Rebeka Breder: We can't just keep killing 'habituated' bears
Credit to Author: Stephen Snelgrove| Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 01:00:27 +0000
This season has been a devastating one for bears in Metro Vancouver. About 64 bears have already been killed — I intentionally say “killed”, instead of “euthanized”. Euthanasia means a “mercy killing”. None of these were mercy killings — all of these deaths could have been avoided. In the last two weeks alone, an entire family (sow and her two cubs) was killed in Coquitlam, and another two bears in Port Moody (one of which had cubs, who are now orphaned). These numbers will surely increase, as it is not even autumn yet, when bear activity is at its highest.
The B.C. Conservation Officer Service and the cities were quick to say that these were all “unfortunate” events, and that they would have preferred to not kill the bears. Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart even penned a “Requiem for the ‘Chineside Bears,’” in which he wrote that he is “heartbroken” and gave some useful suggestions for residents to ensure their actions do not lead to bear deaths.
As someone who has fought for animals my entire life, there is a fundamental piece missing from the mayor’s and other city and conservation officials’ comments — the fact that all of these cities and the conservation service have failed miserably in protecting bears.
Most cities in the Lower Mainland that are in bear country, including Port Moody and Coquitlam, already have bylaws that empower them to fine people who do not properly secure their garbage, or leave food attractants out, including bird feeders and ripened fruit. Coquitlam can fine people $1,000. Port Moody has a tiered system, where it can fine residents $50 for the first offence, $150 for the second offence, and $500 for the third offence.
This year, Coquitlam issued 832 warnings and 52 tickets for leaving out unsecured garbage. This is wrong. The city should not have given warnings at all, and instead should have fined all of these people the maximum $1,000. Port Moody and other cities should also increase their fines to at least $1,000 for the first offence. This would be comparable to the automatic $1,000 fine for a first-time impaired driver. Impaired driving fines are high so they deter people from killing or injuring others while driving. Similarly, a high fine would deter people from acting in ways that would ultimately lead to a bear’s death.
Cities need to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for violation of these bylaws. For city officials to say they are “heartbroken” is not enough. Cities must go much further in putting their “heartbroken” feelings into action. It’s time to get serious with bylaws.
The B.C. Conservation Officer Service must also have a fundamental shift in attitude. It has lost the confidence of the public, with good reason. I, for one, encourage people to NOT call conservation officers when they see a bear in the community, as it will likely result in a bear’s death.
Conservation officers repeatedly say they “had to” kill a bear because it had become “habituated” to human garbage or residential areas. But was it really necessary to kill? It’s one thing if there is an imminent threat, which rarely happens. But this does not mean that the standing policy of conservation officers should be to kill, or even relocate, bears from a neighbourhood upon seeing them — even if they repeatedly see the same bear. Many of the bears killed have been reported to be fleeing from people, and even from conservation officers. How is that an imminent threat? The bears were scared and trying to get away. They were not trying to attack anyone.
If a bear has become “habituated” to a residential area, is it because of a particular household’s garbage, or other attractants, such as fruit trees? If a city or conservation officials know that a bear has become habituated to a certain area because of people not securing their garbage, for example, then they obviously know that it is because of certain delinquent households. These residents should be automatically fined. No warnings. Just maximum fines. Sounds draconian, but from a bear’s perspective, it is far less draconian than having a bear killed.
If a bear is “habituated” to a certain area, perhaps it is because the area is also the bear’s territory. We seem to forget, or ignore, that these residential areas were, and remain, the homes of bears first. We came into their home, destroyed it, and now expect to live without “danger”, while leaving garbage out, planting tempting fruit trees, and otherwise being careless around bears. How arrogant are we, as a species, to believe that we can completely disregard the wildlife around us?
Residents, such as my family, of “bear country” communities also have an ethical and legal obligation to do everything we can to reduce our potential impact on bears, such as what we do in our household already: ensuring that garbage and compost bins are properly secured and locked at all times (except for garbage pick-up days), removing attractants such as ripened fruit, freezing stinky garbage until pick-up days, removing bird feeders during bear season, storing garbage in a garage if you have on. Yes, this all takes a bit more effort on our part, but it needs to be done. We know better, and it is unacceptable to continue making conscious decisions that risk the lives of bears. We must coexist with wildlife in our communities.
I can hear people yelling at me now: “Bears are dangerous. How would you like it if a bear attacked your pet or child?” My response: The most dangerous animal is us, humans. We are the cause of their killings. Bears are far more scared of us than we are of them, and they would much rather have nothing to do with us.
None of this is rocket science. We are lucky to live in an area with such beautiful wildlife. Let’s keep it that way.
Rebeka Breder founded the first Animal Law section of the Canadian Bar Association in Canada, and is the founder and current chair of the Animal Law section, B.C. Branch.