Stop throwing us under the bus!

[bandit]

Predictable CBC anti grizz hunting article came out this afternoon to remind everyone the bear hunting season opened. I particularly liked the picture of the sow with a cub which was obviously designed to cause an emotional reaction.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2594640

What at really gets on my grill is the number of so called "hunters" who are commenting on how they don't agree with the grizz hunt. Are these genuine meat hunters or just antis who are pretending to be hunters in order to bring more weight to their campaign?

Genuine meat hunters, whether they agree or not with the grizz hunt, shouldn't need to be told what will happen once they ban it. Next up will be black bears and wolves, then it will be deer moose and elk. So thanks for your shortsighted selfishness.

[yamadirt 426]

as much as i dont like the liberals, they support hunting. And have opened up more leh on g bears. Ellis did a good job on cknw today !

[Surrey Boy]

You can be anyone you please when you're anonymous.

[proguide66]

There is definitely a hand full of absolute IDIOTS with hunting licenses and a 'voice' in places they shouldn't be. I have about had it up to the nuts with a couple local ones and am seriously thinking about putting a match to a big pot of fire to expose their insanity .
Fakkin people .....

[goatdancer]

You can be anyone you please when you're anonymous.

Yep. No guarantee whether they're hunters or not. Could be PETA types.

[Rattler]

Strike that match!! It's absolutely mind boggling that some "hunters" are supporting the anti grizz hunt!




There is definitely a hand full of absolute IDIOTS with hunting licenses and a 'voice' in places they shouldn't be. I have about had it up to the nuts with a couple local ones and am seriously thinking about putting a match to a big pot of fire to expose their insanity .
Fakkin people .....

[BuckNaked]

Yep. No guarantee whether they're hunters or not. Could be PETA types.


I'm a member of PETA.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

[skibum]

I don't get the mentality that all hunters must have the same opinion on all hunting issues. A well articulated pro-grizzly hunting position counters pretty good against the meat hunter only argument.

[Surrey Boy]

I don't get the mentality that all hunters must have the same opinion on all hunting issues. A well articulated pro-grizzly hunting position counters pretty good against the meat hunter only argument.

It's solidarity against the PETA types - if we support each other, we're all better off. Like a skeet shooter opposed to military rifles or a motorcyclist who doesn't like lifted pickups, an elk hunter speaking against bear hunting is weakening public support for his own preference in the long run in two ways: firstly, it alienates some of those whom would normally defend your cause, secondly, when one kind of hunting is successfully banned, anti-hunters will naturally work to eliminate another type of hunt. In addition to these, someone with a grizzly draw may not have time or interest to hunt other game in that season, thereby reducing competition between hunters.

While free speech is essential to liberty and intellectual advancement and by this hunters are free to hold any opinion they wish, it's prudent to cooperate with natural partners in a wider context.

[Surrey Boy]

Just as there are many folks whom would buy a car because it looks appealing without considering it's mechanical capability, buy shoes that look pretty though they're painful to walk in, get married on the basis of lust rather than life-goals, or support charities they know nothing about, some Canadians are at ease with hunting moose because they're ugly but not bears because they're cute.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

What would really help is to stop propagating anti messages in places such as HuntingBC. Such articles are absurd. It is illegal to Hunt any Bear under two years of age/ any bear with (a) cub(s). Pictures like that occuring alongside such slanted, silly articles are self defeating.

No actual Hunter is against the Hunting of Grizzly... There is alot of meat on those animals! When I get such a Bear, that meat will accompany the hide. What another would do with their animal (within the confines of their personal ethics and the Wildlife Act/other applicable Law) is their business and nothing but.

I have always felt just like I do now - the "Hunters" the antis use are simply themselves in disguise, for the most part. Of course; there are undoubtly a few misguided souls in the Hunting community whom are anti this or that themselves, just as there are anti-gun people whom own and even occasionally use a gun or two on occasion.

All any of this hooplah entales is fodder for media to keep themselves employed. Until there is a proposed bill on the docket, there is no need for any of us to pay attention to any of this. If such a thing were to arise in the future, then we shall procede to raise a ruckus and defeat said bill!

