To understand the debate over how best to steward wildlife populations – to understand the ethics of balancing a biodiversity crisis and animal rights, the culture and values of different communities – it might help to have a little context.

When settlers arrived on the shores of North America, this land was considered a Garden of Eden, with a near-limitless bounty of wildlife. As the landscape was settled and developed by Europeans, that ethos translated into the freewheeling killing of species large and small.

By now you know the story: Bison, elk, beaver, otter and countless species that had once numbered in the millions were reduced, in some cases, to a few hundred.

Enter the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, explains Dominic Dugré – the president of the Canadian Federation of Outfitters Associations.

“In the early 1900s, wildlife was not valued as it is today, and unsustainable market hunting contributed to many species facing the risk of extinction. Once the model was introduced, many species were recovered, making the North American Model the current gold standard.”

It’s a management model that has, without question, been at the heart of almost every wildlife policy at every level across the continent since about the time people started getting panicky about the mass decline of wildlife populations that followed European settlement.

Dominic is a strong advocate for hunting and a wildlife management model that he believes “is arguably the most successful initiative that anyone has taken to protect, recover and grow healthy wildlife populations.”

As Dominic explains, the Model “eliminate(s) the market for wildlife. Strong laws and enforcement in Canada and the United States make it illegal to sell the meat or parts of any wild animal in North America.”

In other words, rather than a free-for-all non-policy, this model uses the push-pull of government regulations to keep hunting sustainable – for the animal and the hunter.

Dominic adds, “Hunters are only allowed to harvest if there is a surplus of wildlife.” [The Model uses] “science to guide wildlife management decisions. Population estimates and habitat research helps ensure stewardship and prudent decision making.”

That means that regardless of whether natural cycles, humans, or predators cause prey populations to decline, we use hunting to help the system get back in balance, says Dominic Dugré.

“Any time you have a population that grows beyond the carrying capacity of the land, it will be a problem for all species in the area, animal and human.”

Large carnivore biologist Dr. Shelley Alexander understands this and the context of how and why this model came into existence.

“When that first came in, that was in response to a scenario where people had pretty much annihilated all the game species in areas that were settled or accessible. It was, at that time, a very effective mechanism. It did not consider the animals that were being killed in any sort of welfare framework. They were just disposable in order to increase game populations for people.”

But Shelley says times – and scientific understanding – have changed.

“We understand conservation. We understand populations. We understand the carnivore behaviour and the complexity of that in a way that we didn’t back then. And, so, the [North American Model of Wildlife Conservation] is no longer appropriate based on contemporary science. But it is an easy model to stay with. Challenging that paradigm is very difficult because it’s entrenched.”

Which doesn’t mean Shelley is anti-hunting.

“I’m not anti-hunting in the sense of subsistence hunting. And I think it also comes down to where is [the hunting] happening?”

But the question of where hunting should happen is addressed through the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation; hunting advocate Dominic Dugré counters.

“Those who do not hunt need to understand that under today’s tightly controlled hunting regulations, anytime there is a hunt, it is a recognition of a healthy herd that can sustain it.”

However, biologist Dr. Shelley Alexander says that’s not the full story. She says as the human population continues to increase, predator numbers are being artificially adjusted to ensure there is enough prey for humans, Shelley explains.

“That’s not so much about killing prey animals; that’s about killing upper carnivores in order to maintain prey populations for human use.”

Anthony, the Thankful Outdoorsman, is a celebrated hunting advocate and Twitter personality. He agrees that wildlife management isn’t perfect, but Anthony tells us it isn’t terrible either.

“Government agencies, I think, look at the populations, and that is why most of the big game animals are in draw systems now. They try to regulate the amount of people that have access, and through those records, they try to manage that. And, of course, that’s people meddling with the system again – nature – but it’s the best we can do if more people want to hunt.”

But just because wildlife management isn’t terrible, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t demand better of our system, Anthony explains.

“If you cull bears, if you cull coyotes, I think it can be done responsibly. But who is going to manage that? And, in the past, the government hasn’t been very good at that.”

In fact, like Shelley, Anthony believes we need to stop managing predators altogether.

“As soon as humans interfere with the predator population, things will go awry.”

For Anthony, managing predators sets a dangerous precedent.

“Once people get into their mind that predators are bad, it’s just open season. And we can’t have that either. Because there is a balance. The animals decline, predators decline; animals come back, predators come back. It’s a balance. It’s been going on for thousands of years, and we’ve never had to cull in the past. There was trapping, there was a balance, and I think balance is the key.”

Dominic Dugré agrees that “as with all models of this nature, it should be challenged by experts and scientists and evolve over time, based upon new information and the current environment.”

But according to Dominic, that doesn’t mean we should stop managing predators, as well as prey.

