This might prove interesting and stop some of the bias on who is and who is pro or anti hunting. What game meat have you ate before? Me- pro hunter but against trophy hunting of apex predators. I have had, deer, moose, elk, cariboo, cougar, black bear and beaver. Should qualify me as truly being in the pro hunting camp.
petition to keep the BC Grizzly hunt alive
- Thread starter bardfromedson
- Start date
Dave S
Active Member
If you and other hunters cannot agree with this, then I am sure you will not gain support from many. Treat all non-hunters as enemies, and you will lose. I told you I support hunting, and your reply was that I am emotional and uninformed. Well done mate.
lorneparker1
Banned
Dave those people that target big bucks and leave the meat are VERY few. I would be mistaken if i said they dont exist. But they are not hunters. They are poachers and what they are doing is NOT LEGAL. So its nota fair comparison, And those folks are viewed in the same light by real hunters as you view them.
Ethics and morals are subjective and are different for everyone. NO ONE respects nature more then hunters. No one and that is not subjective.
About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.
Ernest Hemingway
Ethics and morals are subjective and are different for everyone. NO ONE respects nature more then hunters. No one and that is not subjective.
About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.
Ernest Hemingway
Dave S
Active Member
Well I don't doubt that there are many hunters out there that do their part for nature, it's comments like this that make all the non-hunters shake their heads. Get down off your high horse if you want to be heard!
Question for you Lorne..... In your opinion, is it disrespectful to kill an animal and discard the meat?
lorneparker1
Banned
Disrespectful to whom? There is not alot of "respect" in nature Dave. And contrary to popular belief us humans are a part of nature. How much do you respect the salmon you catch before you haul him in a net and bash his head in?
I wonder how much "respect" went into the equation before these pack of wolves attacked these moose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b3py1xa8p0
or this coyote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCvLzDNWz0
THe reason i used wolves is because they are known for killing for sport and not eating anything.
Although i am sure this grizz didnt repesct much when he murdered this cub and ate it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCDPYgqdLjg
I am not someone who shoots animals and leaves the meat. Which i have explained many times. I have not even shot a trophy deer before because of my inabilty to hold out and my drive to fill the freezer. The only mounts i have in my house are ducks. Hence why i would never and have never applied for a grizzly tag(although there are lots that do take the meat) And honestly, if not another grizzly was killed in BC i would be ok with it. But do it for the right reasons. Put emotion to the side and use factual data to detrime whether the hunt should continue or not. And at 2% potential harvest and a 30% success rate, I am more then in support of the hunt(obviously) Who i am to say to anyone that is participating in a lawful hunt that is sustainable, not to do it. I also no that the agenda of these people doesnt stop at grizzly's it stops at ending hunting completely.
Anyway Dave, i completely respect your opinion and some of those that are on "the other side" of the fence on this thread. I like to challenge peoples thought processes, which is why i end up in the thick of these types of things. Whether or not i agree or disagree is not really my objective. Im more in it for the "why do you think like that" more then anything. But id like to stick to staying out of it for now as a debate of what one "feels" is right or wrong is bound to go no where, as these 13 pages have shown.
Lorne
Last edited by a moderator:
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Lorne I agree with some what you said. But I shake my head every time you and others keep trying to anthropomorphise animals. I think you do this in a subconscious effort to justify shooting the "evil predators".
I've said it before and I'll say it again. No animals have any morals, ethics or understanding of them. For them there is no god either!!
Wolves do NOT kill for "sport" in the sense humans do. If they do not eat all their kill, then the kill is too big, or they are disturbed or it is training or practice exercise for the young. Nature just is! The morals or ethics of it do not come into it.
Likewise no bear has EVER murdered a cub. You are ascribing human motives to the bear that do not exist. They kill the cubs as others have said because they can bring the female bear into heat and maximise their own chance of passing on their genes.
This is nature's way and all it has ever been about. Survival and maximising the chances of passing the individual animal's genes on to the next generation. Period.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
So Lorne, is the answer to Dave's question "yes" or "no"? Impossible to tell based on what you wrote. Is it so hard to answer?