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

Just as there are many folks whom would buy a car because it looks appealing without considering it's mechanical capability, buy shoes that look pretty though they're painful to walk in, get married on the basis of lust rather than life-goals, or support charities they know nothing about, some Canadians are at ease with hunting moose because they're ugly but not bears because they're cute.

Moose are not ugly!!! I find them to be a quite handsome animal. This is why they can make such spectacular mounts. Naturally, they are truly delicious. In my estimation, Moose Hunting is widely accepted as Moose meat is a traditional Canadian Food source.

If any anti-Bear "Hunter" should happen to read this - Do try a ham made from a Grizzly Bear prior to supporting the idea of banning a great Hunt.

I do see your point Sir Surrey Boy, yet feel that if "cute"-ness were to be a pertinent factor to the issue there would be a substantial outcry to remove Grey and Fox Squirrels from Schedule C status and shift that species to illegal to Hunt.

:lol:

[boxhitch]

Until there is a proposed bill on the docket, there is no need for any of us to pay attention to any of this. If such a thing were to arise in the future, then we shall procede to raise a ruckus and defeat said bill! You are kidding right ? haha I get it , April fools

Hunters keeping their heads in the sand has got us where we are today , with 70 % of the population apathetic about most issues regarding hunting , but easily swayed by what they read and hear in the media . To maintain a position in the battle against the anti-'s , hunters have to convey the message that ALL hunting is OK and is a lifestyle choice and is sustainable and is governed by very conservative regulations .

[ratherbefishin]

what most people don't understand is the ''protest'' groups is an INDUSTRY.They exist purely for DONATIONS which fund their BUSINESS.It doesn't matter what the ''story'' is-seals, rabbits bears,bambis-whatever-the main thing is to tug at peoples emotions and get them top write a cheque....Reality, facts,science,have NOTHING to do with emotion.
I support environmental groups that put their dollar where their mouth is and buy and preserve habitat-which is the most important factor in preserving the ecosytem.
I make the case with non hunters that hunter/gathers make the LEAST IMPACT on the ecosystem-farming neccesitates major drisuption of the natural flora and fauna in order to produce food-native grasslands,forests birds and wildlife have to be displaced in order to put tofu and granola on your table.The hunter disrupts nothing and leaves only his footprints...

[BearSupreme]

I listened to part of the CBC radio report. I think that guide (from kelowna?) did a good job explaining the need to hunt grizzly bears, not just for sport, but because if grizzlies dont fear man, their will be more conflicts (same with wolves). He also talked about how mature boars will kill younger boars and especially cubs so they can mate with females. I think he articulated his thoughts a lot better then most of the pro-grizzly people in discussions like that. Have you noticed all the anti hunters say the same thing? Its not ethical and not sustainable. Being ethical is an emotion based opinion and the idea of it not being sustainable, after they have had a grizzly hunt for over 30 years is laughable. We have the most grizzlies in the world! Those anti (grizzly) BEAR hunters are so far up their @ss they cant listen to any argument from the hunting side. And really, its an anti BEAR hunt, not just grizzlies. Thats another reason why its not about trophy hunters not using the meat, they just dont want people to hunt bears, and like it was said earlier, they wont stop until all hunting is stopped so the only meat they eat are the farm animals that dont die (apparently) for them to eat meat from a grocery store.

[ratherbefishin]

I like to ask anti hunters how much THEY provide for the natural food chain when they go birdwatching or hiking?I remind them that hunters leave about 30% of the biomass of the animal they harvest.....

[325]

The statistic that 90% of hunters are against the grizzly hunt is a complete lie. I bet native "hunters" in the Great Bear Rainforest were polled to generate that statistic. Unfortunately, most CBC listeners will eat up that crap. The CBC spoon feeds their agenda items to the naïve people of Canada, and our tax dollars pay for it.

We will lose the grizzly hunt sooner or later, unless we start to push back and employ real scientists to communicate proper wildlife management practices to the urban elite. Perhaps the BCWF could initiate a campaign to attempt public education.

[steel_ram]

That kind of justification is asking to look stupid. Leaving 30% of the biomass means you take 70%. Anti hunters using the same logic and math take O%. Ultimately the hunt is doomed if the only reason for the hunt is to kill "The Great Bears", assuming most have no intention of eating them. Try explaining to the average non hunter justification for killing something for no other reason than you want to kill one. Your going to end up looking like a nut job.

