petition to keep the BC Grizzly hunt alive

Maybe the hapless people who've been torn to pieces or had their loved-ones eaten by bears should have a say here?

In my view, too many are quick to dismiss how intelligent and lethal these animals are. If we don't control them, they will control us. Simple.
 
They say that only one bear in one hundred will attack you, Just tell me which one it is and life would be a lot easier. :)
 
Written by a very good friend of mine. Thought i would pass it on.. Might open some eyes.

Hi there, my name is Dave, and I am a trophy hunter.

But let's really take a look at this issue. First off, I spend over 100 days in the field hunting and camping and hiking per year. Hunting is a huge part of my life, and I would never kill something just for the fun of it, or just for sport.

The only animals that are a true "Trophy hunt" in BC are grizzly bears, dog species, and cats. Blac
k bears, you cannot waste the meat, and you cannot hunt a white phase bear.

Every other animal by law in BC, the meat must be consumed and not wasted.

So why not eat these specific animals? Because that is really the debate here.

I have elk, deer, and black bear heads on my wall. Would you have a problem with those "trophies" being there? They are trophies to me (maybe not record size) but I reflect on the effort that went into harvesting them, and the people I spent time with in the wilds. Of course all of the meat was consumed in these animals. I haven't bought farmed meat in a few years now. Could I have thrown away the head and horns instead? Sure, I could have, but instead I chose to preserve the memory of that hunt. If it was feeding my ego, I wouldn't put the small ones on the wall!

Why would you have a record book!? I mean the ego of these trophy hunters! The Boone and Crocket records club was originally established to try and have hunters select male animals, instead of the breeding females. One single male animal will often breed with 10 or more females. Females have higher fat content, and in years past, hunters would select females over males, as it was only about putting meat on the table for their families. By creating a record book, and having people shoot males instead of the females, actually increases the populations, and BTW it worked! And hunters still got meat on the table! Having a trophy sized head on the wall should not offend you. Its meat, by law, cannot be wasted!

So lets go into the real question here. Why do we as hunters not eat the meat of grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, cougar, bobcat, and lynx? And, why if at all, should we shoot these species?

There are several reasons, I'll start with some facts you probably didn't know.

- The meat of these species is considered inedible. Its against our societies rules to eat dog and cat and other predatory animals. You will never see dog and cat in the store like they do have in many other cultures. They carry many diseases and parasites such as Rabies, 24 species of nematodes (roundworms), 21 species of cestodes (tapeworms), nine species of trematodes (flukes), heartworms, and three species of acanthocephalia (spiny-headed worms). They are also susceptible to being infested by fleas, ticks or mites. Also, about two thirds of all wolf carcasses examined have thousands of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms. This disease is easily transferable to humans. I could go on and on with the list of diseases these species carry. Simply put, their meat is considered inedible as they are full of parasites and can carry a plethora of diseases.

However, the fur of all fur bearing animals must legally be taken.

So your next question should logically then be, why kill them at all? Why not just leave them alone? We have grizzly tours and having wolves in our ecosystem is a good thing to keep deer populations under control right?

Bear cubs actually have 25% higher survival rate in hunted populations, as compared to protected (no hunting) areas. This includes black bears and grizzlies. Why is that? Mature boar bears kill and eat cubs. Doing this puts the sow into heat and lets that boar breed her again. Hunters of course target mature boars (it is illegal to harvest a bear in a family unit, or under the age of 2), and by doing so, the cub survival rate is considerably higher, in hunted populations. Who would have thought that protecting bears in the Great Bear Rainforest, is actually harder on their population!

Yeah but you've got all these trophy hunters running around shooting all the grizzlies! The populations will go down obviously! Wrong again.... Grizzly bears are on a strict draw system. The province is divided up into different Management Units, and in each MU they have a number of predators, and a number of prey that they want hunters to keep in balance. There are a limited number of tags given out in each area, and the harvest numbers are kept record of, to make sure we do not over harvest an area. Most MU areas in BC allow one or two grizzly tags to be handed out. 90% of grizzly tags are never filled.