And Englishman is absolutely correct, ethics and morality are the stuff of humans not animals.
And Englishman is absolutely correct, ethics and morality are the stuff of humans not animals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
hooktender68
Well-Known Member
There is room for all gods creatures.......right next to the mashed potatoes! Further more if he didnt want us to eat them, he should not have made them out of meat!
just lightening things a bit!
just lightening things a bit!
Dave S
Active Member
All you are Lorne is a **** disturber. Keep up the good work.
Sitkaspruce
Well-Known Member
Maybe he will only answer after you have answered my questions about black bears and bringing out the meat on a grizz.......
It been a good argument/discussion, and people can have any belief they want, but please do it for science and not for your emtions only......too much happens for the bad when we follow only our emotions.....
Long live the grizz hunt!!!!!!
Cheers
SS
vetteman
Active Member
lorneparker1
Banned
Dave,
I guess my real problem is i cannot for the life of me seperate killing a grizzly, killing a salmon, killing a deer or killing spider. I don't have an emotional attachement to one over the other.. This is my biggest roadblock from having me see your light you are trying to shine on me and others. You have said many emotional things on this thread, but have provided very few (if any) data that suggests a grizzly hunt should not continue and the one stands out is "If you came across a trophy grizzly, lined up your shot, and before you shot a voice told you your grandchildren would never have a chance to see a wild grizzly of this size in the wild if you shot......would you? " And although that thought to me is completely ridiculous if there was any chance my children would not be able to see a wild grizzly because of me killing it, of course the answer would be no. But thats not what we are talking about. That is an impossibility. If grizzlies become extinct, it will not be because of the few hunderd bears a year people harvest. We are talking about potentailly banning a hunt. A hunt where the population is stable in BC and growing in some areas. Hunters account for less 1% total harvest of these animals ( 2% allocation of tags for harvest and 30% success) To me life is very Black and White and never let emotions getting in the way of clear thinking. And if you just use the data, its impossible in my opinion to justify closing it.
You also asked if i think its disrespectful to leave the meat after killing an animal. To me its not about respecting the animal or the enviroment. But NO i dont think its right to kill something just to kill it. Plenty of this happens all the time in urban areas with problem deer, cougars, black bears etc, and NONE of that meat is ever taken and i also have a problem with that.
With comments like that,i really question the motives of some people. I have a hard time believing some of you would not support PETA. I do hope for your sake you never have to choose between your life and one of a grizzly's because i have a feeling you might be dead by the time you figure out what direction to point your moral compass and find out if its "right" or not.
That is all i have left to say on the subject. ( I am not sure why i have such a tough time walking away from this one, but its defintly my last post on it)
Lorne
Last edited by a moderator:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
I've watched this thread for a few days now, and indeed tried to shy away from posting in it. However the circular "arguments" are so damn reflective of so many situations I have dealt with in my past, it seems I simply cannot help myself from adding my two pesos...
In my past I was heavily involved in the debates centering on the Sustainable Use of natural resources. This involvement went FAR beyond the application to local resources in terms of management, and eventually led me to become involved at an International Level (UN, CITES, etc). For years I sat on those Councils, and bore witness to the varying approaches both for and against.
From those experiences, I well understand there are two polarized "camps" in this regard. Those that manage (wildlife, wild lands etc etc) from a practical and SCIENTIFIC View, and those that REACT (chiefly oppose) from an "Emotional" (quite often touted as "ethical") standpoint. Many of the posts within this thread strongly confirm that conviction, and the types of "arguments" presented here are extremely reflective of this understanding.
The management of "Warm, Fuzzy, Charismatic, Brown-eyed, Mega Fauna" seems to always bring out the most polarized on both ends of the spectrum:
On one side you have the ilk of PETA, HSUS, WWF, amongst others, who wish to bring about the culmination of any harvest whatsoever involving the killing of any animal they deem "worthy" of their fanatical and self-righteous pursuit of blanket protection. Sensationalism is the order of their pursuits, appealing to the emotional compasses largely of folks that have no real idea of what actually occurs in the real world removed from their latte houses. Applying anthropogenic characteristics to the target in question is another of their tactics, and indeed does go a long ways with the "Bambi-ized" supporters they draw in so willing like moths to a flame. Unfortunately theirs is a world based on emotion, not science. And were management to follow their suggested lead, the natural world as we know it would soon suffer consequences beyond compare.
