petition to keep the BC Grizzly hunt alive

[Charter Tofino]

Interesting arguments. I find grizzly's to be pretty amazing and therefore am not keen on people hunting them but as a fisherman i see some hypocritical reasoning in my arguments to not hunt them.

 

[Sculpin]

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

Great reply Ken and thank you for that.

The only reason to stop hunting bears or other predator's is a few misconception's from the un-imformed IMO. All are driven by emotion and not science. There are people gaining financially by this driven emotion that makes me utterly sick! When will it end?

I fully agree that the sole purpose of any anti bear propaganda is to end all hunting. Hunters have to unite and be one voice.

 

[Charter Tofino]

I think the reason the antis have leverage in this specific case is the "Trophy" aspect. For that reason I agree it could lead to wolf and cougar hunting changes. I think it's still a long way from stopping hunting in general however. They just don't have any for lack of a better word "justifiable" arguement.

 

[Sculpin]

I think the reason the antis have leverage in this specific case is the "Trophy" aspect. For that reason I agree it could lead to wolf and cougar hunting changes. I think it's still a long way from stopping hunting in general however. They just don't have any for lack of a better word "justifiable" arguement.

It's not a long way off. It is the start. That is all they need is a start. It's like a foot in the door. I actually have faith in the general public due to various web sites that expose certain organizations for what they really are. The internet is a good thing sometimes for sure.

 

[fish stalker]

Well im with profisher on the need for about a billion people less on the planet before the balance is thrown off irreversibly.

Who is the person who is deciding how many are 'to many'? The person who buys a house on the edge of a forest and is surprised when a bear walks out. Surprise *****, you moved in next to me. Shocker. Better takem out there coming out of the mountains. oh wait you were the one who moved onto the mountain. Mabey the population is 'unhealthy' because they cannot go off and naturally establish new territory for themselves because we are; damming water sources or logging, mining habit or building on it? Oh **** we better keepem culled down, there not fitting into the allotted land we let them have and are getting unhealthy because of it. Has anyone actully gone into the 'back country' this island is logged to ****. They leave nice stripes down the roads so it looks nice and foresty tho. Mabey we are over hunting there natural prey? Ive heard males kill the cubs for years I dont think this is a new thing and sounds like a natural process. Mabey if there were more available females they wouldnt go after the ones with boars. We are making it mandatory to 'keep the numbers in control'.

It bugs me to read things stated as facts so Im with English, I like scientific references and dont believe things just because someone says its so. If your going to state it as so back it up. Yes I understand it takes funding for studies and its a big coverup no need to tell me how it works.

'this is just beginning' isnt really the beginning this has started all around the world long ago. I think humans are finally having to admit there accountability to the harm we are doing to earth and everything on it. The threat of well if you dont support this fishing is next is ********. We are already here. We have opening and closures and things were never aloud to fish for.

With the deer I thought it was finally proven it was our ****** reforesting that has caused the deer to come down into the city. To densely planted so smaller tender fruit and seed baring plants and grasses cant grow. Proper habit and trails for deer and rodents etc. Also why cougars are following there main dinner into town.


Something like that its 1 am.

The world is unfortunately changing and pretending we have a right not to is crazy and things arnt going to be the same it sucks, humans suck. If something is at risk why risk it. Im not anti hunting just everything should have a right to life and not just how and when 'we' say. Also what about just everyone sticking to there own species. You live in bc you get this, Quebec that, Americans your ****.

 

[wolf]

Froget it guys too many uninformed people on here who have never hunted they just dont get it....

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.

You say you dont "go" for a trophy but your last statement says differentlly??? WTH???

Would I enjoy catching a larger fish than is typical? Yes

You my friend are trophy hunting as well.
I totally agree with what you wrote and agree thats what i enjoy as well LOVE the outdoors and spending time and enjoying whats around.
I hunt and fish for all of the above and to put food on the table as I dont much care for all this E-coli infested manufactured products coming out.

We also have 3 huge gardens(40 ft by 40 ft) we eat of all year long freezer is full of veggies and cold room full of potatoes and squash, and others we basically live off of what we get or make/grow how many can make that statement???

wolf

 

[profisher]

I have hunted before, in fact a lot. My brother is as avid a hunter now as I am a fisherman. I having nothing against hunting period. I just don't support a Grizzly bear hunt. I remember when it was ok for fishermen to take shots at Killer Whales, in fact even my grandfather mentioned doing it back in the day. So to understand where I'm coming from...would you shoot a Killer Whale for the wall?

 

[Little Hawk]

Nothing gets my blood boiling more than arm-chair bear-huggers' comfortably ensconced in the security of their armchairs at home while making uniformed statements about the 'right's of bears' while never really having spent any time in the company of these animals, or caring as much to learn a thing or two about the total effect of what hunting a given population of bears truly means - beyond a dead bear.

