petition to keep the BC Grizzly hunt alive

[wolf]

English I AM out there all the time AND HAVE SEEN many DEER killed and left to ROT seen it with my own eyes both on deer and on moose so look up all the facts you want IM telling you first hand from seeing is believing or school of hard knocks whatever you want to call it,
IVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT. No better thatn seeing ut in the flesh sort of speack.... Really why do you think they are having such a deer problem in rural areas in the last 10 years it because the deer are running away. into there.
We as humans have made it VERYeasy for the wolves they run along the roads we have built they cover ALOT of ground and they WILL cross each others areas.
think what you want but your wrong.... they do KILL for fun...

 

[lorneparker1]

Nope, you should do more reading, instead of affecting wolf behaviour by your presence and then misinterpreting what you see.

This guy in an Alaska newspaper is pretty clear on that:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/151633

These guys also agree it is a myth perpetuated by misunderstanding a phenomenon called surplus killing. Wolves will kill and eat later, including carrion. Therefore when they come across lots of docile domestic animals they will kill more than they can eat as they "expect" to return and eat later. It is natural for them to take advantage of "surplus" food as that is a low risk behaviour. It is NOT killing for fun.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/do_wolves_kill_for_sport.html
[url]http://www.livingwithwolves.org/AW_question5.html

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/...cle_3d52fff0-17e6-11df-91e1-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.oregonwild.org/fish_wildlife/bringing_wolves_back/wolves-misunderstood#wolves-do-not-kill

[/URL]

Forming an opinion without any real life experience, to me, is close to the DFO in Ottawa setting fishing regulations for BC. It just doesnt make a ton of sense.

 

[triplenickel]

we do already trying to find the "hatchery cohos" that are out there..... most alot of them perish becuase of this...
And your mistaken if you dont think cougars and wolves kill a shitload of deer and sometimes for fun I have personally seen it ,
so is it ok for wolves to wipe out an area move on and on till, well the population of deer is almost wiped out???Look at that cougar that was in central saanich they finally got after many sheep and pets killed they got it WHY cause it was easy food and there isnt a lot of deer in the "hills" anymore because there are so many predators you have bears,cougars,wolves all of them that feed on deer at certain times. there simply isnt enough to go around.

Whats next you ask WELL ill tell you then they will move into rural areas and start killing dogs,cats and livestock but i guess thats ok??? To knock them down a bit so ALL will be at sustanable levels is the right move, i sure dont want a cougar or wolf who is malnurished and sick come into rural area and take a kid who is playing in the backyard...

You put a lot of words in my mouth, not sure what's up with that. Nature is cyclical sometimes there's lots of prey so the predators do well, sometimes not so they don't, they'll balance out. The sooner we quit meddling the better off we'll be.

If an animal is a nuisance then deal with it, but to just pop them proactivley at random on what is essentially their turf is like tossing people in jail at random because they might do something wrong in the future.



Edit; self edit to erase an ignorant comment.

 

[Englishman]

English I AM out there all the time AND HAVE SEEN many DEER killed and left to ROT seen it with my own eyes both on deer and on moose so look up all the facts you want IM telling you first hand from seeing is believing or school of hard knocks whatever you want to call it,
IVE BEEN THERE DONE THAT. No better thatn seeing ut in the flesh sort of speack....

Wolf I don’t doubt for a moment you have seen what you say you have seen, but the articles I quoted in my later post clearly show how those observations have been misinterpreted. If I am wrong, then so are all those other authors of those articles, many of whom are wildlife biologists or even hunters themselves.
In summary:-

1. It is incorrect to ascribe human emotions and motivation to wild animals. Definition of “fun”

“what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically : playful often boisterous action or speech”

2.Wolves do not have the luxury of being able to “waste” energy on killing for the sake of it. Every calorie must be utilised as best they can especially in the winter. They kill only for food – to eat now now or later. They have evolved to kill more than they can eat right now if the opportunity presents itself. I.e. if there are two or three sick deer they will kill all three and return to the carcasses later. This is called “surplus killing” and it is discussed in the articles I posted, If they kill dozens of domestic animals at a time as has been known to happen, it is because they are presented with the (unnatural) opportunity and react accordingly. Wolves cannot count!!

3. Your very presence may have scared or warned off the wolves from the carcasses you observed. Moreover, you cannot know that the wolves did not return unless you were able to watch the kill undetected by the wolves for a week or more!! ( Wolves will eat carrion).

4. Your use of the term “left to ROT” is very emotive. Even if the wolves do not eat every single scrap of the carcass, other predators such as bears, coyotes and crows will. Scavenging always take place in nature and absolutely nothing is left to rot/waste.

