animal in the woods and fields. I urinate, I slough skin and I sweat especially when I climb a steep hill on a warm day. Thus I leave scent. It’s just a part of who I am. So, I realize that I will be detected by at least some of the animals I seek. I just have to understand where that detection will take place and seek to keep it behind me.

Scent traveling in a strong breeze is one thing but it can be quite another in a light breeze or no breeze at all. Air does not travel in a straight line and is easily deflected by trees, shrubs, cliffs and buildings. These obstructions cause the air to eddy on the leeward side and send whirlpools of air off into directions that aren’t easily discerned. Thus, in a light breeze, it is possible for a scent to travel in various directions, sometimes opposite to the prevailing wind.

When the wind is calm, the air in particular locations may still be moving. The sun heating the ground in turn heats the air that rises only to fall again as it cools. Thus, little currents of air might again take your scent in directions you would not predict. That might be the reason you sometimes hear a nearby deer snort from a direction away from where you thought your scent was going.

Sound

Sound is a series of waves in the air that causes a membrane in an animal’s ear (the ear drum) to vibrate. Without air, no sound would be transmitted. Sound moves through the air faster than scent, so it is less affected by wind speed, but it is affected. Anyone trying to listen to someone shouting at them from downwind in a whole gale can attest to that. As well, wind rustles leaves, trees and shrubs that can mask other sounds. In a strong wind, hunters can take advantage of those sounds to hide the noise of their movements. This can be particularly useful when walking on dry leaves or crusty snow.

Of course, this works both ways. A strong wind also can mask the movements of game, increasing the probability you will not see an animal before it sees you.

Winds can also be dangerous especially in forests. Even in moderately windy conditions, I have observed trees suddenly snap and fall to the ground, sometimes very close to me. The odds of getting hit by such a tree are very low, but it does happen.

The wind is one of the many factors hunters must take into consideration when still hunting or otherwise stalking game. Being aware of where your scent is going and how animals might otherwise detect your presence helps keep the mind sharp and focused on the task at hand.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

DEET is very effective as it has been determined that mosquitoes and other biting insects definitely dislike its odor and will avoid it (the popular belief that it prevents the insects from detecting CO₂ is wrong). When used in concentrations of 30% (maximum allowed in Canada) it can last on the skin and clothing for three to six hours (10% or lower concentrations are recommended for children 2 to 12 years of age) depending on activity and amount of sweat produced.

However, DEET does have its drawbacks. It is a solvent and can dissolve some plastics and synthetic fabrics. As I have learned, it can pit the plastic screens on watches or other such devices, making them difficult to read. It can also play hell with the plastic handles on things like fishing reels after you’ve used your hands to spread the repellant around. In a few rare cases (1 in 100 million people) it has been known to cause seizures, which could be related to the fact that DEET is known to interfere with certain nervous system enzymes if present in sufficient concentrations (i.e., don’t breath it in or leave it on your skin for longer than recommended). As a result, many people don’t want to use it, and instead look for more “natural” repellants.

Insect repellant patches are convenient to use but such use must be planned.

One such natural repellant that has been developed over the last few years is the insect repellant skin patch. This patch is applied to the bare skin, much like a nicotine patch used to quit smoking. Over an extended period of time a dose of vitamin B1 (Thiamine) is continuously passed from the patch through the skin to the blood stream. The B1 apparently causes the body to produce a scent that deters biting insects. The patch supposedly can provide protection from 24 to up to 36 hours.

Why not just take vitamin B1 pills? Apparently much of the vitamin taken through the digestive system is metabolized and that taken through the skin from the patch enters the blood stream much more quickly and intact.

I have to admit that I attract mosquitoes. I figure I must emit some kind of signal that says I’m a prime meal because if there are mosquitoes around they will find me. That’s why I succumbed to a sales pitch and purchased a pack (5 patches) of Omezone’s Insect Defend Patch that was “on sale” for $7.19 Cdn at a local outdoor store. That’s a pretty substantial price when compared to a can of DEET insect repellant that can be used a considerably longer period of time. However, it might be worth it if the patch does its job and is less of a health hazard.

The patch easily adheres to the skin and can be hid behind clothing.