Another major issue is human contact, take for example cougars in California. An average of 100 ``problem'' cougars are killed each year in California by state officials -- about TWICE the number killed annually by hunters before the 1972 ban. So why is that? How would a hunting ban mean more get shot? Predatory animals are very territorial by nature. By not keeping their populations in check, they have offspring, and this offspring is forced into new territory. Often times they end up near schools, and playgrounds, and communities, where, they are not appreciated. If you had an agressive cougar in your back yard with children playing, you would want rid of it too. Hunters hunt near their communities often and keep the population in check. So again, stopping hunting these animals, often actually results in more getting killed. Most of which are incinerated and no part of that animal is used.

The same happens with bears where the fear of man is taken out of them. In fact almost all attacks on people, happen in no hunting areas.

So what about wolves, I mean why would you want to kill a wolf?! First off, in BC at the moment we are having a wolf epidemic. The population literally is out of our control. The wolf population can not be, and never has been affected by hunters. Very few are taken each year by hunters, and even by trappers. Yet they will literally eat through species. Their are many different species populations in danger in many areas of the province of literally being wiped out by wolves. Mountain caribou in southern BC was eaten down to a herd of 20, and moose populations are plummeting in many areas of the province (even a total closure to hunting in some areas). The wolves will continue to eat until most of the prey is gone (do some reading on Idaho wolf population) unless their numbers are brought back under control. These moose are a huge food source for many First nations families, in many areas of the province. Wolves need to eat about 18 deer sized animals per year, but in fact kill far more than that, often at times they will not even consume the prey. The wolf population is literally out of control, and will continue to go this way unless something is done. Most hunters have not shot one, and will never get a shot at one, they are just too smart an animal. However their populations do need to be managed along with all the other predators and prey species.

The biggest reason for hunting is to stop HUGE populations spikes and crashes among different species. We have more than 20 big game animal species in BC. I'll bet most people couldn't name half. If populations were to be in control of themselves you would see the predator population climb to crazy proportions, only to starve themselves out, as the prey population crashed. Hunters really want to see species thrive! We hunters help balance the many different animal populations around the province, without people hunting fur bearing animals (or as you call ego hungry trophy hunters) this province would be a much less diverse place.

Hunting is freedom, a tie to our ancestors, a family tradition, peace, contentment, happiness, joy, sweat, close calls, exploring, hiking, stealth, boring, exhilarating, tiring, satisfying, challenging, and a thousand other things. It's there for anyone to discover, and judge for yourself if you want to take part in it. But please, "don't knock it until you've tried it." That's the only way you'll ever know for sure. Hunters want to see more wildlife out there than anyone. Keeping the populations balanced, is what government wildlife managers all around the world use hunting for.

For the record, I have hunted grizzly for 54 days in the last 4 years. I have passed on many many smaller bears and sows, but have never taken one myself. I am looking for that real old crusty cub killing brute of a boar, just trying to do my part to help them out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And here is another point of view.

This is another friend of mind that is actually a YOGA blogger and not a hunter. She posted some spewing crap off on Facebook and a few friends and I, gave her some things to think about. She did some reasearch (not completely accurate to the letter but good) and blogged about it on her page to all her yoga friends. ITs a good read IMO The grizzly thing has been front and centre for quite a few us as of late.

Lorne

http://thechattyyogini.com/2012/12/10/trophy-hunting-who-wins/
 
Every time we go fishing or hunting we are all looking for a trophy thats why we do it and if you say otherwise ill call BS sorry its the truth <stuff clipped> .
That's not at all why I fish. I fish for the entertainment, the challenge, the chance to be outside, the camaraderie with my buddies, the ability to pass on a tradition to a youngster, the opportunity to see other things in the ocean (Orca, sunfish, grey whales etc.), the peacefulness that's associated with being out of cell phone range and I love to eat the fish. Would I enjoy catching a larger fish than is typical? Yes. Is that why I do it. No.
 