[Darksith]

I personally think we hunters should be telling the government to make it mandatory to remove the meat when we harvest an G bear. Why is there a distinction between that animal and all of the others? If we had the law changed, then what would their argument be? They couldn't call it a trophy hunt because its now a meat hunt. It would remove so much of their ammunition.

[NorfolkBoy]

I personally think we hunters should be telling the government to make it mandatory to remove the meat when we harvest an G bear. Why is there a distinction between that animal and all of the others? If we had the law changed, then what would their argument be? They couldn't call it a trophy hunt because its now a meat hunt. It would remove so much of their ammunition.

Is there a law making it Mandatory to take a deer carcass? I know my friends in the lower 48 have found headless stag's left to rot, which makes my blood boil.

I've long wanted to try bear (I read old medieval recipes for smoked bear ham). Is there any data on how many Griz. are eaten, vs how many are killed for the pelt vs how many for pure "trophy" hunts.

[Darksith]

yes there is a law in BC anyway about removing the meat. Don't know about the stats for grizz hunts though

[andrewscag]

Agree with you Darksith. Taking the meat out should be mandatory. Give it away if you don't want to eat it

[Downwind]

Is there a law making it Mandatory to take a deer carcass? I know my friends in the lower 48 have found headless stag's left to rot, which makes my blood boil.

I've long wanted to try bear (I read old medieval recipes for smoked bear ham). Is there any data on how many Griz. are eaten, vs how many are killed for the pelt vs how many for pure "trophy" hunts.

This is where the misinformation lies. You must remove the hide from any grizz taken and that is what makes it deemed a trophy hunt...because no meat is taken. There is obviously a lot of misinformation out there if you think there is a difference between taking a grizz for its hide or for 'trophy'. And this is not a slight towards you just that it shows how much BS is out there to mislead people about what the hunts are actually about. People 'trophy' hunt deer and moose but still are required to remove all edible portions of the animal. It just means they have certain personal requirements that they have before they will take an animal.

[boxhitch]

Why is there a distinction between that animal and all of the others?wag , but more than likely because traditionally and in reality most G Bear hunters want nothing to do with the meat . Historically most G Bears were killed so man could stay at the top of the food chain and to protect stock and crops , they were vermin. The meat may be edible to some people , but I bet most think there is far better fare to be had . iirc , not too long ago B Bear meat didn't have to be kept either.
But a meat retention rule wouldn't be a terrible thing , just means moving a carcass from one spot to three .

[Surrey Boy]

Agree with you Darksith. Taking the meat out should be mandatory. Give it away if you don't want to eat it

Whereas a carcass left at the kill site is harmless to others, I opine that once I cut my tag, what happens to my newfound personal property is not your concern.

[r106]

Do you think the anti's care what you do with a animal after it's killed? They don't care. They don't want you to kill the animal period... You think they will stop and all the issues will go away if taking the meat is mandatory? if you believe it will you live in a fairy land.

I'm not even a " trophy " hunter

[r106]

I personally think we hunters should be telling the government to make it mandatory to remove the meat when we harvest an G bear. Why is there a distinction between that animal and all of the others? If we had the law changed, then what would their argument be? They couldn't call it a trophy hunt because its now a meat hunt. It would remove so much of their ammunition.

A Sheep hunt is referred to as a trophy hunt and you have to take the meat????

[steel_ram]

Do you think the anti's care what you do with a animal after it's killed? They don't care. They don't want you to kill the animal period... You think they will stop and all the issues will go away if taking the meat is mandatory? if you believe it will you live in a fairy land.

I'm not even a " trophy " hunter

Just to be the devil's advocate. If not for food, not for protection, not for tradition, profit or really even conservation, why kill a grizzly bear? I once confronted a fellow at a "anti-bear hunting info booth". Can't say I walked away feeling like a victor. A few straight questions and they will make you look like a immature sadist. It's a easy battle for them, that's why there is so many of them.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Pretty easy answer Steel-ram the answer is conservation.
Value attached to wildlife means those same speciesare thriving generations from now. There was a great study done in Alberta which studied hunted grizzly areas verses not hunted. It was proven, better cub and juvenile survival rate as well as a broader DNA sampling which ment increased populations. The ***** biologists in BC won't even do that study, they cry when ever the word hunting comes up.