On the opposite side of the spectrum you have the Kill Them All mentality. Thankfully less organized, and largely considered too far out there to be given any real consideration.
In the middle you have Management. Based largely upon the best science of today, with a strong view towards attempting to maintain a "balance" in the natural world in spite of all that we Two-Legs do to disrupt that. A great many parameters are considered in this function - population dynamics, interactions within the system as a whole, and so much more - all with a view to keeping the ship on an even keel.
In the case of Grizzly Bears, nothing could appeal to the foremost camp much more - even surpassing the ever so controversial seal hunts and Inuit whale harvests. Of course, they are the epitome of "Warm, Fuzzy, Charismatic, Brown-eyed, Mega Fauna" and so are oh-so-easy to attach anthropogenic characteristics to in order to sway the emotions of their followers.
This of course is problematic for management teams. It matters not that Grizzly populations have, and by and large are growing under their current management regime. It matters not that hunting (but one tool in today's rather effective management regime) removes less than 2% of the population annually. It matters not that a 2% removal has been actually proven to be beneficial to the population overall. What matters, especially to the most fanatical in that particular camp, is that we completely halt the removal of "Yogi" by any means, and simply let nature take it's course.
There are a great many problems with the latter approach. While we must recognize that the "natural world" has been subject of far to many negative influences via human interference, that issue is simply NOT going away any time soon. Thus, it falls to us to try and maintain the best possible balance possible out there. And IMO, the best possible approach to doing so is firmly planted in the best science we have at our disposal. Certainly not one based on "emotion" or so-called "ethics" imposed by those with little or no understanding of the repercussions of their misguided desires.
Grizzlies are NOT "Yogis". They are the second largest carnivore in North America. Hunted populations show a decidedly adverse reaction to engaging in human interactions. Hunted populations in BC are growing under their current form of management, thus hunting very much is a form of Sustainable Use. Income from Hunting bolsters the coffers for both their own, and other species' management. And finally, today's restrictions and limited opportunities for Hunting are based on Science. As it should be.
This post is entirely unlikely to change the mindset of any posting here, regardless of your stance. However as a retired manager, I am Damn Happy that our current management regime here relies on Science and the principles of Sustainable Use over those of Sensationalism and far to often misguided Emotion!
Cheers,
Nog
In my past I was heavily involved in the debates centering on the Sustainable Use of natural resources. This involvement went FAR beyond the application to local resources in terms of management, and eventually led me to become involved at an International Level (UN, CITES, etc). For years I sat on those Councils, and bore witness to the varying approaches both for and against.
From those experiences, I well understand there are two polarized "camps" in this regard. Those that manage (wildlife, wild lands etc etc) from a practical and SCIENTIFIC View, and those that REACT (chiefly oppose) from an "Emotional" (quite often touted as "ethical") standpoint. Many of the posts within this thread strongly confirm that conviction, and the types of "arguments" presented here are extremely reflective of this understanding.
The management of "Warm, Fuzzy, Charismatic, Brown-eyed, Mega Fauna" seems to always bring out the most polarized on both ends of the spectrum:
On one side you have the ilk of PETA, HSUS, WWF, amongst others, who wish to bring about the culmination of any harvest whatsoever involving the killing of any animal they deem "worthy" of their fanatical and self-righteous pursuit of blanket protection. Sensationalism is the order of their pursuits, appealing to the emotional compasses largely of folks that have no real idea of what actually occurs in the real world removed from their latte houses. Applying anthropogenic characteristics to the target in question is another of their tactics, and indeed does go a long ways with the "Bambi-ized" supporters they draw in so willing like moths to a flame. Unfortunately theirs is a world based on emotion, not science. And were management to follow their suggested lead, the natural world as we know it would soon suffer consequences beyond compare.