I'd be ok with it if just one Grizzly hunter would admit they are killing the bear for sport, instead they all go into these long winded altruistic arguments to justify why we MUST hunt bears. Come on its all mental gymnastics, nobody is out there hunting bears for the betterment of society - they're hunting bears because they want to kill a bear and make a rug.

I'm not even debating some of the points raised in defense of the hunt but its BS to say that those are the reasons guys hunt bears.
 
I'd be ok with it if just one Grizzly hunter would admit they are killing the bear for sport, instead they all go into these long winded altruistic arguments to justify why we MUST hunt bears. Come on its all mental gymnastics, nobody is out there hunting bears for the betterment of society - they're hunting bears because they want to kill a bear and make a rug.

I'm not even debating some of the points raised in defense of the hunt but its BS to say that those are the reasons guys hunt bears.

I have never shot a black bear yet (passed on lot's) but have eaten a lot of them. My hunting partners that do shoot the odd black bear usually throw away the rug after they get home and just eat the meat. If it's a nice middle aged mountain berry bear the meat is fantastic. I have never put in for a grizzly draw but may someday.



Good write up by Dave there Lorne. That guy sure has tried it all including coyote!!! Thanks for sharing that.
 
I have never shot a black bear yet (passed on lot's) but have eaten a lot of them. My hunting partners that do shoot the odd black bear usually throw away the rug after they get home and just eat the meat. If it's a nice middle aged mountain berry bear the meat is fantastic. I have never put in for a grizzly draw but may someday.

interesting example, fair enough in such a case. If you're ok with killing an intelligent mammal and are doing so for the meat then hey have a blast. Unfortunately that's not the case with Grizzlies though.
 
Did you not read anything I just wrote?

Yup I read it, did you read what I wrote, I'm not sure you understand the point I was trying to make?

I'll sum it up:

I don't believe anybody is out hunting grizzlies for the betterment of society. Sure there are plenty of ways to justify the hunt but those reasons are after the fact, not the driving motivation to kill a grizz.

picture for posterity:
grizzly.jpg
 
Yup I read it, did you read what I wrote, I'm not sure you understand the point I was trying to make?

I'll sum it up:

I don't believe anybody is out hunting grizzlies for the betterment of society. Sure there are plenty of ways to justify the hunt but those reasons are after the fact, not the driving motivation to kill a grizz.

picture for posterity:
grizzly.jpg

I agree partially, that very few are hunting them to help out society. But there are people hunting them because they need to be hunted in order to thrive. And all hunters want animals to thrive. If you dont have hunting, you have poaching and you have boars eating cubs, and then you are on your way to extinction. I have not hunted grizzlies, have not even applied for the tag. However they DO need to be hunted. and as long as its legal, im good.
It is fact that there will be more grizzleys around if they are hunted then not. And the fact that that the eco-group are the ones driving this ********, fires me up more then anything. It would be like the whale watchers trying to shut down chinook fishing because orcas eat springs.

ON another note, i shoot black bears every year. Me and partner killed 4 this year. I have never taken a rug out of the bush, and never would. Because i dont care. But i do cut off the rack of every deer i shoot, and i have ducks mounted all over my house. But black bear meat is some of the most mild meat you will ever eat. AMAZING for sausage and pepperonis.

Lorne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would you have a record book!? I mean the ego of these trophy hunters! The Boone and Crocket records club was originally established to try and have hunters select male animals, instead of the breeding females. One single male animal will often breed with 10 or more females. Females have higher fat content, and in years past, hunters would select females over males, as it was only about putting meat on the table for their families. By creating a record book, and having people shoot males instead of the females, actually increases the populations, and BTW it worked! And hunters still got meat on the table! Having a trophy sized head on the wall should not offend you. Its meat, by law, cannot be wasted!

Do we really know what impact hunting is having on the gene pool by targeting the biggest, strongest and most dominant males? Are there any scientific studies to indicate this is a good thing?

