It would be remiss of me not to make a few comments regarding a March 12th CBC radio interview with the martyr, I mean spokesman, for the Yukon conservation officers.
A more biased, slanted, unsubstantiated report I have never heard.
As a reporter, are you not at least morally obligated, in some way, to investigate the subject of your report?
Did I just wake up? What century is this?
There were several glaring ironies to this sound byte, the blinding one being the interviewee’s broad definition for crossing a line.
As the spokesperson for this group, it is your contention that this unnamed writer in a letter to a paper singled out an unnamed conservation officer by using terms such as barbaric and Neanderthal?
You then go on to say that these are unprofessional comments.
In relationship to what, exactly?
So the defence you are using is the very offence you are attempting to stop.
Are you redrawing this line at your interpretive whim? In my opinion, this is dangerous and a slippery slope.
As Canadians, we are allowed to use whatever metaphors we want to describe our own prime minister and publicly flog and roast our own premier for a past life, but a writer cannot describe actions carried out by officials as barbaric or Neanderthal?
A line is crossed here alright.
Who is the officer and in what context was he/she referred to in such a way?
Do I need to explain the irony in a spokesperson for this office preaching to the public on just what is professional or unprofessional?
It’s at this point that if I could insert an image in this letter I would put an avatar of two black kettles.
There are many factory ordered buzz words used to describe the hardships of day-to-day life for these people of uniform and uniformity: terms such as, ‘procedures’, ‘policy’ and ‘protocols’.
These are the very things that need to be examined and revisited in this ever-changing world.
The man on the ground is but a soldier following orders.
These accepted practices by this group of supposed stewards of the land are antiquated and unprofessional, not the words used to describe them.
History will show, and not opinion, that the entire philosophy is reactionary.
There is simply little doubt. This can be shown on or at any forum.
A policy that would allow bears to become habituated at a local garbage dump and do nothing proactive about it is inherently flawed.
A procedure that then just wipes them all out when a fence is erected is archaic.
The established protocols that allow the stated policy to guarantee the procedure is 18th-century thinking.
Maybe relocation would not have worked. Maybe there were no other options, but an attempt was not even discussed or it was given lip service.
Again, you based your decision on established protocols.
A policy that allows a procedure to indiscriminately wipe out large numbers of wolves by snare because dog owners did not realize they were living in the wilderness and let their animals roam free is insane.
How do you believe a wolf should act?
The placement of these snares in the very area of complaint to destroy the villain while the prey still wanders is unexplainable, almost schizophrenic in nature.
This protocol concerning the wolf is older than your office — time to evolve in this regard perhaps.
The policy that gives way to the brutal slaughter of a herd of pet reindeer and the procedures used to complete that task are, as a matter of fact, barbaric.
The protocols that would allow this to happen in the manner in which it did are Neanderthal in as much as very little thought went into the entire process.
These animals and their situation were simply a pain in the butt.
The difference in some of the practices used based on these same established norms by this office are striking.
The resources used to rescue a couple of eagles and shore up their nest was incredible.
The actions taken in this case on the bottom of the South Access were extraordinary to say the least.
A more cynical person might think it all quite the publicity stunt, all things considered.
This same policy that provides this service for these birds does a 360 when it comes to bears, wolves or any other large mammal.
In such cases the default mechanism used is a gun or blunt object.
There was no reason why the only option open to you was slaying that mother bear and then climbing into her den and killing her newborn cubs.
I invite the person interviewed by the CBC to use his own metaphor to describe this act — an act, I would argue, never questioned by the individual carrying it out because of a policy, procedure or protocol.
This same group of professionals is on record on the radio justifying a deer hunt based on road kill.
Do I need to add a descriptive term here?
Let the public decide what kind of logic is at work here. I am sure the word pretzel will surface.
Here is an animal pressured beyond natural limits in its homeland moving this far north to try and establish a foothold and the first thing that comes to the mind of the few is to kill some.
There have been a few cougar sightings made over the past few years. Cougars are also forced by necessity to follow their prey. Soon no doubt, tags will be given out to shoot them too.
Your office now has a major problem with the bison, a species implanted here from other lands and a genetic hybrid to boot.
Your office continues to make the same mistakes over and over and over again expecting different results.
How would the office your group represents view this behaviour in another species?
My God, your response to criticisms is even reactionary instead of being proactive in solving issues of concern.
You respond only when these critiques reach a fevered pitch.
I, too, am sorry.
Sorry that you people just don’t get it.
Cynicism is an unpleasant way to establish truth, like it or not.
The chosen delivery of a message does not take away from the historical truth of its conclusion.
Nobody is making things up.
All the events in this letter happened and the explanation to the public you serve has fallen short in every case.