Dominic adds, “Hunting is a management tool…it provides economic benefits, population control, [and] predator-to-prey balance. [And] wildlife acts and regulations hold hunters accountable by law.”

Celebrated photographer and conservation advocate John Marriott tells us that’s the problem: Our laws.

“Our so-called ‘wildlife management’ is run on a consumptive basis [by hunters and trappers] from the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which basically says that our wildlife is there as a resource to be used and utilized. But this ignores completely the intrinsic value that nature has and that wild animals and wilderness offer to the majority of us. Where is our say in all of this?”

In our society, we do view wildlife as a resource. As such, our laws group animals into the same category as trees, minerals, water and oil and gas.

Kick-started by a long-ago US Supreme Court ruling that declared fish and wildlife a resource for public use by citizens, wildlife populations on both sides of the border have been managed as such.

Are animals a resource? That’s maybe the bigger question, and it’s not a new one, according to Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright.

“As humans, we’ve struggled with that since the dawn of time. If you go back to all of our religious texts, every religious text has that question: What is our relationship to animals? And because we all have different relationships – some of us are farmers, some of us are hunters, some of us are vegans, some of us aren’t even thinking about animals – when you come to a flashpoint that has become animal rights, what tends to get people upset is how should we be using animals? And when should we be using animals? Or should we not use them at all?”

Barbara has long been fascinated by the question of how we treat animals – and why. And Barbara says, in Canada, we’ve been concerned about animal rights since the 19^th century.

“Humane values have always been a central ethic of Canadian life, and you can see that in our history. Before it was even a country, Nova Scotia had the first animal protection laws on the books in all of North America. And as soon as we became a country a year after Confederation, we had the first animal protection laws on the books. So, we have always, as Canadians, valued humane treatment of animals.”

So, does that mean Canada has struck the right balance when it comes to balancing people and animals? Barbara says no.

“We’re not moving far enough, fast enough, probably over the last sixty years.”

It’s why Barbara believes this question of ethics – how we value and balance animal welfare and the cultural practices of different communities – is central to finding a better balance between people and nature everywhere.

“The animal welfare framework really asks the question: ‘What can we do to ensure that the animal is having a good experience of its own life?’ It’s simple. And we should be having that in our food policies. We should be having that in our criminal law policies. We should be having it in our environmental policies. But it’s not a question we ask very often. In fact, we rarely ask it at all.”

But Dominic Dugré believes welfare is afforded to wild animals through the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

“Fair Chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.”

But wildlife photographer and advocate John Marriott disagrees. He believes true fair chase legislation would make it illegal to poison and bait wild animals, and use high-tech tracking techniques – all activities allowed in various Canadian provinces.

“Few people know that you can trophy hunt cougars in BC and Alberta using $5,000 hounds with $3,000 collars so that the hunter can…zero in on the cougar on their iPad…and shoot the defenceless animal from a tree. It’s neither ethical [n]or ‘fair chase’ as per the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Yet, no one ever does anything about it and the vast majority of regular people have no idea that this is happening.”

Dominic takes exception to the term trophy hunting.

“The term ‘trophy hunting’ is often misunderstood and abused. Different people hunt for different reasons, and not all animals are harvested for meat. Despite the motivation, a successful hunt equates to an animal dying. Trophy means different things to different people. For most hunters, the ‘trophy’ is having meat to bring home to provide and to share…The photos taken, and the heads, horns and capes mounted, serve as a token of a battle hard fought and fairly won.”

Yet hunting advocate the Thankful Outdoorsman counters by telling us, “my father always taught me respect for animals. Eat what you kill. There is no such thing as trophy hunting. These animals are fighting for their lives, and they have it hard out there through the conditions and with predators. You just don’t walk out into the bush and shoot something for the heck of it.”

And that’s why Anthony says hunting, when done right, is an example of living up to a higher ethical standard.

“Our family? We would prefer to hunt wild meat and source our own meat. It’s free range, no hormones – just naturally raised.”

And Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright tells us that if we’re “comparing a wild animal hunted for sustenance and a farm animal [killed for meat], ultimately, it’s much harder to be a farmed animal than to be a wild animal.”

According to pollster Shachi Kurl, most Canadians agree with both Anthony and Barbara: Our society is onside with hunting but draws a line when it comes to trophy hunting of predators like bears.

“For many people, it’s better to shoot a bear with a camera than with a gun. It’s the low-hanging fruit. Well, of course, we shouldn’t be doing that.”

Yet most of Canada lives in urban centres, and that’s the rub, Shachi tells us. For many living in rural Canada, activities like bear hunting “is still a cultural way of life or an important way of life in terms of their livelihood.”

That reality? It can have far-reaching consequences, according to cultural anthropologist Sierra Dakin Kuiper, who has researched why some communities oppose measures to protect biodiversity.