Following the instructions on the pack, I slapped a patch on my upper arm. I first shaved the hair off where the patch was to go to prevent hardship when I took it off. One drawback to the patch is that it takes about two hours before you see any effects. So, you have to plan its use. I applied mine in the morning about 2 hours before I was going to take my bi-daily jog. As I stated earlier, the mosquitoes have been especially prolific this year and a couple of species are very aggressive, even attacking my bare legs while I run. I usually don’t use repellant to run but this year it has become part of the ritual. This particular morning I did not spray the repellant to see if the patch would do the job. To my surprise, it did to a certain extent. Mosquitoes flew around but none landed while I was moving. When I returned from my jog and did some stretches in the yard, one lone mosquito did attempt to bite my calf before succumbing to the slap of my hand. Others attempted to land on my skin but flew away. I spent the rest of the day splitting firewood and again although mosquitoes flew around me only some actually landed. Most of those flew away but a few did attempt to bite.

The following day I still had the patch on to see how it worked after 24 hours. I found it to be less effective than the previous day. Also I did begin to notice an odor. A body odor is one of the side-effects mentioned in some of the reviews I’ve read about the patch (e.g., http://bit.ly/pHYzIM — scroll down to the comments where the real information is). For me, the odor reminds me of that coming from a multi-vitamin tablet bottle, so is probably the thiamin coming through my sweat. It was not offensive either to me or my family but it was noticeable. A shower eliminated it until I starting sweating again. As well, I smelled the odor in my clothing until it was washed.

I waited a couple of days before trying the next patch. Again, it was on a hot day I spent outside including jogging. This time the patch didn’t seem to work as well as it had the previous time. I did see mosquitoes attempt to land on my skin but veer away at the last moment. Others, however, came straight in and attempted to bite. I had a similar experience with a third patch I tried a few days later.

Conclusion: for me the patch works to a point but is not 100% effective. However, one should keep in mind that people’s physiologies differ. What works for some might not for others. (For example, some people detect an odor from using the patch, others do not.)

Dining with Company or Alone?

One thing I have noticed (as have others) is that while wearing the patch and sitting with a group of people, I would not be bothered by mosquitoes who were visiting the others (who hadn’t put on repellant). When I was the only one in the immediate area, at least some of the mosquitoes did bite. So, I’m thinking the thiamin does deter mosquitoes but not when they are especially hungry and you are the only choice. DEET is much more effective in these conditions.

Will I try it again? Probably. We are making a trip to East Africa this fall, and I will most likely wear the patch as a backup. Malaria is an issue in these countries, and we will be taking all precautions to prevent contracting the disease, including liberal use of DEET-based repellants and prophylactic drugs. The patch could very well be part of that arsenal.

However, for use around the house, the cost of the patch ($1.50 +/- Cdn each) is pretty dear when compared to other repellants. DEET repellants are much more convenient to use and at least for me are more effective. On the other hand, if you have a concern about using DEET products and are serious about finding alternatives, the patch might be something to try.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Copyright (C) 2009 Don H. Meredith

A successful camp is planned to be safe and healthy.

The early fall is one of my favorite times of the year. The poplar, birch and dogwood leaves are turning shades of gold, orange and red. The wet-dog scent of wild cranberry is in the air; and my summer allergies subside along with the biting insects. It is also the time of year when my garage is strewn with camping equipment in various stages of readiness, and the scents of canvas and old campfires dominates the air there. Despite over 35 years of doing so, I still get excited about going out and setting up a hunting camp.

As I’ve said several times before in this column, I’m an old-fashion kind of camper. I like to hear the wind blowing through the trees or the patter of rain marking time on the canvas over my head while I sleep. I prefer the smell of wood smoke over the convenience of propane. And at this time of year, I crave the isolation and wilderness immersion of a camp in the northern Alberta bush. Depending on our success in the draws, our hunting party tries to make at least one long-term camping trip a season.

When my partners and I first hunted together for moose or elk, we camped frugally in a nine-by-nine-foot tent, cooking outside over an open fire. This worked O.K. as long as it didn’t rain for long periods or get too cold. In cold and wet conditions, condensation builds in clothing, sleeping gear and on tent walls. Without an efficient way of drying things out, a hunting trip can become pretty miserable, and several of our trips were cut short.

Consistent, successful moose or elk hunting requires several days in the bush. I figure it takes at least three to four days to find out what is going on — that is, where the animals are and what they are doing. Only then do you start focusing your efforts for success. In Alberta during the fall, the chances are great for some inclement weather within a period of a week or more. So it became obvious that if we wanted to increase our success, we needed a better camp.