What about the 'right's of people?'

For those who may want to enter the debate on a more informed-footing, here's a sampling of some material I poured through before I wrote a paper on bear-human conflict back in 99'. Part of my research of the following authors works (McLellan, Dr. Herrero, Shelton), included phone conversations with each. All three have great respect and admiration for bears and conservation initiatives that ensure their prosperity. They also recognize the imperative that humans recognize that bears are both super-intelligent and become habituated over time and loose their fear of humans.

In this 20-plus year study of 388 radio-collared grizzly bears (for over 700 radio-tracking years) in the Flathead Valley north & south of the border - The Rates and Causes of Grizzly Bear Mortality (McLellan, Hovey, Woods/Journal of Wildlife Management) - it was revealed that grizzly bears fared better in hunted populations living in areas of resource extraction (logging & mining) than they did in largely non-hunted Provincial/National Park jurisdictions.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/ca01mclellan.pdf

Dr. Stephen Herrero, in my view, is the 'Godfather' of bear-human conflict and bear attacks.
In his book, considered 'the Bible' of bear behaviour, Bear Attacks: Their Causes & Avoidance, he devotes considerable space to focusing on these animals intellectual capacity to change their behaviour over time and become more dangerous to humans in the process. Beware if you read this book, as Herrero recounts several horrific bear-attacks that he himself investigated

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books...o/9780771040597-AllReviews.html?cookieCheck=1

James (Gary) Shelton started his career as a bear hunting guide outfitter then developed a successful bear-safety training course that he's taught to thousands of government and industry field workers throughout the Province. Gary's life long experience working in the bush with bears and people, investigating then writing about numerous bear-attacks (many fatal) on people, coupled with his 'sitting around the campfire' writing style, makes for truly interesting and often shockingly eye-opening reading.

Here's an excellent piece written this year on Shelton that includes some background on him and why the author - who once vilified Shelton as many conservationists have - changed his evaluation of Shelton's work.

http://wherethebearwalks.blogspot.ca/2012/02/defending-james-gary-shelton.html

Shelton's book, The Bear Encounter Survival Guide is considered standard issue for all who spend any time in the bush. I highly recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Survival-Guide-James-Shelton/dp/0969809905

Shelton's work is not for the faint of heart.

Some other works by Shelton:

Bear Attacks: The Deadly Truth

http://www.amazon.ca/Bear-attacks-The-deadly-truth/dp/0969809913

Bear Attacks II: Myth and Reality

http://www.amazon.ca/Bear-attacks-II-Myth-reality/dp/0969809921

Only my 2-bits.

 

[profisher]

Didn't read all the material Terry but your first post about bear attacks gave me a chuckle. Who is the most vicious, ruthless, so called smartest and to be feared predator on earth? When the grizzlies develop a nuke...I'll start thinking along your lines.

 

[Charter Tofino]

Nothing gets my blood boiling more than arm-chair bear-huggers' comfortably ensconced in the security of their armchairs at home while making uniformed statements about the 'right's of bears' while never really having spent any time in the company of these animals, or caring as much to learn a thing or two about the total effect of what hunting a given population of bears truly means - beyond a dead bear.

What about the 'right's of people?'

Only my 2-bits.

You are saying that we should hunt bears because they are a threat to our safety?

 

[scott craven]

Keep in mind, the back woods is the bears home.
people going into bear territory are taking a risk of encounter.

 

[Sitkaspruce]

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.

If you want to hunt them fine but don't try to convince me that I should be cool with it.

A typical emotional response from the misinformed......I wonder if people would feel the same way if the picture was of the boar killing those two cubs???? Would you even post it up if it was about a bear ripping a cub apart or a bear attacking a moose??? Beautiful they are and they are amazing creatures, but that should not protect them from regulated, science based hunting.

PS, elephants are killed all the time in Africa, they are a great suplier of meat and villages will actually pack up and move to an elephant kill. Just because they are intellegent does not make them off limits to legal, regulated hunting....

I think the reason the antis have leverage in this specific case is the "Trophy" aspect. For that reason I agree it could lead to wolf and cougar hunting changes. I think it's still a long way from stopping hunting in general however. They just don't have any for lack of a better word "justifiable" arguement.

Kelly

The logging companies on the mid coast thought the same way before the Gov of the day created "The Great Bear Rainforest". Now you should see the power that the greenies have over this large trac of land.....some of it is good, but a whole lot does not make sense.

There is an underlying reason behind the "Stop the Grizz Hunt" than just the "Trophy" aspect.....but that is what they want us to focus on.

I have hunted before, in fact a lot. My brother is as avid a hunter now as I am a fisherman. I having nothing against hunting period. I just don't support a Grizzly bear hunt. I remember when it was ok for fishermen to take shots at Killer Whales, in fact even my grandfather mentioned doing it back in the day. So to understand where I'm coming from...would you shoot a Killer Whale for the wall?

