Preserving habitat, not sentimentalism, is to conserving wildlife 

I am responding to a letter published in the Ottawa Citizen from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA). The letter originates from Newmarket, Ontario, and was published twice consecutively under different headings on Sunday and Monday, February 14 and 15.  I am concerned that this extensive exposure may indicate corporate support by the Citizen and National Post for the position expressed by the OSPCA. As a subscriber to your newspaper, it is important for me to know that I am reading real letters, not promotional material from favoured causes. I am also writing because I firmly believe there is substantial risk to the future of wildlife at stake in supporting the tactics and rhetoric espoused by the OSPCA in this letter. 

As a professional wildlife biologist, I believe it is regrettable to hail the closing of the black bear hunt as a positive step for conservation. I am not a black bear hunter and my purpose is not to defend the spring hunt. But I do want to make it clear that banning the spring bear hunt has nothing to do with wildlife conservation, and I hope Canadians will question the "spin" tactics brought to wildlife conservation by animal rights groups, including the SPCA in Ontario.  The spring bear hunt is an ethical issue, not a wildlife conservation issue. The hunt did not pose any threat to black bear conservation. The issue was decided by politicians not conservationists, and the decision reflects the fact that animal rights groups were capable of presenting politicians with better political options than groups supporting the hunt. 

Canadians should be aware that sentimentality and conservation lead to different processes with vastly different outcomes for animals and people. It is critical that people with an interest in wildlife understand the difference with respect to the various organizations they may wish to support. 

The Ontario SPCA is using wildlife issues to promote itself by driving wedges between Canadians concerned with wildlife. The consumptive users of wildlife such as anglers and hunters, are portrayed as the "bad guys" with outdated lifestyles, in opposition to "good" non-hunting conservationists. My 30 years of conservation work as a wildlife biologist in this country suggest that nothing could be further from the truth.  These divisive tactics are not founded in science, practice or fact as it relates to conservation, and serve no purpose for wildlife. This approach will only promote disharmony between people who should be working together. 

Wildlife needs habitat much more than protection in Canada today. There is danger in portraying sentimentality as conservation, especially for species facing crushing challenges from competition with humans for living space. The hard needs of conservation, such as professional expertise, funding, research, and establishing partnerships with land developers, farmers, and industrial land developers to conserve wildlife habitat, could become lost in the fluff of well-meaning but misguided sentimental concern. People need to know that it takes much more than "feel good" strategies to add real value to wildlife conservation today. 

An outstanding example of hunters and non-hunters cooperating to provide a solid future for wildlife is the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The plan has rehabilitated and secured millions of hectares of wildlife habitat, through an expenditure of over $1 billion raised over the past decade. The plan restores wetland and terrestrial ecosystems destroyed by human activities in Canada, the United States and Mexico. One success of this venture is the dramatic recovery of prairie duck populations, but the plan is also dedicated to conserving thousands of hectares of wetlands and wildlife habitat in southern Ontario. 

Conservation demands that people work together to overcome tremendous and expensive obstacles to maintaining a place for wildlife in our rapidly expanding world. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is one model of success, built on partnerships and cooperation along people who are truly interested in wildlife conservation, and put their hard-earned dollars on the table for wildlife. In my experience, the Human Societies in Canada, Ontario or elsewhere do not come to the conservation table with money for wildlife habitat. 

I do not see the Ontario SPCA as a credible voice for wildlife conservation. I do not believe that any positive result can be achieved for wildlife through negative policies and tactics. The OSPCA claims to be focusing on wildlife and biodiversity conservation, but in several years of working with federal and provincial governments, and environmental organizations, I am not aware of the involvement of the OSPCA in biodiversity conservation, not have I seen the organization assume any meaningful role on biodiversity issues. 

Sentimentalism is a major fundraising tactic of animal rights groups, but it often distracts governments from addressing conservation issues posting the greatest limitations and risks to wildlife. Animal rights groups tend to package their "conservation" programs as "public education", meaning that the bulk of the money given by donors is spent marketing the organization, as opposed to conserving wildlife. Now that the spring hunt for black bears is terminated, I would like to see what substantive steps the OSPCA will take to address the conservation challenges facing black bears in Ontario. �