Pooling our resources, we purchased a large wall tent and a portable wood-burning stove. The tent with stove can sleep six people comfortably. Since we rarely have more than four in our party, we have lots of room to spread out ourselves and our gear. Most important for those cold wet days is the wood stove. A fire-proof ring in the canvas ceiling allows the stove pipe out, while keeping the stove a safe distance from the walls. We also have a weather fly (with stove-pipe ring) that keeps the rain and snow off the tent’s roof, reducing the moisture condensation on the inside ceiling and walls.

Our wood stove is a box type with a damper and air intake valve so we can control the burn. Most important is the long stove pipe that extends up just past the peak of the roof to prevent downdraft. Once fired, this stove has brightened many a dark and cold morning as well as the spirits of hunters returning from the cold and wet bush.

Another feature I like about this tent is the lack of a sewn-in floor, made necessary by the wood stove. We clear an area of burnable material around the stove, and then lay tarps over the remaining area. This allows adequate air to come in under the walls to feed the fire in the stove and dry any damp gear we may have.

Another piece of equipment I’ve come to appreciate is my sleeping cot. It is comfortable and keeps my bed off the ground, allowing the moisture that accumulates in my sleeping bag to escape. The result is I sleep much warmer than if I were on the ground.

A successful hunting camp is much more than a comfortable place to sleep or get out of the elements. Over the last few years, however, I have noticed that many hunting parties do not understand this. In our travels, we have noticed many camps that break fundamental rules about good camping. We have seen what passed for latrines too close to eating and sleeping areas, camp fires too close to the bush or sleeping areas, game meat hanging too close to living areas and parts of game carcasses left to rot in the camp area after the campers have left. This is a shame because such lack of consideration for safety, health and the surrounding countryside not only reflects on the occupants of the camps but also on hunters generally. Perhaps it is time to review some of the fundamentals of keeping a safe, comfortable, and yes, successful hunting camp.

Layout

The layout of a camp is an important consideration in terms of safety and convenience. Bears are looking for easily acquired food before their long winter’s sleep, and a poorly laid out or unclean camp can be a temptation. A hunting camp should be designed to discourage entry by a wandering bruin.

First, separate cooking and eating areas from where you sleep by several metres. Don’t bring food into the sleeping tent, and definitely don’t cook there. Odors linger in tent fabrics and a bear is lead around by its nose.

Store food in vehicles or hang it in bags at least three metres off the ground and away from the tent. Hang any game you’ve bagged off the ground and well away from the tent. Burn garbage or store what can’t be burned in a bag away from the main camp area. Any cans with remaining food or food scents should be burned out to reduce odors. Haul out all garbage when you break camp.

Like most mammals, bears use their noses to tell them much about the world around them. If a bear picks up your scent — and not that of your food — prior to arriving at your camp, chances are good it will avoid you. Leave your scent at the campsite by frequently walking around it and urinating at various locations outside the camp’s perimeter. If you are hanging game meat, also urinate around the perimeter of that area. We use this method in our camps and so far (crossing fingers) we have not had a problem with bears in camp. That may be the result of just dumb luck but I believe our scent does send messages. However, if you believe your camp is too much of a temptation for bears (depending on your location, previous experience, horse feed, etc.), portable electric fences may be the answer.

Toilet

Urinating around the outside of a camp to discourage bears is one thing, but defecating randomly around a camp is something else. A single latrine should be placed well away from the living area and well away and down hill from any water source. If you are going to be in a camp a long time, dig a trench deep enough to handle the waste. Bury all human waste.

Remember your fellow hunter/campers. Many campsites, including random ones in the bush, are often used by several parties of hunters throughout the season. Leaving garbage, exposed human waste and used toilet paper scattered about is really a poor reflection on the particular campers and hunters generally. The right to randomly camp on our crown lands is being abused by many hunters and non-hunters alike. If this abuse continues, the government may be forced to step in and eliminate the practice, forcing hunters to use designated campsites.

Don’t be part of the problem! Leave your campsite in better condition than when you found it. Keep our wilderness wild!

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

Long touted as “the most successful wildlife conservation program in the world,” the North American Wildlife Conservation Model is considered to be the prime reason we still have a wide diversity of viable fish and wildlife populations on this continent. But just what is the North American Model? That is the subject of my June Alberta Outdoorsmen column.