[r106]

Just to be the devil's advocate. If not for food, not for protection, not for tradition, profit or really even conservation, why kill a grizzly bear? I once confronted a fellow at a "anti-bear hunting info booth". Can't say I walked away feeling like a victor. A few straight questions and they will make you look like a immature sadist. It's a easy battle for them, that's why there is so many of them.

I agree it will take one arguing point away from them. But it wont change there stance or desire to ban the hunt

[steel_ram]

The amount of bears is insignificant to conservation either way from what I understand. We're not talking overcrowded winter range. The fact is, and it is undisputed amongst many anti-grizzly hunt people, is that bear hunting has little if any effect on bear numbers. They argue a very strong and easy to win moral question?

[r106]

Pretty easy answer Steel-ram the answer is conservation.
Value attached to wildlife means those same speciesare thriving generations from now. There was a great study done in Alberta which studied hunted grizzly areas verses not hunted. It was proven, better cub and juvenile survival rate as well as a broader DNA sampling which ment increased populations. The ***** biologists in BC won't even do that study, they cry when ever the word hunting comes up.

Don't know much about the subject but wouldn't Africa be an example were controlled hunting has actually saved animal species. By funding research and funding programs to stop poaching.

[Mik]

Why even talk about this Paul panquet from WCF !!!!!!!!
y even acknowledge him????? The provincial biologist says there's 15k bears out there!!!!!!again I ask: Y even acknowledge this guy ??

[buck nash]

Holy crap! I was listening to that yesterday while driving and I couldn't help yelling at my radio.
This clown from suzuki society, whose credentials are that he's a PHD ........CANDIDATE, starts questioning the accuracy and validity of the grizz population stats. Meanwhile he states that 88% of KNOWN grizzly deaths are human caused. Well no shit Dick Tracey! Bears live in remote mountain forests. How are we gonna know about their deaths if humans aren't involved!?

It kills me how these clowns question stats derived from gold standard population estimate methods but happily throw out useless made up numbers to bolster their arguments.

A few days ago a caller states he's a hunter but not for trophy. Then says he's seen hunters killing females that were too small so the guide let them not cut their tags and leave the bear to rot while they went after a bigger male. He didn't say anything about what happened when he reported it though. Probably cause it never happened.

[tater]

The reality is that black and white thinking rarely works well in the real world. The simple dialectic of life is that more than two things can be true simultaneously. In this case: a) Yes, there should be a bear hunt b) the way we are doing it and representing it to the public is not sustainable in the 21st century.

The whole "the anti's are coming" thing is is not what we need to worry about. They are a minority, just like we are. It is the general, non-hunting public that will determine the future of our way of life. Frightening prospect, but unless we can show the average British Columbian that we using the resources in a balanced, humane way that can be defended morally as well scientifically we will be in a tough spot.

There are several studies that show that most non-hunters support the utilization of game for food, as long as it is done ethically and humanely. Where we lose the plot is when John or Jane Q Public hear about the taking of a large animal strictly for it's head/hide. A large majority of North Americans do not support trophy hunting. End of sentence.

The argument of "conservation foots the bill-look at Africa" is intellectually weak. This is not a third world country rife with political turmoil and people burning every twig to cook, and killing every animal to eat. We are not the only utilizers of the outdoor resources in this province.

The prey we hunt is here because of adaptation to environment, just like we are. If we are not prepared to adapt to deal with an urban-centric viewpoint in the age of mass media we will lose all hunting. Not because of 'anti-hunters', but because non-hunters will not see a defensible position for what we do.

[Rackmastr]

Show your support for the hunt!!!!!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-the-bc-grizzly-hunt.html

[BRvalley]

signed, #11,481, hope that number will get a lot larger yet

thanks for posting the link

[Darksith]

A Sheep hunt is referred to as a trophy hunt and you have to take the meat????

I am well aware of that fact, but you don't see too many protesting about the harvesting of the majestical mountain sheep. I just make the point that if we are not required to remove the meat, it makes their jobs easier. Their jobs being to win over public opinion and influence the law makers. I wrote to the NDP candidate that voiced his disproval of the G bear hunt on the floor of the legislature, he hasn't had the balls to reply to me yet. I wish more would write to him. Ask him if harvesting a G bear for the meat would satisfy his concerns and make him change his opinion on the "trophy hunt".

