Recently in the news, a man in Cariboo, BC, fought against a black bear in a life-or-death stuggle and came out winning, armed only with a stick. [news link]

Now, the fight was not provoked by Jim West. He was walking his dogs when he turned around and saw an agitated mother black bear. At such a close proximity against a black bear, anyone well-versed in the outdoors (and I’m not talking about just going outside, a walk around Stanley Park or some urban park, but the Great Outdoors that isn’t flooded with concrete or many signs of civilization) would do what West did that fateful day: fight.

Why? Well, the answer is quite simple really. Let’s take a look at some bear facts from the Bear Safety page on the BC Parks website:

• Bears are as fast as racehorses, on the flats, uphill or downhill
• Bears are strong swimmers.
• Bears have good eyesight, good hearing, and an acute sense of smell.
• All black bears and young grizzlies are agile tree climbers; mature grizzlies are poor climbers, but they have a reach up to 4 metres.
• If a bear is standing up it is usually trying to identify you. Talk softly so it knows what you are. Move away, keeping it in view. Do not make direct eye contact.

So what we are dealing with here is an aggressive black bear, possibly fed by some irresponsible humans thinking that feeding the animals will be fun.

If you decided to run for it, the bear will be able to catch up, since they are as fast as racehorses.

If you try climbing a tree, the black bear will be able to climb up it as well. Also, if you don’t climb up high enough, it can probably just stand up and grab at you.

If you tried to play dead with a black bear, you’ll end up dead (for those trying to learn something, playing dead only works for grizzlies). Best thing to do would be to try to retreat, but obviously at such a distance, retreat is practically impossible.

So really, West did the right thing and survived.

But it turns out some people who are uneducated in the outdoors have taken it upon themselves to harass the man for living and killing an animal that would have killed him. [news link]

That’s pretty sick people.

Here is a man who is trying to get over his injuries, only to have a bunch of idiots who know nothing about the outdoors harass him for doing the right thing.

If they were in his shoes, then they would have probably tried doing things like run for it, climb a tree, or play dead because (a) they do not know bears can outrun humans and (b) they can not identify a black bear. As a result, they would be dead.

Now, if it were a person instead of a bear, some of these idiots would have nothing to say. Hell, West probably would have been OK because he was defending himself from a person who was trying to kill him and unfortunately killed him out of self defense.

Yes, love the animals and protect them all you want. But when they start attacking you, you have to do something to survive. It’s a simple matter of survival of the fittest, as Charles Darwin put it.

This past election has shown to us that our democracy is in need of extremely serious reform.

Between this past election and the one before it, electoral rules have changed. Voters are now required to provide identification in order to vote. Despite Election Canada’s best efforts to inform the public and various other people’s grassroots movements to get the word out, people were still unformed.

I’m pretty sure you have heard it too. “Bring your ID”, they say. What they all fair to say is to bring specific identification, since you will need to prove your name AND address, not just who you are.

Working as a poll clerk on voting day, I witnessed quite a few people who did not have proper identification. Those lucky enough to be able to drive (ie. have a driver’s license) bring those, and they can vote as a result. Those who don’t? Well, they bring in a whole bunch of other stuff, such as passports, citizenship cards, and the like.

Unfortunately, those pieces of identification alone do not work. They need something to prove their address, like a cable/power/phone bill. Most people don’t carry those things with them, so if they did not hear things correctly and just brought ID, they had to go home, find it, and come back to vote. That’s if they managed to find the time to do so; otherwise, they just left and did not vote.

Of course, one can always vouch for those without proper identification. However, there are limitations to that:

• You can only vouch for someone in the same polling division. In other words, people living in the same house (ie. spouses) or nearby (ie. neighbours).
• You can only vouch for one person.
• Those who got vouched for cannot vouch for anyone.

These limitations makes sense, but at the same time, not everyone will be going to the voting station with people they know AND in the same voting division.

Because of the new rules, we (my deputy returning officer and myself) had to turn back around two people. And in this election, with our broken system, every vote counts.

Which brings me to my next point. You may notice that I said we have a broken system of democracy. The reason is fairly simple; they way in which we elect our officials is unfair.

The current system, “first past the post” basically lets the person with the most votes in a riding win. In the case that quite a few ridings were in this election, this means those in tight races would only win with something significantly less that 50% of the people’s support in that riding.

What does this mean for democracy? In areas where people are split between different representatives, over half of the people there are not satisfied with the representative. If we truly are a democracy, then let there be proportional representation. I have absolutely no idea how we can get this to work, but perhaps we can make it so that we have multiple representatives per riding, based on the popular vote? Our representatives can work together to better represent our interests in the House of Commons, with one representative out of the whole lot of them going to Ottawa.

Speaking of the person we elect to Parliament, in the basics of democracy, we are voting in people who represent us best. All what I see from our wonderful brand of democracy is that we elect the person who is in the party who keeps our best interests at heart because MPs do not vote against the party line.

How does this hurt our interests? Let me bring up a very relevant example:

Let’s say the government tries to pass C-61. If I have a Conservative MP, then no matter what I say or do to oppose the bill, my MP will not listen to me because he/she will need to vote on party lines. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Democracy in Canada needs change. The current state of it is discouraging. In such an important time where there are many things going on in the world, we need to go out and vote for people who best represent us. Yet, we had the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history. We can look at these reasons I stated above as possible reasons why. From things like voting rules making it inconvenient for people to vote to not even getting their voices heard, the reasons are endless. Perhaps the Canadian public is starting to realize that our vote is worthless unless we have electoral reform and are not voting as a result.

Who knows? Maybe you can shed some light on this question.