petition to keep the BC Grizzly hunt alive

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.

Lorne

Lorne, I wrote you a snide comment that I'm removing. I just don't think you're willing to have an intelligent debate without obfuscating the facts and throwing out red herrings. Go get em Lorne.


See ya at SFBC fight club?? :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Lorne

maybe right on the wine/feelings but grizz are a trophy hunt and the head/rug are almost always taken. Cutting a blackstrap off once in a while doesnt make it a meat hunt as you seem to imply. Grizz are hunted as populations are deemed sustainable and people consider it sporting (which I'm neutral on).
 
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.

Hunting does alot of great things for the resource but some of those figures are comical! Haha "few ducks remained and Hunters brought them back to 44 million".
 
Lorne, I wrote you a snide comment that I'm removing. I just don't think you're willing to have an intelligent debate without obfuscating the facts and throwing out red herrings. Go get em Lorne.


See ya at SFBC fight club?? :p


Hahaha maybe, the list is fairly long though. All I'm saying is killing is killing. And I can't get my head around hoe some view its ok to take a deers life and not a grizzlies. To me there shouldnt be a grey area. It's kinda like saying you are bi-sexual. To me if you are a male and prefer salami from time to time you are gay.
 
Hahaha maybe, the list is fairly long though. All I'm saying is killing is killing. And I can't get my head around hoe some view its ok to take a deers life and not a grizzlies. To me there shouldnt be a grey area. It's kinda like saying you are bi-sexual. To me if you are a male and prefer salami from time to time you are gay.

lol ok well we agree on the salami issue Lorne I'll give you that. As far as "killing is killing" argument, is there any animal on the planet that you would consider off limits?
 
Lorne, you are putting up a great battle with lots of great points....but the 'killing is killing' simply doesn't make sense. By this argument ALL species on the planet should be fair game, which clearly is not the case nor should be.

"Killing a grizzly is the same as killing a deer" is to "killing an orca is the same as killing a salmon"; something isn't adding up here...
 
No. If it can sustain harvest, have at er. Whether its for me or not is up in the air, but im not one to judge. I would never go to africa. Its not my thing. I would Have a tough time pulling the trigger on something i am not going to eat, or just because you can (part of the reason i have never applied for a grizzly tag, timing of the hunt is the other one). But i do understand balances and i do understand "trophy hunting". and I do know that by putting a price tag on the head of an animal(africa for example) is for more benefical to the animal, then outlawing hunting, where poaching and black market stuff because rampant and you will start to see them disappear. This debate is simlar to fly fisherman vs gear fisherman. The infighting within the sector because someone "doesn't feel" its right, will be the death of both hunting and sportfishing.
 
Lorne, you are putting up a great battle with lots of great points....but the 'killing is killing' simply doesn't make sense. By this argument ALL species on the planet should be fair game, which clearly is not the case nor should be.

"Killing a grizzly is the same as killing a deer" is to "killing an orca is the same as killing a salmon"; something isn't adding up here...

So what in your opinon justifies something to get on the kill list and something that should not be on the kill list? To me its all opinion and emotion... Thats the funny thing with ethics, everyones view is different and is taylored to how they grew up, the info they were fed and are being fed, and from that fomulated thier basic ethics based on that info. And it is an always evolving growing process. For example, I dont mind seals, actually rephrase. I like seals. And i could never see killing one. Yet, there are many fisherman that if they had the chance would put a bullet in every single seal they could. Why? because they are viewed as a PIA and they eat salmon..Yet im sure some of those same fisherman would say its not ok kill an orca, because they are viewed in a different light. Which makes no sense to me anyway. You are killing it because they eat salmon. Thats it, so with that mind set you should be ok with killing every other salmon eater. For the record if you could kill an orca and sustain them, i would never do it, but if someone wanted do, i wouldnt be against it. No different then the "its ok to shoot a deer argument". All of sudden an species becomes fair game because they are a pain in the butt, not because of science. All emotion. I have seen peoples views change over the years to How could you ever hunt, to i wnat to kill every deer in my yard because its ruining my landscaping. And i have a tough time grasping that mind set.

In the end "killing is killing" you are ending an animals life, and i cant get my head around how for some its ok for one thing and not the other.

Lorne
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hunting does alot of great things for the resource but some of those figures are comical! Haha "few ducks remained and Hunters brought them back to 44 million".

Do a little research. Duck numbers in some areas were border line extinct in the early 1900's. There were no limits for killing waterfowl, Market hunting was booming, logging and agriculture was doing irreversabile damage to wetlands and prime breeding habitat. In short, ducks were in BIG trouble.This is when banding birds started and the US and Canada signed on to help get some more info and science behind the dramatic decline. The lacey act was also brought into play as well as the Migratory bird act. Since then Groups like Ducks unlimited and Delta waterfowl have been instrumental in the protection of wetlands and duck habitat. Which are organizations funded almost 100% by duck hunters. Also the VAST majority of funds from the Migratory bird stamp required as a part of license to anyone wishing to hunt waterfowl goes back into these types of things. IF it wasnt for duck hunters there would be NO ducks, and every piece of marsh and swamp would have a parking lot or farm where it once was.