While I do agree that we should be able to hunt "sustainably" any creature and do with it as we please, that doesn't sit well with public opinion, and so I am willing to give them a few nods to keep them feeling happy about things, even if it is irrelevant. If we decide that "its none of their business" or "they are just uneducated and stupid" we will lose, guaranteed.

[hunterdon]

Do you think the anti's care what you do with a animal after it's killed? They don't care. They don't want you to kill the animal period... You think they will stop and all the issues will go away if taking the meat is mandatory? if you believe it will you live in a fairy land.

I'm not even a " trophy " hunter



Value attached to wildlife means those same speciesare thriving generations from now. There was a great study done in Alberta which studied hunted grizzly areas verses not hunted. It was proven, better cub and juvenile survival rate as well as a broader DNA sampling which ment increased populations. The ***** biologists in BC won't even do that study, they cry when ever the word hunting comes up.

Well agreed!
Let's also remind the public that first of all, it is not a waste if the meat is not taken. That is at the core of their argument, which is false. Any meat, or any animal remains left at site for that matter, is not wasted. There is a host of critters which both benefit and rely on dead carcases of animals in order to survive. That goes from other grizzlies eating the remains down to small mice which use the hair for nesting, insects feed on it, birds, coyotes, and on and on. Even the soil benefits from any fluids and tissues which eventually return to the soil benefiting the environment which then produces grasses and herbs. which of course feeds other animals.

The point here and it's a big one, is that anything left behind is not wasted. That is nature's way. So, let's do away with this silly presumption that meat left behind is a waste. It is not!!!

[Darksith]

Well agreed!
Let's also remind the public that first of all, it is not a waste if the meat is not taken. That is at the core of their argument, which is false. Any meat, or any animal remains left at site for that matter, is not wasted. There is a host of critters which both benefit and rely on dead carcases of animals in order to survive. That goes from other grizzlies eating the remains down to small mice which use the hair for nesting, insects feed on it, birds, coyotes, and on and on. Even the soil benefits from any fluids and tissues which eventually return to the soil benefiting the environment which then produces grasses and herbs. which of course feeds other animals.

The point here and it's a big one, is that anything left behind is not wasted. That is nature's way. So, let's do away with this silly presumption that meat left behind is a waste. It is not!!!

you can't take that stand...this argument is not about science. The science behind the G bear hunt says it is sustainable and if executed as directed beneficial to the health of the populations. That is irrelevant though as they use emotions and misinformation rather than science. Just like the video about the GBR that the natives along with the anti's made with "cheeky the bear". That had no scientific basis, it was all about emotions. We must remove the emotion of wastefulness and the heartless trophy hunter from the equation. The only way to do that is to make it a meat hunt. If we can turn a trophy hunt into a meat hunt, then they have nothing left to argue. Thus they don't attempt to get rid of trophy ungulate hunts, because the public believes that sustainable meat hunts are acceptable and should remain.

[steel_ram]

Regardless of what we do to appease a few, such as the token of removing the "meat", it's eventually going to boil down to the morality of Killing Grizzlies for the thrill. You can dress that up, justify however you want but that is basically what it is.

[bandit]

Regardless of what we do to appease a few, such as the token of removing the "meat", it's eventually going to boil down to the morality of Killing Grizzlies for the thrill. You can dress that up, justify however you want but that is basically what it is.

why is it immoral to kill grizzlies but not other animals? And what's the meat got to do with it? Plenty of other animals are killed for reasons other than meat (coyotes wolves schedule c etc)

your argument is illogical and inconsistent. There is no logical or moral reason why some animals should be off limits and others not.

This is a political argument just like when they banned fox hunting in England. Because they didn't like the people who hunted foxes, it had nothing to do with the foxes themselves.

[Surrey Boy]

Regardless of what we do to appease a few, such as the token of removing the "meat", it's eventually going to boil down to the morality of Killing Grizzlies for the thrill. You can dress that up, justify however you want but that is basically what it is.

