Advertisement 1

Letters: Get to know a hunter to learn about bears

Article content

Re: Only a ban on all grizzly hunting can ensure slaughter ends, Opinion, Oct. 14

David Suzuki co-wrote an opinion piece using inapplicable facts to construct a misleading narrative about grizzly bears.

In the lower 48 states, grizzlies were nearly hunted to extinction and are protected under the Endangered Species Act. This didn’t occur in B.C., where grizzlies have maintained a strong and healthy population. Scientifically conducted studies estimate the population of grizzly bears in B.C. to be at least 15,000, of which a sustainable hunt of about 300 can be maintained.

Advertisement 2
Story continues below
Article content
Article content

The charisma of the grizzly bear results in a highly emotionally debate around the issue of hunting. Bears have been hunted sustainably in B.C. for their meat, fat and hide for generations. To protect this resource, hunters are the largest financial contributors to conservation and habitat protection through funding environmental trusts and supporting scientific studies. Also, hunters are often the only ones advocating for animals that are less charismatic than the grizzly bear.

Suzuki is clearly more “anti-hunting” than he is “pro-wildlife” because otherwise he would be siding with hunters in the fight to protect habitat and wildlife through science-based management, rather than appealing to emotion using facts from the U.S.

People should consider where their meat comes from. Whether meat comes from the grocery store or the forest, an animal must die. Hunting is a great way to add an organic, ethical and sustainable source of meat to one’s diet. Do your own research, get to know a hunter and ask questions rather than jump to conclusions.

Alex Johnson, New Westminster 

Article content
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
Article content

Charge refundable deposit to get rid of cigarette butts

Re: Complete ban on smokes overdue, Letters, Oct. 23. 

I too am disgusted at the sight of discarded butts in public places and the thought of people tossing cigarette butts out of car windows infuriates me.

While a complete ban, as attractive as that idea is, may not be feasible to implement, I suggest that we already have a solution that is virtually guaranteed to work. The refundable deposit. When someone buys a package of cigarettes, they pay a 50-cent deposit for each cigarette. When they return the package containing the butts, they get 45 cents back for each butt returned.  The other five cents would be used to fund the collection and disposal of all the butts.

The proliferation of cigarette butts at bus stops and in public places would be greatly reduced, and it would provide a source of income for less-advantaged people. 

Gordon Foy, Burnaby

Pollution more deadly than cigarette smoking

The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, N.Y., came out earlier this month with an article that environmental pollution kills more people a year than do war, violence, smoking, hunger, natural disasters, AIDS, TB and malaria combined.

Advertisement 4
Story continues below
Article content

A little less-holier-than-thou outcry over smoking and a little more attention to the state of the world would be welcome. I decry the nonsense about banning smoking on the outside decks of B.C. Ferries, particularly in the absence of any studies to prove its dangers.

Horst Siegler, Coquitlam

This gender imbalance is politically correct

Re: There’s a flip side to gender imbalance, Letters, Oct. 23.

A LifeLabs announcement that 79 per cent of employees and 56 per cent of leadership positions are being held by women is, in politically correct terms, an example of “positive” gender inequality. I trust the firm will continue to overlook this significant gender imbalance.

Ken Moffatt, Richmond

Few people choose to be homeless

Re: Some people are homeless by choice, Letters, Oct. 23.

Who would choose to be homeless in wet, wintry weather?

As for “able-bodied young men” — you can’t judge a book by its cover and many of these may have unseen chronic pain, psychiatric, addiction or developmental challenges and be already on disability, and not employable.

Many prefer Stanley Park, the streets or tent camps because of the lack of affordable housing, or are homeless after a fire, been abused by a partner, or expelled by the landlord.

Many don’t want to go to one of the scarce shelter beds, having experienced assault and/or theft in shelters.

Many SROs are a disgrace, with sub-third-world living conditions (the Sahota slum landlords, for instance, have been in court so many times as recorded in The Vancouver Sun).

The uncomfortable truth is that very few are homeless by choice.

Rodney Glynn-Morris, addiction physician, West Vancouver

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.</p

Article content
Comments
You must be logged in to join the discussion or read more comments.
Join the Conversation

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

Latest National Stories
    This Week in Flyers