In that column I briefly review the history of the model’s development from the 19th century to the present. Concerned hunters, anglers and trappers wanted to ensure that our wildlife and the land it depended on was conserved and accessible to all, not just to the rich and well connected—as was the case in Europe and elsewhere.

The model has seven components:

• Wildlife as Public Trust Resource—no one should own wildlife.
• Elimination of Markets for Game—no one should profit from the sale of wildlife, living or dead.
• Allocation of Wildlife by Law—wildlife use should be allocated by law.
• Wildlife should only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose—either food, fur, self defence or property protection.
• Wildlife are considered an International Resource—and require international cooperation in law and regulation.
• Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy—and should be independent of partisan politics.
• Democracy in Hunting—ensuring every citizen the right to hunt and access to hunting areas.

In following columns, I will look at each of these components in detail and discuss how they fit with current practices, especially in Alberta.

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

South Toobally Lake in the morning

The Yukon is known for its history, legends, characters and incredible landscapes. It is also known as a place where outdoor dreams and adventures are realized. If you are an angler looking for some incredible fishing in the heart of the Yukon wilderness, it would be hard to beat what is offered at Skanse’s Grizzly Creek Lodge about 145 km northeast of Watson Lake in the southeast Yukon. That is where my wife Betty and I headed last June after attending the annual Outdoor Writers of Canada conference, which was held at Whitehorse in 2010.

Toobally Lakes from the air

As I described in my  article in the March Alberta Outdoorsmen, wilderness immersion is what the lodge is all about. Located on both upper and lower Toobally Lakes, the lodge can only be reached by float plane. The flight is spectacular but it’s only the appetizer for what is to come.

Guide James O'Farrell taking us to a fishing spot.

The lodge offers seven day packages which include stays at both lakes where fishing for trophy lake trout and northern pike is excellent, the wildlife viewing spectacular and the adventure continuous. However, for me the jewel of our trip was the spectacular Arctic grayling fishing. I have fished grayling in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan and have always enjoyed their eagerness to come to a fly and their beauty when freshly caught. But our experience fly-fishing these beauties in the Smith River was an experience without comparison.

The Smith River feeds and drains both lakes and provides excellent habitat for grayling, with deep holes and long flat stretches of water washed gravel beds, where insects rise and grayling come to feed. The super clear water allows you to see deep into the holes and watch the fish rise to your fly. The following pictures show a sequence of one prized grayling taking a fly (elk-hair caddis) and running with it, putting up a good fight and then posed for a nice picture before being released back into the water.

A big grayling takes the fly and dives deep back into the hole.After a vigorous fight, the fish comes to the surface to tail dance.

After a vigorous fight, the fish comes to the surface to tail dance.

James removing the fly from the grayling's mouth

The landed fish just prior to release.

A cow moose along the Smith River.

Fishing is not the only attraction at this lodge. As we moved from lake to river to lake again, we often saw moose grazing along the shore. Many were cows with calves. At one point, our guide James O’Farrell told us the cow looked nervous, perhaps indicating that a grizzly was in the area. Grizzly bears are chief predators of moose calves, especially at this time of year. We never saw a bear but we certainly took precautions to ensure we were safe.

A pair of trumpeter swans and their cygnets, on upper Toobally Lake

On a boat trip Betty and I took on upper Toobally Lake, we found a pair of Trumpeter Swans and their cygnets. We were careful not to disturb them, as they represented to us just another example of how wild this country is.

Skanse’s Grizzly Creek is indeed a special place for those who are looking for something unique in either their fishing or wilderness experiences. Their slogan, “Come as Clients, leave as Friends” is very true, and you will be treated to much Yukon legend and lore, as well as some of the best hospitality found anywhere. For more information, check out the Grizzly Creek web site

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.

The annual AFGA conference is where anglers and hunters discuss issues.

The AFGA process of collecting resolutions from the many local clubs, discussing them and ultimately voting on them at the annual conference ensures that what is forwarded to the government has been well thought out. The debates can be intense but every viewpoint is allowed an airing. If passed, the resolutions do become the official position of the major stakeholder organization advocating for anglers and hunters in the province; and the government is obligated to respond.

Of course, the government often has to look at issues other than those presented by the AFGA. Conservation of the resource takes priority, but all can be trumped by considerations for the economy and frequently political expediency.

So, what’s wrong with that?

www.donmeredith.ca

Interested in reading an award-winning outdoor adventure novel? Check out  The Search for Grizzly One and Dog Runner.