THis is in the states but gives you the jist and is an easy 2 page read.

http://www.gpnc.org/images/pdf/WfowlPoster.pdf
 
having lived in bc small towns till at a very old age i find it hard to accept the hunting of real wilderness bears; having seen a few in a lifetime of hunting and fishing; when hunting up the kilikline river for moose whenever a grizzly was seen it was a exzillerating experience and had no wish to shoot; i am not a bleeding heart but i think when you kill these the last of the real wild animals you are destroying the last of thereal wilderness; that we all love
 
It's honestly not even arguable. To claim that there were no ducks and then hunters were the ones to bring back the population to 44 million takes away all credibility. Sure hunters helped Likely but at least list the dozens of other factors and some real figures. It's no different than the bias bs that PETA groups spew.

All those figures are as real as they get? im not sure what else you would like. There really isnt dozens of other factors. Sound science, studies from biologists, $$$ and volunteer time from hunters. Without that $$$ there wouldnt be any habitat. Without groups like Delta and DU fighting for protection there wouldnt be any habitat. With out habitat there are no ducks. ITs not really that complicated. Groups like PETA dont even know what side of a duck quacks. and do nothing for protection of habitat.

Anyway back to grizzlys!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lorne the question about ones emotional response to killing is interesting. There are people among us who show no emotional response to killing anything...humans included. Then there are those other nuts at the other end of the spectrum (Peta) and the rest of us fall somewhere in between. I would suggest that those in the middle share more in common even though we disagree on where our emotional restrictions kick in. Would I not kill an Orca because of some emotional admiration or respect for that particular animal...you bet!!! Could I shoot a Gorilla...**** no. Grizzlies just happen to be on MY can't kill list. I therefor don't support that hunt but think no less of those who do. I'm just entitled to my vote on the matter as are you. And might I say I'm glad all Orca's seem to fit in that middle ground group as well....I could have been whale food thousands of times over the years if they had a mind to kill humans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Are you serious?
OMG ! and I thought Neanderthals were extinct !!!
 
And we consider ourselves civilized! Just like a pack of wolves looking for a weak spot.
 
Why do you personalize this hunt as "THEIR beutiful" Yes they are but so are all the animals on the planet hell some even think a cow and pig are...LOL
Have to laugh and some of the answers on here base what you think on facts and knowledge not becuase of how pretty they are. Man if we based judgement on some of the answers given on this thread there would never be any hunting for anything, ask yourself this ??

DOES THIS IMPACT ANYTHING I PERSONALLY DO ON A DAILY BASIS???

Like I said before its not my thing to shoot a grizz I have just not my thing but the last thing ill ever do is say to any fellow man/woman NO you cant do this anymore cause ill vote not to even though it doesnt impact me just because I said so .....ps that goes with anything someone wants to do. if you want to go hunt for a deer,cougar,wolf bear etc thats YOUR CHOICE!!!!!!!! not someone who think you shouldnt....

Last week on the news they asked people about all the deer and if there should be a cull Some woman gets on there and says they are beautiful but leave then alone but get them away from my garden!!! WTF really?????

wolf
 
"DOES THIS IMPACT ANYTHING I PERSONALLY DO ON A DAILY BASIS??? "


Sorry to say Roy, but if everyone felt this way we would quickly see a lot more species become extinct.
 
Fine to offer up an opinion C.Hook; easy on the name-calling.

If it helps you understand a bit better why I feel the way I do about bears, the truth is I've likely read far too many horrific stories about bear-attacks on people (I'M REFERRING TO PREDATORY (UNPROVOKED) ATTACKS, NOT DEFENSIVE AGGRESSION) to adhere to anything other than the 'people-safety first' principle.

I would argue that most - who view bears as the cute/cuddly little TV butt-wipe commercial critters like the bear-huggers would have us believe they are - haven't taken the time to read any of the material I cited previously on this thread.

If that's the case, perhaps they don't want to know the dark-side of bears for fear of bursting a more comfortable, easily digestable perception.

I'm not and never have advocated for the wholesale slaughter of anything, let alone bears; the bush would be somehow incomplete, even empty, without them.

Allow me to repeat one last time: my opinion on bear-hunting was formed after researching the respected works of knowledgeable authors like, Dr. Herrero, Shelton, McLellan and others. If anyone pleases to engage in a civilized debate over the work of any of these authors - ie. you wish to dispute the idea that non-hunted bear populations will, over time, lose their fear of humans and become bolder, day-active, and more aggressive towards people etc. - then I'd be party to it.

I believe hunting bears is a useful tool to instill and maintain a healthy fear-of-humans into them, as sows will teach their cubs that we are dangerous and should give us a wide berth.
 
Im saying if it does then fine Vote but if it doesnt you dont really have a right to say no !!!! thats all..
How many have even seen a grizz in the wild?? Some on here I bet have not even gone past a paved road and up inot true wilderness, let alone see a bear in the wild.
I HAVE seen hundreds of them do I like yes there a cool animal BUT im not going to say No when the province accually does manage the wildlife better than any federal mangement they regulate and accually monitor. I see more grizz now then ever.
still dont want to shoot them but thats "MY CHOICE"


And you missed my point scott
wolf
 
"DOES THIS IMPACT ANYTHING I PERSONALLY DO ON A DAILY BASIS??? "


Sorry to say Roy, but if everyone felt this way we would quickly see a lot more species become extinct.

Agreed. That's like saying we should ignore a genocide if it doesn't affect us....if everyone thought we shouldn't have a voice against something that doesn't affect you daily then we would be in big trouble. Pretty interesting debates overall though. Similar to the wolf thread there sure are a range of stances for a huge range of reasons.
 
Back
Top