
Hunters, advocacy groups raise concerns about hunting pregnant elk as Sask. extends season
In a rare extension of the traditional hunting season, the provincial government is offering licences for elk hunting from March 10 to 31. The licences are limited to hunting within WMZ 39, west of Yorkton, the RM of Stanley, northeast of Fort Qu'Appelle, and the RM of Leask, north of Saskatoon.
The government says the extended hunting is permitted due to wildlife damage on farms, and to collect samples of bovine tuberculosis in WMZ 39 and RM of Stanley.
The announcement was met by opposition from animal rights and Indigenous groups, who say the hunt is unethical and breaks Indigenous cultural norms. Offering licences in March will mean the vast majority of the female elk hunted will be several months pregnant.
On March 12, legal advocacy group Animal Justice sent a letter to Saskatchewan's Minister of the Environment Travis Keisig, arguing the move was contrary to Saskatchewan's Animal Protection Act.
Animal Justice claimed that hunting pregnant elk during this time of year contravenes the Act's prohibition on causing undue distress for animals whilst hunting. The Act does stipulate exceptions to that rule, as long as they fall within "reasonable and generally accepted practices" of hunting.
According to Kaitlyn Mitchell, the group's Director of Legal Advocacy, that exception has not been met.
"It really runs in the face of the rule of law to expand the goalposts," she said. "Just because some folks want to shoot elk in the spring, suddenly we're going to consider that to also be reasonable, generally accepted. It's just not."
"We are talking about sentient, social, intelligent animals who deserve our compassion and respect."
Goes against cultural values: FSIN
The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN), which represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan, has also called on the government to halt the licensing process. It says the decision goes against its cultural values on the hunting of pregnant elk, and was done without its consultation.
"It's hard to put into words, but you just don't do that. You don't go and kill babies that are in the tummies of sacred animals such as the elk," said FSIN chief Bobby Cameron. "There are other methods, other means, other ways of addressing the older population."
"We'll say this to all the land owners, farm farmers out there. If you're running into this problem, phone us."
For some hunters, the ethics of hunting pregnant elk come down to a definition of what constitutes a pregnancy.
In Saskatchewan the typical elk hunting season runs between September and late December, usually for short windows of a few weeks. Preventing hunting outside of these areas is meant to allow elk populations to bear calves in the summer. Female elk — known as cows — mate in the fall and are pregnant for about 250 days, meaning many are already pregnant during the official hunting season.
Rebecca Russell, an elk hunter from Last Mountain Lake north west of Regina, says that's a key distinction.
"You're still shooting a cow and it could possibly still be pregnant. But my view of it is if you're shooting it later in the year, say September, they're pregnant, but it's not a breathing calf," she said. "Most likely [in March] they are breathing inside the cow. So they're alive, but they're not born yet."
"I kind of understand why they're doing it. I just don't agree when they're doing it," she said, noting that she's spoken to several hunters who have bought the hunting tags with the intention of not using them, "saving two cows and two elk."
Russell suggests an alternative of selling more hunting tags and expanding the hunting windows, allowing for greater population control where elk populations cause damage to farms.
Bovine tuberculosis worries
In a statement, the government of Saskatchewan confirmed it had received Animal Justice's letter and acknowledged the concerns from the FSIN.
"The decision to allow additional hunting opportunities is not made lightly and is influenced by a variety of factors," it said, referencing above-average reported damage claims in the three hunting areas and emphasizing the worry about the spread of bovine tuberculosis.
According to the government, a cow from a herd in southeastern Saskatchewan recently tested positive for bovine tuberculosis, the second case found in the province since 2023.
As a condition of the March hunting licence, the statement read, any elk taken from RM of Stanley or WMZ 39 must have its head submitted for testing for bovine tuberculosis.
"Wildlife surveillance is a component of every bovine tuberculosis investigation, as it is important to ensure that the disease has not spilled over into surrounding populations of susceptible wildlife," it said.
For Ryan Brook, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Agriculture and Bioresources, the threat of bovine tuberculosis is a strong reason to undertake the extended hunt.
The disease, which can spread between wild elk and cattle herds via hay bales, can be hugely destructive for farms, Brook said. And if the disease is detected in even a single animal, he said, then the entire herd would have to be removed and destroyed.