I don't need to "dress up" killing bears, rats, or flies. It's all wildlife management. Keeping the hide is definitely an incentive.

[steel_ram]

why is it immoral to kill grizzlies but not other animals? And what's the meat got to do with it? Plenty of other animals are killed for reasons other than meat (coyotes wolves schedule c etc)

your argument is illogical and inconsistent. There is no logical or moral reason why some animals should be off limits and others not.

This is a political argument just like when they banned fox hunting in England. Because they didn't like the people who hunted foxes, it had nothing to do with the foxes themselves.

Are you kidding? We hunt most big game for food and the hunt has a very significant positive effect in regards to populations. It also has a lot to do with keeping in touch with our heritage our ancient ancestral predatory ways. Other animals are pests. The big bears generally are none of the above.

The best science proves the hunt is viable. Only a few "out there " organizations dispute that. The problem is, much of the general public who have as much right to this game as anyone else believe's anyone who wants to kill an animal of this magnitude just for the thrill, glory (whatever) must have something wrong with them.

Personally I have more of an issue with these eco-tourists or Chalets that are deliberately built on bearways that continuously intrude on the bears habitat. The one thing we all know is that Grizzly bears need a lot of space.

I pose my question again. Why do we kill Grizzly bears?

[Ambush]

I pose my question again. Why do we kill Grizzly bears?

Man has always looked for challenges to conquer, it's built into us. Be it hockey, golf, curling, fagure skating or any pursuit, the greater the challenge, the more imposing the opponent, the greater the victory.

WTH would anyone put on a flying squirrel suit and leap off a mountain!? Swim with sharks in the open ocean? Free climb a four hundred foot vertical rock face. There's no way to explain it to someone who doesn't share your drive.

Grizzlies are the "next level" because they can and will hurt you back.

So simply put, we do hunt them for the thrill, it's just that "thrill" is a far too stingy expression for what we really feel.

A big roller coaster is a thrill. Grizzlies up close are a much more profound experience.

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

boxhitch - "You are kidding right ? haha I get it , April fools"

That's just it... I am no good at the jokes!

I must admit I thought that little gem was well-hidden enough as to avoid detection. Apparently I was off base as you've found it out. Seriously - I do believe that anti-slanted propaganda has no place on a site such as this and that the antis are blatantly incorrect cash grabbers. They are the crazies, not us! We, as Hunters, do not need to justify our behaviour nor argue from a position of weakness.

Surrey Boy - "Whereas a carcass left at the kill site is harmless to others, I opine that once I cut my tag, what happens to my newfound personal property is not your concern."

Very well said Sir! My sentiments precisely.

One thing I would like to add is that "Trophy Hunting" is an entirely subjective term. It may well go without saying that the widely accepted definition (Hunting purely to kill a given animal for the purpose of creating a Taxidermy specimen) is entirely false. In truth, a Trophy is all in the heart of the Hunter.

For example - ANY animal I take is a true Trophy in my mind. Whether it be the little Squirrel(s) I have mentioned in my prior post; a small Whitetail Deer Doe, a Coyote, a 50"+ Bull Moose, Mountain Sheep, Mountain Goat, Hare or even a Black or Grizzly Bear, in my estimation EVERY animal I take is a true Trophy. This holds true even if I do not posses so much as an image of myself with said beast, let alone a fantastic high qaulity Taxidermy mount! Of course, if I do happened to get some delicious wild food as a result of my kill, I am all the better for it. I thank the Almighty for the gracious bounty available and support all Hunts.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Man has always looked for challenges to conquer, it's built into us. Be it hockey, golf, curling, fagure skating or any pursuit, the greater the challenge, the more imposing the opponent, the greater the victory.

WTH would anyone put on a flying squirrel suit and leap off a mountain!? Swim with sharks in the open ocean? Free climb a four hundred foot vertical rock face. There's no way to explain it to someone who doesn't share your drive.

Grizzlies are the "next level" because they can and will hurt you back.

So simply put, we do hunt them for the thrill, it's just that "thrill" is a far too stingy expression for what we really feel.

A big roller coaster is a thrill. Grizzlies up close are a much more profound experience.

Thats very well said. Thanks

[steel_ram]

Thanks Ambush for am answer.