Really why do you think they are having such a deer problem in rural areas in the last 10 years it because the deer are running away. into there.

The causes of problem rural deer are many. Two of the causes are easy access to browse and no predators to keep the number down. I don’t believe they have “run” to rural areas from the wild . They have simply bred and multiplied because we humans will not allow predators in rural areas (so we have to assume the role of predator and cull them).

We as humans have made it VERYeasy for the wolves they run along the roads we have built they cover ALOT of ground and they WILL cross each others areas.

No doubt we have increased their mobility. However while the packs fight and contest the territory boundaries, for one pack to simply walk in and take over another packs territory just does not happen. (Unless of course human hunters kill off most of one pack and leave a lot of unclaimed territory.)

think what you want but your wrong.... they do KILL for fun...

It is not just me. All of the objective wolf articles out there say the same thing. The only ones who advance the “wolves kill for fun” argument are hunters who either have misinterpreted what they see or wish to demonise the “evil” wolves in order to justify indiscriminate killing of them.

 

[Englishman]

Forming an opinion without any real life experience, to me, is close to the DFO in Ottawa setting fishing regulations for BC. It just doesnt make a ton of sense.

Lorne,

I am leveraging off the evidence and observations of many credible wolf biologists and wildlife experts out there who have written and published their material. I do not have to experience it any more than I have to "experience" evolution to know it is true.

In addition, I know that to anthropomorphise wolves and ascribe to them human motivations and emotions just "does not make a ton of sense" to use your words.

 

[Rum Buddies]

Forming an opinion without any real life experience, to me, is close to the DFO in Ottawa setting fishing regulations for BC. It just doesnt make a ton of sense.

Its called educating yourself and just because you've seen a grizzly in the wild does not make you an expert on grizzly behavior. Again your logic is lacking severely, but what's new.

 

[lorneparker1]

Its called educating yourself and just because you've seen a grizzly in the wild does not make you an expert on grizzly behavior. Again your logic is lacking severely, but what's new.

Thanks for tip!. Now you would you please get off my nuts? you follow me around the forums in ever thread and its weird. Like stalker weird.

THanks for another great addition to the topic though!

Lorne

 

[Rum Buddies]

Thanks for tip!. Now you would you please get off my nuts? you follow me around the forums in ever thread and its weird. Like stalker weird.

THanks for another great addition to the topic though!

Lorne

Ok so you see how your logic is flawed? Do you understand that viewing an animal does not make someone an expert in the animals behavior? Do you understand that by simply being the same area of the animal it can change its behavior?

Your logic seems to think along the lines of:


If I pick my nose and then a fish bites my hook, it must mean that picking your nose makes fish bite.


Real life doesn't work so simply, it takes a little more thought to find the crux of an issue.

 

[lorneparker1]

Ok so you see how your logic is flawed? Do you understand that viewing an animal does not make someone an expert in the animals behavior? Do you understand that by simply being the same area of the animal it can change its behavior?

Your logic seems to think along the lines of:


If I pick my nose and then a fish bites my hook, it must mean that picking your nose makes fish bite.


Real life doesn't work so simply, it takes a little more thought to find the crux of an issue.

Thanks for tip!. Now you would you please get off my nuts? you follow me around the forums in ever thread and its weird. Like stalker weird.

THanks for another great addition to the topic though!

Lorne

guess not

Lorne

 

[Sitkaspruce]

Ok so you see how your logic is flawed? Do you understand that viewing an animal does not make someone an expert in the animals behavior? Do you understand that by simply being the same area of the animal it can change its behavior?

Your logic seems to think along the lines of:


If I pick my nose and then a fish bites my hook, it must mean that picking your nose makes fish bite.


Real life doesn't work so simply, it takes a little more thought to find the crux of an issue.

So Poppa Swiss, what is the crux of the issue with respect to Grizzly bears and hunting???

I have still not seen a logical reason to stop the hunt.

And please, to all who answer, don't pass the buck by saying; "I have already stated my answer" I am getting old, my memory is fading and I don't want to go back 19 pages to try and decifer your answer.

Cheers

SS

 

[triplenickel]

So Poppa Swiss, what is the crux of the issue with respect to Grizzly bears and hunting???

I have still not seen a logical reason to stop the hunt.

And please, to all who answer, don't pass the buck by saying; "I have already stated my answer" I am getting old, my memory is fading and I don't want to go back 19 pages to try and decifer your answer.

Cheers

SS

Lol, you're a pretty funny guy! Everybody has stated their opinions, lots of logical points on both sides but you missed them, or forgot them but based on our last conversation I suspect you missed them. Now you want everyone to retype them so you don't have to reread and you worry about others passing the buck! Good stuff.

