The original letter is in the hands of Mr. Warren Thibodeau, of Green Wilderness Camp, Gogama, Ontario.

Thank you for your letter on the spring bear hunt.

As steward of Ontario’s natural resources, the Ministry is responsible for ensuring the sustainability of wildlife populations. From a conservation perspective, the spring bear hunt and the use of dogs for hunting does not pose a threat to Ontario’s bear population. Our black bear population is conservatively estimated to be between 75,000 and 100,000, one of the largest populations in North America. Ontario’s current annual bear harvest is within the recommended sustainability guidelines, and is monitored by Ministry staff to ensure that the population remains at its current stable level. It is important to remember that the issues being raised by those concerned about the spring bear hunt and the use of dogs focus on differing societal values rather than conservation.

The spring is, in many ways, the best time to hunt bears because it tends to target males. Hunting during the spring reduces the chances of hunters encountering female bears with cubs because they are the last to emerge from their winter dens, and their travel and home ranges are very restricted while the cubs are young and vulnerable.

It is illegal in Ontario to shoot cubs or females during the spring season, and I can assure you that the Ministry strictly enforces this regulation. Female bears are careful mothers and their behaviour, as well as care on the part of the hunters and the strict laws protecting female bears in the spring will help ensure that females with cubs are not taken in the spring.

On June 9, 1997, our government introduced Bill 139, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, in the legislature. This Act includes a number of legislative improvements that will provide for better protection and management of black bears in Ontario.

I enclose a news release on this for your information. Bill 139 received Third Reading and approval on December 18, 1997. It will take some time to bring the new Act and its regulations into affect, however, it is expected to be in place by the summer of 1998.

I trust that this information is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

(Signed) Hon. John C. Snobelen
Minister

Enclosure.

In the first real paragraph, the Minister says that from a conservation perspective there is no population threat and that Ontario has one of the largest populations in North America - it is monitored and controlled. The harvest is sustainable. Note the use of the word harvest. It is a term acceptable to the hunter. The rest is filler… except the last line, in which he identifies the real concern – differing societal values….. So… what is he saying? In essence the debate at that time was a deliberation of values; of one group versus another.

The second paragraph he says the spring is the best time to hunt and explains the reasons, and the behaviour of sows. He also adds the words ‘young and vulnerable’…. Here the tone changes slightly, from a factual discussion of natural history to the emotional. Not much, but enough that the person who might be concerned about the condition of cubs, at that time, could also identify with the statement. It is a subtle craft, allowing for the ambiguity a politician loves and cherishes. It gives him ‘wiggle-room’. Both interested parties can accept the paragraph as supporting his position.

The third paragraph sets the stage for the double twist in meaning. He notes the legal restrictions of hunting. But the choice of words indicates a leaning not evident in the first paragraph… instead of ‘harvest’, he uses ‘shoot’… The word ‘female’ appears in this in this two-sentence paragraph a total of four times, and ‘cubs’ appears twice; also appearing is the word ‘mother’, rather than ‘sow.’ In two sentences totaling 67 words one word is repeated four times, and the concept of female, via a link to mother, and cubs creating an subtly weighted message. The reader concerned about his business has only digested the first paragraph. He thinks the minister is saying, ‘Don’t worry, nothing is wrong.’ The first sentence of the second paragraph seems to suggest a spring hunt is acceptable. The more important sentence is the weighted sentence, directed to the reader who is yet to be satisfied. And in the last line of the third paragraph, that reader has now been acknowledged in his interests.

In the fourth paragraph, the minister then states that an Act has been passed. (This means ‘things have been done’ - Nothing more - the rest of the info will not be in this letter, - go to the act…) Depending on the readers point of view, the statement seems to support either the first and second, or third paragraphs.

The fifth paragraph says here’s what the Act is about… go read it if you want to know the true answers to your original question. He says he is sincere, and he signs off…

What has he really said? Roughly, that the population is not threatened, that the issue is a difference in values between two factions, that there is a pressure to address the issue of sows, and that regulations are being and will be enforced, and that the law has been changed… and by the way… if ya want, go read the law…. See Ya! Sincere John…

I leave it to you to weigh the letter as to what side minister was on when the letter was written. However, we see seven and one-half months later, with announcement of the Friday Decision, the Ontario spring hunt was eliminated…. Go figure?

When you write your representative, read your letter, check the balance and alignment as you would your automobile… Your life could depend on it. Lark

© 1999 Lark Ritchie. Contact me at this address..