I face anti's everyday, some are good friends otherwise, so I'm not willing to not care about what they say or tell them to FO. I'm guessing the obvious response to the above answer is ; the other thrill seekers are only endangering themselves, as with bear hunting your killing a beast which many hold at higher regard than animals lower in the food chain. That's a personal values thing. The other is the "danger" of hunting grizzlies. Most I've seen or heard of is with rifles. The hunter in a elevated tree stand over a salmon creek or otherwise some distance away. It's the guide who gets to go in and poke the downed bear in the eye. Bow hunting? There's something that evens the playing field.

[biggyun68]

From Steel_ram: I pose my question again. Why do we kill Grizzly bears?[/QUOTE]

Because we need to...
Because we hunt them...
Because we have transportation corridors...

Those are the only three reasons we kill them.... Did you mean why we hunt them?

[bandit]

Thanks Ambush for am answer.

I'm guessing the obvious response to the above answer is ; the other thrill seekers are only endangering themselves, as with bear hunting your killing a beast which many hold at higher regard than animals lower in the food chain.

But that's my whole point why the anti argument is inconsistent. Why are some animals held in higher regard than others? Why is it ok to kill animals at the bottom of the food chain but not ones at the top? Where do you draw the line and why?

Either it's ok to kill animals or it's not. It's a black and white issue.

[skibum]

So simply put, we do hunt them for the thrill, it's just that "thrill" is a far too stingy expression for what we really feel.

A big roller coaster is a thrill. Grizzlies up close are a much more profound experience.


Saying you hunt for the thrill of killing an animal - that is exactly what is going to turn the non-hunting population against this hunt.

I totally understand this thrill and hope to hunt a grizzly in the future.

But I think hunters get a "group think" thing happening when they talk with their buddies and totally forget how a non-hunter, who is not totally against hunting, might perceive someone saying they kill grizzlies for the thrill of it.

[Mishka]

But that's my whole point why the anti argument is inconsistent. Why are some animals held in higher regard than others? Why is it ok to kill animals at the bottom of the food chain but not ones at the top? Where do you draw the line and why?

Either it's ok to kill animals or it's not. It's a black and white issue.


Like it or not, it's not black and white. We're talking human emotion here and it will not go away. I agree with some others, if we take a step back and look at what's at play here, emotions, then we have a better chance at resolving this. If we stick our heals in and ignore the fact that the majority of people act through emotion, we're not going to get ahead. Like someone here said, the argument is value-based. It has nothing to do with science.

[guest]

Be nice to see taking of the meat mandatory in the Regs. Just my thoughts. As I certainly will take er in have er tested then chow down on various varieties of sausage, hams and chops !

[r106]

But that's my whole point why the anti argument is inconsistent. Why are some animals held in higher regard than others? Why is it ok to kill animals at the bottom of the food chain but not ones at the top? Where do you draw the line and why?

Either it's ok to kill animals or it's not. It's a black and white issue.

It's not inconsistent. The people out there trying to ban the Grizzly hunting want to ban all hunting. They just picked the Grizzly hunt because they think they can win it by influencing the emotions of the general public. Thats what a lot of hunters don't get. If they successfully ban the grizz hunt they will then go after banning Wolfs, Black bears, Mountain sheep, goats, caribou and so on.

I agree with others that by making it mandatory to take the meat out would take there biggest argument out of the game but it won't stop them.

[steel_ram]

Banning the Grizzly hunt being just the first step of the anti's agenda is the biggest fear of most hunters. But there's a huge difference between hunting bears compared to the more typical game animals.

[r106]

Banning the Grizzly hunt being just the first step of the anti's agenda is the biggest fear of most hunters. But there's a huge difference between hunting bears compared to the more typical game animals.

Whats the difference hunting deer = dead deer. hunting moose = dead moose, hunting grizz = dead grizz Whats the actual difference?

[hunterdon]

Oh well I'll put another 2 cents in.
I do understand the reasoning of some suggesting to make it mandatory to take the meat, in order to take that "trophy" stigma out of the equation. Yes, it probably will change some minds into supporting the grizzly hunt. The problem is that could backfire in the long run. Think about it. If we give in to that and the regs are changed to reflect that view, then we have established that hunting for other than sustenance is wrong.