If it was a regulated, legal hunt....and I had a way bigger house, then why not??? Whale meat is not one of my favorites, but I would eat it....I would also need a bigger freezer and more friends.

Cheers

SS

 

[Rum Buddies]

You are saying that we should hunt bears because they are a threat to our safety?

Terry I like you a lot but this is crazy to imply that bears are threat to our safety? This is some nutty stephen colbert type stuff:

If there are problem bears then cull them, but culling problem bears is much different then killing for sport and pleasure. We should kill them if we HAVE to not because we WANT to. Its funny when anybody challenges the grizzly hunter logic them come back with scare tactics and political statements - yet not one address the actual ethics of killing large intelligent animals.

PS, elephants are killed all the time in Africa, they are a great suplier of meat and villages will actually pack up and move to an elephant kill. Just because they are intellegent does not make them off limits to legal, regulated hunting

No sh*te, I included a link in my post to a spot in Africa where you can kill Elephants, Cheetah, Lions and even brought in tigers. I KNOW you can kill elephants and I KNOW its legal, being legal doesn't make it ethical. In Uganda they passed a law to give homosexuals the death penalty, its legal so it must be right - get what I'm saying?

If it was a regulated, legal hunt....and I had a way bigger house, then why not??? Whale meat is not one of my favorites, but I would eat it....I would also need a bigger freezer and more friends.

 

[fish stalker]

Nothing gets my blood boiling more than arm-chair bear-huggers' comfortably ensconced in the security of their armchairs at home while making uniformed statements about the 'right's of bears' while never really having spent any time in the company of these animals, or caring as much to learn a thing or two about the total effect of what hunting a given population of bears truly means - beyond a dead bear.

unfortunately for your blood I think were all probably sitting in chairs as we write this. So no one is supposed to speak for the bears rights? If your talking about me your judgement is wrong I have spent plenty of time around bears. You cant come on a fishing website and engage in a discussion and expect only scholars to partake.

What about the 'right's of people?

Just because we are human dosnt give us the right to do anything we please.

In this 20-plus year study of 388 radio-collared grizzly bears (for over 700 radio-tracking years) in the Flathead Valley north & south of the border - The Rates and Causes of Grizzly Bear Mortality (McLellan, Hovey, Woods/Journal of Wildlife Management) - it was revealed that grizzly bears fared better in hunted populations living in areas of resource extraction (logging & mining) than they did in largely non-hunted Provincial/National Park jurisdictions.

How I read that is that the bears 'fared better' (survival rate?) in those areas because there was less human use and only controlled killing.


Not sure how bear attacks are relevant. For me that is a fear mongering tactic and is silly.


I think you guys are just seeing red when you read a a post saying 'we love bears'. It dosnt mean we think people shouldnt be able to hunt them (if the population is sustainable). It also bugs when people say 'people just dont get it' just because its something we dont partake in.

Mabey I am for keeping the hunt alive. I am all for rights but not at the cost of life. If the population is that flouriferous then controlled kills will happen. Why should only the CO's get to kill them. I agree that wouldnt be fair. Why has this come about tho? What is happening with the population of gizzleys in BC that the government is considering a ban? Is tag system they have in place now not working? I would like to see a hunter admit that its not the bears fault that we have bear attacks in most cases. And not use it a reason to hunt them.


wow wolf that is a huge garden for a veggie garden! lucky you have a partner who is into it. I have a medium one that produces quite well and lots of fruit trees I planted. My grandparents were settlers and farmers and hunters. My partners grandparents and parents are hunters. Im not totally clueless.

 

[steel_dreamin]

Terry I like you a lot but this is crazy to imply that bears are threat to our safety? This is some nutty stephen colbert type stuff:

If there are problem bears then cull them, but culling problem bears is much different then killing for sport and pleasure. We should kill them if we HAVE to not because we WANT to. Its funny when anybody challenges the grizzly hunter logic them come back with scare tactics and political statements - yet not one address the actual ethics of killing large intelligent animals.

If I WANT to do something (harvest a Grizzly) and the population is sustainable why shouldn't I be allowed to?

 

[fish stalker]

If I WANT to do something (harvest a Grizzly) and the population is sustainable why shouldn't I be allowed to?

I guess its whos definition of sustainable you want to believe in. Our government says the Atlantic farmed salmon is 'sustainable' do you support that?

 

[Andrew P]

Hey SitkaSpruce....I didn't actually sign the petition! LOL Just stirring the pot a bit to hear from some more educated on the topic. I don't feel that I am informed enough to sign a petition on either side, but this forum has been super informative....so keep it up guys.

I am still leaning on the side of not hunting the apex's....Grizzly and Wolf....