 

[Dave S]

Ok Sitka, I'll do you the honors of summarizing why I am against the grizzly hunt in it's current state. Before I do, let me say that I fully support hunters and hunting. Have lots of friends and family that hunt. In fact, since moving to the island, I have thought about getting into it. I would love to bring home some deer meat for the freezer.

Ok, here we go:

-it's wasteful and does not respect the animal. IMO the true purpose of hunting was to kill an animal for harvest of everything useful. That includes the meat. I don't buy the story that it is not suitable for human consumption. Most protein we eat is full of bacteria, worms, viruses. That's why we cook it. Not to mention that a lot of hunters admit to eating grizzly meat, so it can't be that bad. Anybody that is not interested in the meat, is just looking add to there trophy room, boost their ego, or just to shoot things to fulfill some desire I am unaware of.

-estimated numbers of grizzly population are always fluctuating. (can't say I have a lot of confidence in the governments techniques for estimating things) Combine that with the slow reproducing grizzly, and hunters always targeting the large, sexually mature bears, it's makes the grizzly a high risk for quick declines in population. If population and mortality numbers are monitored closely, that would solve this. I've seen how our government handles some of our resources, and I would just hate to see them mess up the grizzly populations too.


Hunters are now a minority in our country, and it is important for them to understand this.
If they continue to say that ethics should not factor into the management of the wildlife that all canadians share, then I suspect they will lose support from the "non-hunters" (as you guys call us). I think the days are numbered where it is acceptable to go around killing wildlife and leaving the carcass or whole animal where it falls. I understand the argument that nature will find a use for the carcass, but there are simply too many hunters and not enough wildlife to allow this to continue to be sustainable. Some hunters have the best of ethics when it comes to hunting, and I fully support them and their cause. I suspect that most others will too. It's the guys that say without a bat of the eye that they will take out a pack of wolves and leave the bodies where they drop. These are the type that might ruin it for the rest.

I will have your back if you hunt for the right reasons, hunt with ethics, and respect nature.

Just one guys thoughts on this.

 

[Sitkaspruce]

Ok Sitka, I'll do you the honors of summarizing why I am against the grizzly hunt in it's current state. Before I do, let me say that I fully support hunters and hunting. Have lots of friends and family that hunt. In fact, since moving to the island, I have thought about getting into it. I would love to bring home some deer meat for the freezer.

Ok, here we go:

-it's wasteful and does not respect the animal. IMO the true purpose of hunting was to kill an animal for harvest of everything useful. That includes the meat. I don't buy the story that it is not suitable for human consumption. Most protein we eat is full of bacteria, worms, viruses. That's why we cook it. Not to mention that a lot of hunters admit to eating grizzly meat, so it can't be that bad. Anybody that is not interested in the meat, is just looking add to there trophy room, boost their ego, or just to shoot things to fulfill some desire I am unaware of.

although I understand with what you are saying Dave, this is an emotional response, it has nothing to do with science. If you used this theory, then you are against trapping, the Saskachewan gopher hunt (yes you can eat gophers.....kind of stringy though), cougar hunting, coyote hunting and even the killing of field mice....I know that is a little too far, but where do you draw the line??? Although I am not a fan of leaving edible meat in the bush, the hunting of grizz does nothing to the population numbers. Would you feel the same way if it was manditory to bring out the meat, like black bear hunting??

-estimated numbers of grizzly population are always fluctuating. (can't say I have a lot of confidence in the governments techniques for estimating things) Combine that with the slow reproducing grizzly, and hunters always targeting the large, sexually mature bears, it's makes the grizzly a high risk for quick declines in population. If population and mortality numbers are monitored closely, that would solve this. I've seen how our government handles some of our resources, and I would just hate to see them mess up the grizzly populations too.

- so who do you believe?? The one side (anti-hunting groups) say we have a declining population and will always say that, as that plays with people emotions and get them the $$$ (most from south of the boarder) that they need to survive. The other side, the gov, has nothing to gain by inflating numbers, although their budget has been cut back so much that their population counts are not like they used to be. Yes, it get a few $$$ from G/O and tags that hunters buy, but in the overall scope of hunting reveneus, it amounts to very little. Bio's need to have healthy animal populations in order to keep their jobs, the sad part is politics is the new way to manage animals, whether huntable or not. Just look at what is happening to the small herd of Selkirk caribou and the pull snowmobilers have in getting them taken off the endangered sp list. Science says they need help, politics says that snowmobilers need all that protected land to play in. Wonder who will win?????