You can bet your bottom dollar, that the antis will then claim that as a victory and proceed to ban all non sustenance hunting. Cougar, wolf, coyote, bobcat, lynx are sure to follow. Just that bears are an easier first target. The're cute and cuddly, right?

So, for the sake of an easier win in this argument by changing the regs, we need to consider the big picture. The antis are. They won't stop there. That's just the first step. I still think educating the public is the best way to counter that emotional attack. Of course, that will take time and great effort by many.

Lastly, I'm guessing here, but I think that most who support changing the regs, don't hunt bear very much or perhaps never. Anyone who has hunted lots of bears, such as myself, knows that a big old boar is not good table fare. A big bear will certainly eat more meat than a young bear. A grizz is a great predator, and will eat meat every chance it gets. Fresh or rotting. Yes, I know. What you do with the meat afterwards is well......But that can also create problems. No offence, just my 2 cents worth.

[goatdancer]

Oh well I'll put another 2 cents in.
I do understand the reasoning of some suggesting to make it mandatory to take the meat, in order to take that "trophy" stigma out of the equation. Yes, it probably will change some minds into supporting the grizzly hunt. The problem is that could backfire in the long run. Think about it. If we give in to that and the regs are changed to reflect that view, then we have established that hunting for other than sustenance is wrong.

You can bet your bottom dollar, that the antis will then claim that as a victory and proceed to ban all non sustenance hunting. Cougar, wolf, coyote, bobcat, lynx are sure to follow. Just that bears are an easier first target. The're cute and cuddly, right?

So, for the sake of an easier win in this argument by changing the regs, we need to consider the big picture. The antis are. They won't stop there. That's just the first step. I still think educating the public is the best way to counter that emotional attack. Of course, that will take time and great effort by many.

Lastly, I'm guessing here, but I think that most who support changing the regs, don't hunt bear very much or perhaps never. Anyone who has hunted lots of bears, such as myself, knows that a big old boar is not good table fare. A big bear will certainly eat more meat than a young bear. A grizz is a great predator, and will eat meat every chance it gets. Fresh or rotting. Yes, I know. What you do with the meat afterwards is well......But that can also create problems. No offence, just my 2 cents worth.

Does not cougar meat have to be taken? It is delicious.
Hunting G-bears will keep putting the fear of man into them. Left to the whims of the 'Winnie the Pooh' crowd, the COs will be forced to deal with the problem bears. And who will be the biggest complainers? The same ones who consider them cute and cuddly and don't have a whisper of sense to realize that the G-bears will eat their butt with absolutely no hesitation.

[LBM]

Does not cougar meat have to be taken? It is delicious.
Hunting G-bears will keep putting the fear of man into them. Left to the whims of the 'Winnie the Pooh' crowd, the COs will be forced to deal with the problem bears. And who will be the biggest complainers? The same ones who consider them cute and cuddly and don't have a whisper of sense to realize that the G-bears will eat their butt with absolutely no hesitation.
The one comment here I have seen people use or say often is hunting grizzly bears will keep putting the fear of man into them, how does that happen.

[Surrey Boy]

I think these PETA types want us to stop leaving town and volunteer to do executions at the SPCA. They have fewer members and kill more animals than we ever will; they probably need help.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

Does not cougar meat have to be taken? It is delicious.
Hunting G-bears will keep putting the fear of man into them. Left to the whims of the 'Winnie the Pooh' crowd, the COs will be forced to deal with the problem bears. And who will be the biggest complainers? The same ones who consider them cute and cuddly and don't have a whisper of sense to realize that the G-bears will eat their butt with absolutely no hesitation.

Cougar does not have to be taken.

[IslandBC]

Show your support for the hunt!!!!!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-the-bc-grizzly-hunt.html

Woot # 12,020

[Papa Sasquatch]

Callers to Radio shows can pretend to be anything they like just like folks on forums.
just cause someone says he/she is a hunter don't mean sheat. Some groups are very well organized in that fashion and don't understand that Grizzly bears as Top of the heap carnivores they must be kept in check or else!
For the record I have no intention of hunting Grizz but to each his own is fine by me!

[Papa Sasquatch]

Congratulations. You have successfully signed the petition:Support the BC Grizzly HuntYou are signer #12021