“As I started talking to community members, though, I started to see that when people are calling for a national park, there’s actually there’s a lot more to it.”

How so? Well, for starters, national parks ban activities like hunting. And Sierra tells us for communities, “it feels more like there’s an agenda being imposed on them.”

Historian Art Carson says it’s an agenda that makes those living in rural communities, like Valemount (situated on the border of Mount Robson), feel like “outsiders putting nature ahead of human beings.”

And human beings, biologist Neil Fletcher argues, should be allowed to hunt, especially if we want and need them to care for nature.

“When you take people’s ability to go hunt on the landscape out of the picture, it actually removes them from the landscape, from caring about the landscape, and takes away a connection that they have to the landscape.”

Neil works for the pro-hunting BC Wildlife Federation – a member of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. He says, “our audience can be the ones that need to be converted over to looking at nature and seeing how important it is.”

And the conversion is easy because of hunting, Neil adds.

“They get it. They get the idea of conservation and wildlife preservation. And often they’ve come from a background of being out in nature – either hunting, angling or connected in some other way [ATV use].”

And finding solutions that work with the cultural values of rural communities is imperative, Neil believes.

“These people are here to stay. They’re not going anywhere. They’re going to be living on this landscape with you, and the earlier you can get towards working with them and understanding their positions, the better you might be able to find some shared solutions.”

This is an important point, and of course, it cuts both ways, something all sides of this debate sometimes forget, which makes shared solutions harder, especially when positions are absolute. 

“The BC Wildlife Federation’s position? A managed hunt is really our position.”

It’s why the BC Wildlife Federation has opposed the creation of new national parks, even if they protect biodiversity-rich areas like BC’s desert ecosystem in the Okanagan and the Flathead River’s headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, south near the US border.

And though almost all of Canada – including most provincial parks – allow for hunting, Guide Outfitters’ Dominic Dugré doesn’t believe hunting should be limited anywhere.

“The hunting community supports sanctuaries [that] use hunting as a tool to manage wildlife populations. There needs to be a way for National Parks to handle their wildlife.”

But Neil says opposition to environmental measures like parks is about more than hunting.

“Recreational activity or roads can have just as much of an impact as can hunting, if not more.”

And, you might say, hold on one second: BC Wildlife Federation is against the type of tourism that goes hand-in-hand with parks but also wants parks to allow for more types of recreation? Yes, and it makes sense, according to cultural anthropologist Sierra Dakin Kuiper.

“So, roads, campgrounds, that sort of thing…would actually take away what (rural communities) so loved and really valued about that landscape.”

You see, tourism is big business. Rick Antonson – the former head of Tourism Vancouver and a global authority on the industry – explains, “tourism is about to become the world’s largest industry, the largest industry that was seen, greater than technology.”

Ricks adds, “tourism can go from good, to bad, to downright ugly.”

For many rural communities, the good is what exists, often hunting and angling.

As hunting advocate, Dominic Dugré, tells us: “Hunting is extremely important to rural economies. A recent study shows that fishing and hunting outfitters represent an asset for the Canadian Tourism industry…particularly for rural and remote regions: [supporting] more than 4,000 businesses; [with a] total annual economic effect higher than $5.5 billion; and over 37,000 jobs supported.”

Now, it should be said, fishing (often catch and release) is the major driver of these economic numbers, but Dominic adds, “[Hunting] typically takes place well off the beaten path. As a result, the industry draws visitors into rural and remote areas throughout the entire province, many of which would otherwise have few visitors. This disperses tourism dollars across a broad range of communities…supporting strong job markets in rural communities.”

That’s all true, but eco-tourism champion John Marriott says wildlife viewing is even more economically valuable, pointing to a recent study that focused on the remote areas of Canada’s west coast, where bear viewing provides 11 times the revenue bear hunting provided – and 510 wildlife viewing jobs, compared to just 11 in the guide-outfitting business.

Indeed, the World Travel & Tourism Council says wildlife viewing is worth “$343.6 billion, a figure equivalent to the entire GDP of South Africa or Hong Kong.”

But tourism guru Rick Antonson says it’s even bigger than that.

“In protecting the lands, inviting people to come and experience them is an absolute cornerstone to Canada’s image around the world.”

In other words, conservation action is what sells global audiences on experiencing Canada – our parks, sure, but also our cities.

“One of the reasons that people from around the world come to Vancouver is because it’s got the best backyard in the world.”

Still, to market the best backyard in the world, rural communities often must change their ways and share the places they love. And even though many rural communities need economic opportunities, according to Northern Development’s Joel McKay, the opportunity isn’t always worth it.