I would certainly not sign a petition to ban dear hunting her on VI. like around Victoria, there is an explosion of deer. I certainly wouldn't mind putting one of them in the freezer! That said, the predators keep trying to come back in and 'help' us humans restore some sort of balance and we keep shooting them. I don't know how many cougars have been shot in the greater Victoria area in recent years, but there has been quite a few. And the wolf that found its way through the Saanich Peninsula and out on Discovery Island is still living out there(and for those who want to see a seal cull....that lone wolf is definitely helping to pick off seal pups off the rocks). It doesn't seem alright to allow these populations return to an area that is so populated with humans so there needs to be something done about the deer. But as far as I understand, for the most part the Grizzly and Wolf hunting is not in urban areas....I assume that I will be corrected though! lol

I fully acknowledge that since humans have over populated the planet and affected all other species to a point of no return where we have no choice but to help manage.

But....PLEASE justify the killing of Grizzly's in the Great Bear Rainforest. I don't see any need for it and am strongly against it.

We're all hypocrites in one way or another...

 

[Rum Buddies]

If I WANT to do something (harvest a Grizzly) and the population is sustainable why shouldn't I be allowed to?

go for it, if you're ok with it then go kill that bear and sip red wine by the fire on the rug with your lady - but don't try and convince me you're killing the bear because society needs you to cull them, just be honest and say you want to kill a grizzly.

 

[lorneparker1]

Thre is so much dumb in this thread i dont even know where to start. BUt for short

Not all grizzly hunters are trophy hunters.
Not all grizzly hunters want a rug
Not all grizzly hunters sip red wine by the fire.
IF you are condisering the animals "feelngs" put your fishing rod down, join PETA and GTFO outta here. Anyone who says they support hunting but not a grizzly hunt is kidding themselves, and deep down is an anti. All hunting is based on science, if there is enough to harvest, and sustain and even grow the population this should be a non issue if you are truly "pro" hunting.

Lorne

 

[lorneparker1]

Twenty-five reasons why "Hunting Is Conservation:"

From the RMEF website, stolen from another site.

1. In 1907, only 41,000 elk remained in North America. Thanks to the money and hard work invested by hunters to restore and conserve habitat, today there are more than 1 million.
2. In 1900, only 500,000 whitetails remained. Thanks to conservation work spearheaded by hunters, today there are more than 32 million.
3. In 1901, few ducks remained. Thanks to hunters’ efforts to restore and conserve wetlands, today there are more than 44 million.
4. In 1900, only 100,000 wild turkeys remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are more than 7 million.
5. In 1950, only 12,000 pronghorn remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are more than 1.1 million.
6. Habitat, research and wildlife law enforcement work, all paid for by hunters, help countless non-hunted species.
7. Through state licenses and fees, hunters pay $725 million a year for conservation programs.
8. Through donations to groups like RMEF, hunters add $300 million a year to conservation efforts.
9. In 1937, hunters actually requested an 11 percent tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows to help fund conservation. That tax has so far raised more than $2 billion for wildlife conservation.
10. An 11 percent tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows generates $280 million a year for conservation.
11. Altogether, hunters pay more than $1 billion a year for conservation programs. No one gives more!
12. Three out of four Americans approve of hunting, partly because hunters are America’s greatest positive force for conservation.
13. As taxpayers, hunters also fund the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, etc.
14. Hunting funds conservation AND the economy, generating $25 billion a year in retail spending.
15. Hunting supports 600,000 jobs, from game wardens to waitresses, biologists to motel clerks.
16. Hunters are the fuel behind RMEF and its 6 million-plus acres of habitat conservation. More than 95 percent of our 180,000 members are passionate hunters.
17. A wildlife management tool, hunting helps balance wildlife populations with what the land can support, limits crop damage and curtails disease outbreaks.
18. Hunters help manage growing numbers of predators such as cougars, bears, coyotes and wolves. Our government spends millions to control predators and varmints while hunters have proven more than willing to pay for that opportunity.
19. Hunting has major value for highway safety. For every deer hit by a motorist, hunters take six.
20. Deer collisions kill 200 motorists and cost $10 billion a year. Imagine costs without hunting!
21. Hunters provide for conservation—and for their families. Hunting is a healthy way to connect with nature and eat the world’s most organic, lean, free-range meat.
22. Hunter numbers are down, while hunter spending for conservation is up. Unequaled devotion!
23. Avid hunter Theodore Roosevelt created our national forests and grasslands and forever protected 230 million acres for wildlife and the public to use and enjoy.
24. With funding from hunters, RMEF has helped restore wild elk herds in seven states and provinces.
25. As society loses its ties to wildlife and conservation, the bonds with nature formed by hunting are the greatest hope for creating the next generation of true conservationists.