Bear cubs actually have 25% higher survival rate in hunted populations, as compared to protected (no hunting) areas. This includes black bears and grizzlies. Why is that? Mature boar bears kill and eat cubs. Doing this puts the sow into heat and lets that boar breed her again. Hunters of course target mature boars (it is illegal to harvest a bear in a family unit, or under the age of 2), and by doing so, the cub survival rate is considerably higher, in hunted populations. Who would have thought that protecting bears in the Great Bear Rainforest, is actually harder on their population!

I am at a loss to understand how bears managed on this continent before modern hunters came along. Boars ate cubs but there were thousands of bears across North America. I cannot buy the implication there would be more and healthier bears in the Great Bear if hunting were allowed. Even if there were more cubs/juveniles, where is the scientific proof that this is a good thing for the overall ecosystem??

Another major issue is human contact, take for example cougars in California. An average of 100 ``problem'' cougars are killed each year in California by state officials -- about TWICE the number killed annually by hunters before the 1972 ban. So why is that? How would a hunting ban mean more get shot? Predatory animals are very territorial by nature. By not keeping their populations in check, they have offspring, and this offspring is forced into new territory. Often times they end up near schools, and playgrounds, and communities, where, they are not appreciated. If you had an agressive cougar in your back yard with children playing, you would want rid of it too. Hunters hunt near their communities often and keep the population in check. So again, stopping hunting these animals, often actually results in more getting killed. Most of which are incinerated and no part of that animal is used.

The same happens with bears where the fear of man is taken out of them. In fact almost all attacks on people, happen in no hunting areas.

There seems to be this obsession with danger to humans from predators. People are not paying enough attention to real risks, statistics and probabilities. The animal that causes the most fatal accidents and injuries across North America is deer, because of deer caused car accidents and collisions! Your child is far more likely to be injured or killed as a result of deer that because of a predator. There are not enough predators and too many deer!!


So what about wolves, I mean why would you want to kill a wolf?! First off, in BC at the moment we are having a wolf epidemic. The population literally is out of our control. The wolf population can not be, and never has been affected by hunters. Very few are taken each year by hunters, and even by trappers. Yet they will literally eat through species. Their are many different species populations in danger in many areas of the province of literally being wiped out by wolves. Mountain caribou in southern BC was eaten down to a herd of 20, and moose populations are plummeting in many areas of the province (even a total closure to hunting in some areas). The wolves will continue to eat until most of the prey is gone (do some reading on Idaho wolf population) unless their numbers are brought back under control. These moose are a huge food source for many First nations families, in many areas of the province. Wolves need to eat about 18 deer sized animals per year, but in fact kill far more than that, often at times they will not even consume the prey. The wolf population is literally out of control, and will continue to go this way unless something is done. Most hunters have not shot one, and will never get a shot at one, they are just too smart an animal. However their populations do need to be managed along with all the other predators and prey species.

The biggest reason for hunting is to stop HUGE populations spikes and crashes among different species. We have more than 20 big game animal species in BC. I'll bet most people couldn't name half. If populations were to be in control of themselves you would see the predator population climb to crazy proportions, only to starve themselves out, as the prey population crashed. Hunters really want to see species thrive! We hunters help balance the many different animal populations around the province, without people hunting fur bearing animals (or as you call ego hungry trophy hunters) this province would be a much less diverse place.

Again, I am at a loss to understand how wolves and bears managed on this continent before modern hunters came along? While there would have been fluctuating numbers by area I do not believe there is any evidence that wolves eliminated entire species from their normal ranges in the past. The wolf numbers would decline long before this point because prey numbers were reduced. This is the natural balance and order of things that lasted for thousands of years. How is is that mother nature managed all that time before modern hunting came along?

For the record, I have hunted grizzly for 54 days in the last 4 years. I have passed on many many smaller bears and sows, but have never taken one myself. I am looking for that real old crusty cub killing brute of a boar, just trying to do my part to help them out.
Very noble, but cub killing is part of nature and was itself a mechanism evolved by nature to ensure bear numbers in one area did not get too high. I don't think the kind, god like and prescient hunters are really necessary for nature to work properly.
 