"I think that testing is very, very critical," he said. "The notion of just not collecting any more samples in March and waiting 'til fall? Bovine TB can spread very, very rapidly. And once it becomes established in the wildlife population, it's very difficult, if not impossible to eradicate."
"So timing is of the essence, and I support any and all actions that are aggressive and proactive to get in front of this," he said.
"Concerns about ethics are certainly not lost on me, or anybody else that I've talked to about this. And so these are very legitimate and appropriate things to think and talk about. But again, there is no simple answer."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Montreal Gazette
3 hours ago
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: Another Quebec referendum? If so, let's enforce a clear question this time
Op Eds Although a majority of Quebecers might wish otherwise, the Parti Québécois could very well win the Oct. 5, 2026 provincial election, along with a mandate to hold a third referendum on separation. That is a scenario many of us would rather not think about, but we must prepare nonetheless. How? First, changes should be brought to the Quebec Referendum Act so that, if another referendum is indeed held, the question will be crystal clear. We all know the 1980 and 1995 questions were confusing. Does anyone doubt this was intentional? We must not allow it to happen again. There are precedents. The question in the 2014 referendum in Scotland was: 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' For the Brexit consultation in 2016: 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' Closer to home, in Alberta, a group of separatists have submitted the following text: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' All those questions are perfectly clear and not slanted in any way. If such an approach is good for the U.K., Scotland and Alberta, why would Quebec separatists be able to impose a convoluted question, so that voters are confused into voting for something they do not really want? Currently, Clause 8 of the Referendum Act gives the governing party the arbitrary power to write the question and vote it by a simple majority in the National Assembly. Therefore, a PQ majority government would be allowed to decide — once again on its own — one of the most important rules of the game. This is neither fair nor democratic. The Act should be amended so that all political parties recognized in the National Assembly must approve the text of the question. The PQ would oppose such a change, but I have no doubt most Quebecers would be in favour, because they are democrats. This is something the Legault government, with its majority in parliament, and certainly the support of the Liberals, can do right away. Amending the Referendum Act is not the only thing federalists can do to prepare. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon seems to be popular among Quebecers in large part because he appears reasonable and rational. The impression is that he does politics differently. In fact, he is arguably the most extreme leader the PQ has ever had. St-Pierre Plamondon believes, sincerely it appears, that independence will magically solve all the problems the province faces. He envisages that an independent Quebec would abandon the Canadian dollar in favour of a Quebec currency. He never talks about an association with the rest of Canada; his project is a radical break, not René Lévesque's sovereignty-association. Consistent with this 'rational' approach, the PQ will publish, in the next few months, a 'blue paper' on separation. Federalists should be ready to respond to each and every argument put forward by this document. Remember that two years ago, the party issued a 'Year One budget' that was lauded by many commentators as a rigorous report. A few months later, three economists and I showed how, in fact, the text grossly underestimates the costs of independence. This is the type of work that must be done, starting now: challenging the separatist agenda at every corner. Many might think that such a strategy is premature, that even if the Péquistes win the election next year, they will face the reality that most Quebecers do not want another referendum. However, the 1995 referendum here and the 2016 Brexit consultation showed that once the referendum ball starts rolling, anything can happen. In other words, waiting is a losing strategy. For those of us who want Quebec and Canada to win, now is not too soon to begin preparing. This story was originally published August 6, 2025 at 6:55 AM.