“There are limits to tourism growth – you cannot have a limitless number of tourists without an impact on the landscape, so we must accept it as an industry with great growth potential but not infinite growth potential without environmental and social cost.”

Rick Antonson understands Joel’s point.

“We’ve seen places where over-tourism has brought about a total disconnect with the local community.”

And that’s the issue.

There is rarely a disconnect between rural communities and visitors focused on hunting, fishing and ATV use, as they don’t usually visit landscapes by the busload or require local communities to change their way of life.

However, tourists who want to shoot a bear with a camera want a different experience.

And though Guide Outfitters’ Dominic Dugré says, “eco-tourism and hunting have more in common than they have in competition,” Dominic agrees that “eco-tourism typically operates in areas where hunting does not.”

Photographer John Marriott says there’s a reason for that and asks: “Why is our wildlife being managed for the minority interests of a few thousand trophy hunters and trappers, and why are our non-consumptive conservation interests not being considered at all?”

In other words, for both sides of this issue, it’s not really about economics, it’s about culture – about differing cultures that are hard to reconcile, as Humane Canada’s Barbara Cartwright tells us.

“People get very upset because they feel that you’re questioning their cultural or moral standing.”

Where does this leave us? In a bind.

Though everyone we talked to agrees that we need to work together, many placed conditions on possible collaboration, making it hard to believe working together is actually possible.

More challenging still?

So many other issues that need urgent resolution – larger issues of protecting biodiversity, growing our economy, advancing social justice, and healing our democracy – often get stuck on this very debate. And it’s why ethics and cultural values are at the heart of the urban-rural divide.

Of course, the urban-rural divide isn’t new – it started in about 1900 when cities started becoming a thing – but it’s growing and has never been more pronounced than it is right now, as pollster Shachi Kurl explains.

“That is now framing and reframing almost every facet and part of Canadian policy and societal debate.”

And not in a good way. The growing rural-urban divide has real consequences, argues Northern Development’s Joel McKay.

“Too often the urban voice, which has very little experience in rural areas, overwrites the rural voice.”

Joel believes “this is a fundamental challenge in many developed nations across the globe today and needs to be addressed more meaningfully if we aim to keep our nations together long into the future.”

It’s a challenge, in part, because change is happening whether we like it or not – for urban and rural communities, for people and nature, futurist Jim Bottomley tells us.

“The polarization is occurring because of this kind of stress. The change is more profound. We’re in a time of more change than any time in human history.”

But change doesn’t have to be bad or scary, says Jim.

“All change has both good and bad aspects. Always. And that’s one of the naïve things that most people have around their concept of change: If we say it’s bad, then we avoid the good potential.”

And even if all change has a silver lining, change usually is scary for many – especially cultural change.

As Jen Gerson of The Line wrote: “We all have our own culture. It is informed by our history. And if we’re only exposed to one culture – one history – our values won’t shift for we don’t know any better.”

Former BC Lieutenant Governor, Janet Austin, agrees with the point. Born in Alberta and now living in BC, Janet thinks she knows why some cultures have changed, and others haven’t – and why we see a culture war playing out before our eyes.

“So, when we look at Alberta and British Columbia, we have two societies – two economies – that really have developed through resource extraction. British Columbia has, I think, been more successful at diversifying our economy. And there’s a number of reasons for that. But [one reason is] the fact that BC’s society – our population – is more diverse. So, there’s less uniformity, which has actually created opportunity that may not exist elsewhere.”

And though Janet is referring to regional divides, the same holds true for the urban-rural divide. In both cases, even though change – economic change, environmental change – might be important or even urgent, it’s not as fast a process, as Janet reminds us.

“I think we need to advance change as rapidly as we possibly can and as rapidly and as proactively as our society can manage it. But we need to recognize that change does take time, and cultural change is part of that.”

Why? In part, it’s because some feel every proposal that alters a culture will simply lead to more demands – more change – in the future.

This feeds competing narratives – and often competing science – that furthers the divide between the two solitudes, amplifying the fear in the other that this is a war and the line must be held.

The stories told and retold by each side drive the other further away, with each retrieving behind their own set of facts, being comforted by their own echo chamber and encouraged by their own political tribe and elected advocates.

This is how anger and fear feed populism and how populism shifts policy. It’s how ideas – broadly supported by many but passionately disliked by a focused few – get parked.

It’s why financial executive Sandra Odendahl told us that if we want to heal our divides and make real progress for people and nature, we need to experience Canada – its land, its wildlife and its diverse peoples.

“[We need to have] an understanding of the country, a better understanding of nature, the ability to contribute to conversations about where does the nation go. It’s a lot easier to have those conversations if you’ve actually been to the places under discussion.”

Maybe if we do as Sandra suggests, we will find new ways to see each other in our ideas and the narratives we create.