Trophy hunting: a bugbear for Christy Clark

(Page 2 of 2)

Right and wrong are determined not only by costs, benefits, and intrinsic values. Often the issue is the judgment of an inappropriate or deeply distasteful relationship, in this case with wildlife.

Times have changed, and so have values: whereas it was once thought normal to torture or kill animals for sport (think bull-fights, cock-fights, and fox hunting), in many North Americans’ minds, it isn’t.

Not because of costs and benefits, but because deriving pleasure from painfully dominating another sentient being reflects a relationship with animals and nature that feels wrong or abhorrent. Thus many people can decide swiftly, without mental calculus of net benefits, that they are against the hunt.

This notion that ethics are often about relationships unlocks many mysteries. Killing an animal can also reflect a respectful relationship, depending on the context and attitude. In my (perhaps cheesy) efforts to learn from the many First Nations peoples who have entrenched traditions of thanking an animal for giving its life, my daughters and I adopted a similar tradition at the dinner table.

Such traditions pose a stark contrast to the whooping and hollering of the two men in the graphic video of a B.C. grizzly bear being peppered with bullets and tumbling end over end down a snowy slope.

And if an act is abhorrent in this way, making money off it is no justification for enabling it, but rather a dark stain of moral corruption.

Personally, I’m torn, because some trophy hunters are respectful, and the hunt is not only about money. Trophy hunting in Africa is integral to the funding and local institutions that protect wildlife that would otherwise face imminent extinction.

If ‘society’ deems that trophy hunting is unacceptable everywhere, I hope it will find other ways to enable wildlife conservation at or beyond its current level. But strong leaders do not impede moral progress, they leverage it to accomplish great things.

If British Columbians and North Americans generally are expressing a deep-seated concern for nature through the widespread scorn of the trophy hunt, perhaps this presents an opportunity for innovative policies to enable people experiencing nature more deeply (countering the side-effects of the digital revolution).

Hundreds of studies show that nature-based activities benefit people in innumerable ways, including physical health, mental well-being, and improved productivity at work.

If Clark is so concerned about the fiscal bottom line, she could boost it by fostering British Columbians’ connection to nature, not flying in the face of it.

- Kai Chan is an associate professor and Canada Research Chair at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability in the University of British Columbia. Kai does research on human interactions with nature, and associated values.

Read More:

More from Kai Chan

See more

More in Opinion

Cognitive dissonance on LNG as B.C. pursues climate goals

I never intended to become an activist. As a marine scientist, climate change has been a big focus of my career over the last 16 years. I’ve worked with governments on their climate plans, people in...

The elusive goal of ending violence against women

November 25th is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  Tragically, in 2018, this remains as urgent a cause as any. According to the United Nations (UN), globally...

The road to hell: B.C. will struggle to meet its emissions targets

In the elongated aftermath of the May 19 election cliff-hanger last year, the NDP and Greens negotiated a Confidence and Supply Agreement (CASA) between them that allowed the NDP to govern BC. The...
Speak up about this article on Facebook or Twitter. Do this by liking Vancouver Observer on Facebook or following us @Vanobserver on Twitter. We'd love to hear from you.