Cision Canada
4 hours ago
- Cision Canada
Governor General to deliver remarks at the WAVES 2025: Global Indigenous Languages Summit
OTTAWA, ON, Aug. 11, 2025 /CNW/ - Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon, Governor General of Canada, will attend morning sessions and deliver remarks at the WAVES 2025: Global Indigenous Languages Summit. Organized by the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, the inaugural summit, held from August 11-14, aims to promote, celebrate and champion Indigenous languages in Canada and around the globe. On the fourth day of the summit, the Governor General will deliver remarks on the transformative power of Indigenous language education. Her Excellency's participation highlights her strong commitment to the revitalization of Indigenous languages, a key priority within her overarching mandate of advancing reconciliation. Date: August 14, 2025 Time: 8:30 a.m. Location: Rogers Centre Ottawa, Canada Hall, 3 rd level, 55 Colonel By Drive Notes for media:


National Post
8 hours ago
- National Post
Adam Pankratz: B.C.'s shameful race to give up public land
Shame. There used to be more of it and that was a good thing. Nowadays, a lack of shame runs rampant as people gaslight the world in the hopes no one will check up on them. In British Columbia, our current gaslighter-in-chief is Randene Neill, the minister of water, land and resource stewardship. Article content In a lengthy Aug. 1 Facebook post, Neill addressed recent changes to land use planning in B.C., which she claimed had been 'misunderstood.' Article content Article content The province first tried to overhaul land use planning earlier in 2024 with changes to the Land Act. The proposed changes to the act would have given decision-making powers to First Nations over public lands. However, the government continually claimed the changes were far less impactful than they would have been. At the time, the opportunity for public engagement on these enormous amendments was released in a low-key posting on the government website with little fanfare. The government did not want the public involved, but got caught when veteran journalist Vaughn Palmer began following the issue and brought it to the public's attention. Article content Article content In the face of the public reaction due to Palmer's reporting, the government backed down on its amendments to the Land Act, but not on its idea to transfer decision-making power to First Nations by other means. Article content In August 2024, the NDP agreed to transfer six square kilometres of public land to the Shishalh Nation, in a deal that was only made public in January 2025. Neill, who was just elected in October, wasn't made aware of this until after the 2024 provincial election. This summer, the government is following the same playbook. On June 3, the government announced consultations for land use planning in northwestern B.C., which covers nearly a third of the entire province. Few people would have seen the opportunity for engagement or been aware of the vast changes underway. Article content While not explicitly hidden by the government, changes of this magnitude require a far, far more concerted effort to raise public awareness on the full impact of proposed land use changes. This takes years, not weeks or a few short months as with the current government timelines. Article content Then, on June 26, the government signed a new land use agreement with the Squamish Nation, updating their 2007 deal. In the new deal, the province and the First Nation agreed on the boundaries of Squamish Nation 'areas of importance,' which are candidate sites for protection 'based on various cultural, spiritual and other interests.' These areas, says the deal, are a 'high priority to develop management direction for claim staking, subsurface resource exploration and development that protects the integrity of Squamish Nation's cultural and other interests.' Article content Some of the Squamish Nation's areas of importance are substantially within 'municipal jurisdiction or private lands,' including parts of Vancouver. Regarding these zones, the deal stipulates that B.C. 'agrees to, at the request of Squamish Nation, participate in future discussions, including with a local government or third party, focused on protecting or resolving Squamish Nation interests….' Article content It's possible that private lands will be affected down the road, but we don't know for sure. In any case, no government releases news like that just prior to a long weekend unless it desperately wants to avoid any scrutiny about a secretive process that affects public access to public (and possibly private) lands. The government then remained quiet about land use planning until Neill's Aug. 1 Facebook post. There, she announced that online feedback surveys had been open since June 3 and would close Aug. 8. These surveys were not mentioned in the minister's initial news release and X announcement in June. Article content Article content On Facebook, Neill assured that land use plans 'do not, and will not, apply to private land.' Article content 'If you own private property within a planning area, your land is not included in the plan and your rights as a property owner remain the same,' she continued. 'The planning process is transparent and requires extensive public engagement to identify the values that people care about in the planning area, from industrial and agricultural to recreation and conservation uses.' Article content This reeks of a government doing its best to achieve its desired Land Act changes under the guise of multiple one-off deals with First Nations without meaningful public engagement. It is being done on extremely tight timelines during the summer when, rather than reading obscure government news releases, British Columbians are outside enjoying the public lands they could soon not have full access to if Neill and Premier David Eby get their way. Article content B.C.'s NDP government has done nothing to earn public trust when it comes to land use. It has a track record of obfuscation, secrecy and silence when it comes to communicating its plans to the public, which is unacceptable considering that 94 per cent of the province belongs to the citizens of British Columbia. Article content Neill, Eby and the NDP are derelict in their democratic responsibility to the public interest by their rushed and secret land use actions. Shame on them. Article content