The influx of Grizz to the Broughtons and VI has a lot of people throwing ideas around, from lots of bears and the younger ones getting pushed out to not enough food any more so they are looking for new food sources. I believe it has always been happening, just that we now have more people in the bush, so they are seeing more of what is natural. And with social media etc, word gets out fast.


Hunters are now a minority in our country, and it is important for them to understand this.
If they continue to say that ethics should not factor into the management of the wildlife that all canadians share, then I suspect they will lose support from the "non-hunters" (as you guys call us). I think the days are numbered where it is acceptable to go around killing wildlife and leaving the carcass or whole animal where it falls. I understand the argument that nature will find a use for the carcass, but there are simply too many hunters and not enough wildlife to allow this to continue to be sustainable. Some hunters have the best of ethics when it comes to hunting, and I fully support them and their cause. I suspect that most others will too. It's the guys that say without a bat of the eye that they will take out a pack of wolves and leave the bodies where they drop. These are the type that might ruin it for the rest.

but there are simply too many hunters and not enough wildlife to allow this to continue to be sustainable Please explain this statement as I am confused as to how removing less than 2% of the population of grizz has an adverse affect on the species?? Grizz is the most heavily regulated animal to be hunted in BC. You cannot throw in the number of bears shot by CO's, killed by indians, poached and killed by trains and vehicles into the mix and then blame hunters for too many bears killed in an area.

As for your last statement, I am not sure if that is directed at me or not. I have shot three wolves in my life, probably seen close to 150 or so. Of those three wolves, two are rugs and one was left, as I had no use for the hide. The one that was left was eyeing up my dog as we were out in the bush and I value my dog more than the wolf. I look at hunting wolves as a conservation tool and, yes you can call be a bit selfish, but I would rather see moose/elk/deer and be able to put one in my freezer ever couple years than to see wolves decimating the moose/elk/deer population, then themselves starving. Yes it is Mother Nature at work, but we have screwed it up so bad that we now have to reply on us to keep things in balance. Hunting is one of those tools that are used, for both preds and prey. We cannot control one without controlling the other.

I will have your back if you hunt for the right reasons, hunt with ethics, and respect nature.

Good to know Dave as true hunters are of the same way.

Just one guys thoughts on this.

Interesting discussion Dave and some good points, thanks for taking the time to summerize your thoughts, unlike a couple others who would rather throw jabs from behind a keyboard......

Like I have said in the past, as a hunter who has sat in on meetings with respect to this particluar animal and others as well, and talking to the some respectable environmentilists, I believe that this is the tip of the spear with respect to hunting here in BC and I just cannot sit by and watch it happen. If I am wrong, then no harm was done, but if I am right, then I and others have a lot to lose, as well as my kids and their kids....

I think this post has run it course....at least for me.

Have a good 2013

Cheers

SS

 

[Dave S]

Originally Posted by Dave S
Ok Sitka, I'll do you the honors of summarizing why I am against the grizzly hunt in it's current state. Before I do, let me say that I fully support hunters and hunting. Have lots of friends and family that hunt. In fact, since moving to the island, I have thought about getting into it. I would love to bring home some deer meat for the freezer.

Ok, here we go:

-it's wasteful and does not respect the animal. IMO the true purpose of hunting was to kill an animal for harvest of everything useful. That includes the meat. I don't buy the story that it is not suitable for human consumption. Most protein we eat is full of bacteria, worms, viruses. That's why we cook it. Not to mention that a lot of hunters admit to eating grizzly meat, so it can't be that bad. Anybody that is not interested in the meat, is just looking add to there trophy room, boost their ego, or just to shoot things to fulfill some desire I am unaware of.

although I understand with what you are saying Dave, this is an emotional response, it has nothing to do with science. If you used this theory, then you are against trapping, the Saskachewan gopher hunt (yes you can eat gophers.....kind of stringy though), cougar hunting, coyote hunting and even the killing of field mice....I know that is a little too far, but where do you draw the line??? Although I am not a fan of leaving edible meat in the bush, the hunting of grizz does nothing to the population numbers. Would you feel the same way if it was manditory to bring out the meat, like black bear hunting??
Science does not create all the rules in wildlife management. Is it an emotional response that helped create the rules which require the harvest of meat of other wildlife like deer, black bear, moose, etc? Anyone that shoots a cougar and leaves the meat in the bush is missing out. I would fully support the hunt if they required the meat be harvested.