The bottom line is there are too many humans on the planet. We are managing wildlife for the better (mostly I believe) while we are here. Until we are out of the picture this is how it is going to be. Let nature run it's course everyone say's............this is nature............we are part of nature. For you to say let nature run it's course is like saying you know what happened before humans came along? How is that possible?.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bottom line is there are too many humans on the planet. We are managing wildlife for the better (mostly I believe) while we are here. Until we are out of the picture this is how it is going to be. Let nature take it's course everyone say's............this is nature............we are part of nature. For you to say let nature take it's course is like saying you know what happened before humans came along? How is that possible. For you to say it is better than what we are doing now is ignorant as you do not have a clue.
Well it is self evident that bears and wolves existed for thousands of years before modern hunters. We don't have scientific census data of course but we do know there were many thousands of animals all across North America and we have the records and diaries of early explorers to give us some idea of the fecundity of the ecosystem of the time. I agree there are too many people. Whether we are managing our remaining populations of animals for good or ill remains to be seen.
I do agree with Poppa Swiss, that hunters do not hunt for the betterment of society, or in on order to "manage" populations for the good of the ecosystem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hunters do nut hunt for the betterment of society, or in on order to "manage" populations for the good of the ecosystem.

I would agree with the nut hunting part and I think it is probably good that all those nut's are hunted down lol! Stock up for winter like squirrels.

The last part of your statement is simply not true and you are obviously just an uninformed anti-hunter. Again hunter's are the biggest group of people involved with enhancement and probably care the most about the evironment. Do your self a favor and research groups like the BCWF and Delta Wildfowl as just two examples of many hunter driven organizations that do so much for wildlife and the environment.

I have never heard a good explanation why we should stop hunting bears. Especially scientific. All the regional scientists say it is more than allright and actually promote it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bottom line is there are too many humans on the planet. We are managing wildlife for the better (mostly I believe) while we are here. Until we are out of the picture this is how it is going to be. Let nature run it's course everyone say's............this is nature............we are part of nature. For you to say let nature run it's course is like saying you know what happened before humans came along? How is that possible?.

I always love how Humans for some reason are never quianted with a part of nature. LOL

Englishman,

As far as scientfic data, There is a ton of it out there but I am not the one trying to change things. IF you want data, look it up yourself, im not Charlie. But you could start by looking into yellowstone park and what happens to unglates when an apex predator isnt controlled. (wolves)

I do know this. Biologists set limits, and the amount of animals that NEED to be harvested to sustain and grow a healthy population of any animal. Based on very credible data. Grizzleys is a great expample of that, because 1. Grizzlys are on a very strict Limited entry draw system, and EVERYONE must be checked and brought in after harvest as a requirement of the draw for compulsory inspection.

I also find it laughable you think there is so many deer! From your house in the cal de sac, in the middle of the city there are a ton of deer. OUT OF CONTROL. Why? because they arent hunted and there are zero predators, other then you in your smart car. Great example as one of things that can happen when animals are not managed.

Get out in the bush and see how many deer you see. Are they there? sure... are they over populated? Absolutely not. My guess is you havent spent much time in the bush.

Comapring thousands of years ago to now is like comparing pumpkins and cranberries in everyway possible, and is not even worth the debate. Educate yourself first if you want to have a debate.

Lorne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would agree with the nut hunting part and I think it is probably good that all those nut's are hunted down lol! Stock up for winter like squirrels.

The last part of your statement is simply not true and you are obviously just an uninformed anti-hunter. Again hunter's are the biggest group of people involved with enhancement and probably care the most about the evironment. Do your self a favor and research groups like the BCWF and Delta Wildfowl as just two examples.

I have never heard a good explanation why we should stop hunting bears. Especially scientific. All the regional scientists say it is more than allright and actually promote it.

