Audio only podcast. Today on Gritty, I am joined by Adam Janke, Editor in Chief, of the Journal of Mountain Hunting, resident of B.C. and the host of the Beyond the Kill podcast. We discuss the issues surrounding the Grizzly Hunting ban in British Columbia and we go deep on the topic. But before I launch into the conversation with Adam I feel it is important to set the stage for the discussion. The topic is not a sexy one--but it’s extremely important. So please hang on and slog your way through it because this stuff matters.   In August of this year, the left-leaning New Democratic government, propped up by the Green Party, took office in British Columbia in July after ousting the Liberals who had ruled the province for 16 years. A few weeks ago, Doug Donaldson, the province’s minister of forests and lands announced that (quote) “it is abundantly clear that the grizzly hunt is not in line with the public’s values.” Donaldson also said (in an interview with the CBC News) that the level of Grizzly Bear hunting in BC is sustainable. However, Donaldson says the decision to end trophy hunting is “not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”   I can’t help but feel deeply disturbed by the government’s decision to ban Grizzly bear hunting and the justifications behind it.   Make no mistake about it, the Grizzly Bear Ban makes the following statement: “Hunting is immoral.” “You are an evil, dare I say “un-evolved” person if you hunt Grizzly Bears.” And “Hunting grizzly bears is morally reprehensible… we do not need to do this any longer…”   Please understand that their argument is not based on science or rationale. Their justification for banning Grizzly Bear hunting is solely based on moral reasoning. These people have argued and lost the health, science, and conservation argument. So they changed tactics and made this a debate about right and wrong--about morality. And the truth is, the hunting debate has and always will boil down to one thing… the morality of it. Is hunting moral?     The moral argument against hunting is that hunting kills animals unnecessarily. This claim depends on the existence of alternative activities that accomplish hunting’s effects with less or no animal killing. It is said that nutrition does not justify hunting because we have alternative sources of nutrition, namely agriculture and domestic animal production; which does not kill animals or only kills farm animals.   But the reality is that modern farming destroys natural habitat, hence causes starvation or disruption of reproduction. Farming uses pesticide and nitrogenous fertiliser that pollutes ground water on which animals and humans depend. Farming kills ground-nesting amphibians, reptiles, birds and small mammals. The reality is that vegetable nutrition is wrung from the earth by diesel-burning machinery and nitrogen and oil-based fertilisers, processed and refrigerated with power from river-altering, coal burning or nuclear-waste-producing plants, and driven thousands of miles over asphalt by fossil-fueled trucks.   But studies have shown that commercial agriculture production kills more animals than deer hunting per unit of nutrition, hence kills more animals for the same meal. And in terms of of animal suffering, it would be difficult to show that death from being maimed, crushed, cut to pieces, poisoned or starved is less painful than the average death by hunter.   It would be difficult to argue that an animal suffers more from hunting than from today’s animal husbandry. Thus, if we may eat domestic cattle, we may eat wild deer.   To the ideological anti-hunter and the B.C. Government, human caused animal death and suffering should be reduced as much as possible if not entirely eliminated. Based on this moral reasoning, in those cases where ethical hunts kill fewer animals for the same nutrition than do farming, ranching and/or vegetarianism