-estimated numbers of grizzly population are always fluctuating. (can't say I have a lot of confidence in the governments techniques for estimating things) Combine that with the slow reproducing grizzly, and hunters always targeting the large, sexually mature bears, it's makes the grizzly a high risk for quick declines in population. If population and mortality numbers are monitored closely, that would solve this. I've seen how our government handles some of our resources, and I would just hate to see them mess up the grizzly populations too.

- so who do you believe?? The one side (anti-hunting groups) say we have a declining population and will always say that, as that plays with people emotions and get them the $$$ (most from south of the boarder) that they need to survive. The other side, the gov, has nothing to gain by inflating numbers, although their budget has been cut back so much that their population counts are not like they used to be. Yes, it get a few $$$ from G/O and tags that hunters buy, but in the overall scope of hunting reveneus, it amounts to very little. Bio's need to have healthy animal populations in order to keep their jobs, the sad part is politics is the new way to manage animals, whether huntable or not. Just look at what is happening to the small herd of Selkirk caribou and the pull snowmobilers have in getting them taken off the endangered sp list. Science says they need help, politics says that snowmobilers need all that protected land to play in. Wonder who will win?????
It's hard to know who to believe when it comes to population estimates. The government gains from the tag fees when numbers are overestimated. More bear, more tags, more money. You are right, politics manage our countries resources. This is why I don't have confidence in the population estimates. Look at what's happening with the moose in the Cariboo.

The influx of Grizz to the Broughtons and VI has a lot of people throwing ideas around, from lots of bears and the younger ones getting pushed out to not enough food any more so they are looking for new food sources. I believe it has always been happening, just that we now have more people in the bush, so they are seeing more of what is natural. And with social media etc, word gets out fast.


Hunters are now a minority in our country, and it is important for them to understand this.
If they continue to say that ethics should not factor into the management of the wildlife that all canadians share, then I suspect they will lose support from the "non-hunters" (as you guys call us). I think the days are numbered where it is acceptable to go around killing wildlife and leaving the carcass or whole animal where it falls. I understand the argument that nature will find a use for the carcass, but there are simply too many hunters and not enough wildlife to allow this to continue to be sustainable. Some hunters have the best of ethics when it comes to hunting, and I fully support them and their cause. I suspect that most others will too. It's the guys that say without a bat of the eye that they will take out a pack of wolves and leave the bodies where they drop. These are the type that might ruin it for the rest.

but there are simply too many hunters and not enough wildlife to allow this to continue to be sustainable Please explain this statement as I am confused as to how removing less than 2% of the population of grizz has an adverse affect on the species?? Grizz is the most heavily regulated animal to be hunted in BC. You cannot throw in the number of bears shot by CO's, killed by indians, poached and killed by trains and vehicles into the mix and then blame hunters for too many bears killed in an area.

As for your last statement, I am not sure if that is directed at me or not. I have shot three wolves in my life, probably seen close to 150 or so. Of those three wolves, two are rugs and one was left, as I had no use for the hide. The one that was left was eyeing up my dog as we were out in the bush and I value my dog more than the wolf. I look at hunting wolves as a conservation tool and, yes you can call be a bit selfish, but I would rather see moose/elk/deer and be able to put one in my freezer ever couple years than to see wolves decimating the moose/elk/deer population, then themselves starving. Yes it is Mother Nature at work, but we have screwed it up so bad that we now have to reply on us to keep things in balance. Hunting is one of those tools that are used, for both preds and prey. We cannot control one without controlling the other.

Unfortunately, the legal hunt is the easiest grizzly mortality to prevent. Poaching and FN over harvest are the numbers that need to be addressed, but our government has neither the balls nor the resources to police our wilderness the way it needs to be. Train, vehicle, and problem bears are mortalities that really are unpreventable and come with the price of developing our country and removing it's resources.

It seems that every year, the maximum sustainable mortality numbers for grizzlies are exceeded. I know it's not the legal hunt that pushes it over, it still goes over regardless. Also this is all based on population estimates that can't be confirmed as well. Pair that with hunters that just want the head and hide of a grizzly, and are willing to pay thousands to get it, makes it seem unsustainable to me.

In regards to hunters controlling wolf populations. Seems like there is a lot of room for error here. Hunters seem to dislike wolves and see them as a threat to the highly valuable game populations, so I imagine population control could get out of control real quickly. Do hunters out to control the wolves use science to decide how many they should shoot? Are all kills actually reported? What would happen if fisherman were given the right to control seal populations? I imagine lots of dead seals floating around. I'm sure that the general public would look at fisherman with a different eye if this were the case.

I will have your back if you hunt for the right reasons, hunt with ethics, and respect nature.

Good to know Dave as true hunters are of the same way.

Hoping there are more true hunters than poachers out there.

Just one guys thoughts on this.