Good one Sculpin! LOL. My proof reading missed that one. Now corrected.

No, I am not particularly anti-hunting. I do understand the principle of enlightened self-interest. Ducks Unlimited have done some incredible things by enhancing habitat to make more ducks so they can hunt. Enhancing habitat has huge spinoff values for other species too.

All I was questioning was the shameless self-promotion of the noble selfless hunter who is hunting large predators for the "good of all", that was portrayed in the post I quoted. This is a far cry from habitat improvement in the Ducks Unlimited sense. Hunting gizzlies and wolves may be sustainable and workable with LEH etc. I just would like to see the scientific data that proves the entire ecosystem benefits and that both the predators and prey are better off when predator numbers are "controlled".
 
I signed the petition to ban the grizzly hunt. I am not against all hunting by any means...but if you aren't going to eat it. Don't shoot it.

Let me ask all you folks who did what Andrew P did.....would you sign a pettition that closes deer hunting on Van Isl??

For all you non-hunters (and mis informed hunters) who did sign the dumb petition to ban the grizz hunt, do you think the anti's will stop at that?? Whether you like or dis-like the grizz hunt, getting this closed will be the tip of the iceberg for hunting in BC.......soon there will be petitions on cougars, wolves, deer, elk and other huntable animals in BC. And don't think for one minute that this will not affect you as a fisherman. In the future, if they start to get their way, we will see changes to fishing to protect the bears food supply, the whales food supply and so on, becuase they will dream up any reason they can to get us stop KILLING animals, fish or what ever else they think they can. Just look at PETA and the BS Kittens crap down south. And no this is not fearmongering or parinoia.....this is just from observations from a guy who loves to be outdoors and has watched things change....and not always for the good, here in BC and in North America when it comes to fish and wildlife management.

This is has nothing to do with stopping the grizz hunt, this is all about stopping hunting period.

The biggest problem with life today is that most people think with their emotions.....which is not neccassarily a bad thing, but people need to put away their emotions and actually read, believe and follow science....putting up pictures like PS did is a play on peoples emotions, plain and simple.....the picture could also be used as the last thing a person saw before they were attacked....which would play on a whole different set of emotions....so really the picture means nothing....but they way it is portrayed, especially on this debate, it is used to play on peoples emotions.

We, as hunters and sportsmen, need to stand together as one single group, because the other side is much better at this game than we are, just look at the discussion on here, arguments for both sides have some good points, yet there is hunters on here who are against the hunt because of emotions and not science. I wonder if they will be singing a different tune when the NDP (which is a social and emotional gov), gets in and starts to swing to the side of the anti's (as they did with the grizz in their last go around)...bet it does not stop with just Grizz.

Cheers

SS
 
I have never heard a good explanation why we should stop hunting bears.

I think there's a couple of different debates going on here. One debate is whether there is scientific data to back up and support a bear hunt and the other is the ethics of hunting a large intelligent and beautiful animal.

A lot of the scientific data comes from the government, which I trust completey - I mean they've never been wrong when it comes to our fisheries so I'm confident they are 100% accurate. The government always attracts the best and brightest, I think we can all agree on that ;). Although in all honesty I don't doubt that most bear populations can support a controlled hunt.

That being said there are reserves in Africa where you can hunt elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and even bengal tigers - http://www.gotsoma.co.za/Gallery.htm. Even though these populations can handle the pressure and people that own the reserves manage them very carefully - I find killing Elephants disgusting knowing what I know about them.

As for the ethics of it I say grizzly bears are cool as F*ck, as well they are the smartest non-human animal in north america. Their intelligence has been compared to that of the great apes or in other words they have the cognitive ability of a 3 year old human. Like elephants they have also been shown to grieve the loss of a family member. So for me the intelligence of the animal puts them in a special class of animals that should not be hunted for sport.

tumblr_m2ctnyMnBx1qa9omho1_500.jpg

12_sep9232.jpg


If you want to hunt them fine but don't try to convince me that I should be cool with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top