On the opposite side of the spectrum you have the Kill Them All mentality. Thankfully less organized, and largely considered too far out there to be given any real consideration.
In the middle you have Management. Based largely upon the best science of today, with a strong view towards attempting to maintain a "balance" in the natural world in spite of all that we Two-Legs do to disrupt that. A great many parameters are considered in this function - population dynamics, interactions within the system as a whole, and so much more - all with a view to keeping the ship on an even keel.
In the case of Grizzly Bears, nothing could appeal to the foremost camp much more - even surpassing the ever so controversial seal hunts and Inuit whale harvests. Of course, they are the epitome of "Warm, Fuzzy, Charismatic, Brown-eyed, Mega Fauna" and so are oh-so-easy to attach anthropogenic characteristics to in order to sway the emotions of their followers.
This of course is problematic for management teams. It matters not that Grizzly populations have, and by and large are growing under their current management regime. It matters not that hunting (but one tool in today's rather effective management regime) removes less than 2% of the population annually. It matters not that a 2% removal has been actually proven to be beneficial to the population overall. What matters, especially to the most fanatical in that particular camp, is that we completely halt the removal of "Yogi" by any means, and simply let nature take it's course.
There are a great many problems with the latter approach. While we must recognize that the "natural world" has been subject of far to many negative influences via human interference, that issue is simply NOT going away any time soon. Thus, it falls to us to try and maintain the best possible balance possible out there. And IMO, the best possible approach to doing so is firmly planted in the best science we have at our disposal. Certainly not one based on "emotion" or so-called "ethics" imposed by those with little or no understanding of the repercussions of their misguided desires.
Grizzlies are NOT "Yogis". They are the second largest carnivore in North America. Hunted populations show a decidedly adverse reaction to engaging in human interactions. Hunted populations in BC are growing under their current form of management, thus hunting very much is a form of Sustainable Use. Income from Hunting bolsters the coffers for both their own, and other species' management. And finally, today's restrictions and limited opportunities for Hunting are based on Science. As it should be.
This post is entirely unlikely to change the mindset of any posting here, regardless of your stance. However as a retired manager, I am Damn Happy that our current management regime here relies on Science and the principles of Sustainable Use over those of Sensationalism and far to often misguided Emotion!
Cheers,
Nog
Charter Tofino
Well-Known Member
Wolf what are you saying?...
Well said Matt. I have heard from bear biologists up to 6% can be hunted sustainably but that seems to certainly be the higher end of the scale. I think like most things scientific, conservative regulations need to rule the day.
Well said Matt. I have heard from bear biologists up to 6% can be hunted sustainably but that seems to certainly be the higher end of the scale. I think like most things scientific, conservative regulations need to rule the day.
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
I think your are conflating two separate issues. The ethics of trophy hunting (not eating what you kill) is a separate issue from the sustainability of a harvest of the animals.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
In some minds perhaps. Coming from a management background it matters not to me whether the harvest is for "trophy" purposes or for food. The end result (harvest rate aka management objectives) remains the same.
For me the matter of "ethics" has always been subjective. Much more a matter of personal opinion / choice and widely variable.
IMO managers should not consider "ethical positioning" a parameter in establishing management objectives, rather what is the best way to properly manage a population according to the best science available. The matter of "ethics" should rightfully be left to those that choose, or choose not to participate in management programs once those objectives have been established.
Cheers,
Nog
Dave S
Active Member
I understand what your saying here Nog, but at some point the managers have to consider what's best for the resource. Do you know why they allow grizzlies and cougars to be harvested without taking the meat, but require the meat to be taken on other species like deer, moose, black bear?
I just can't understand why all hunters and fisherman would lose our **** if we witness salmon being harvested only for their......oh let's say eyeballs...but feel it's ok for these practices to happen with grizzlies. This seems very similar to sharks being killed only for their fins, which I am against and hope you all are too.
I can imagine what future generations will say about practices like this.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
No Dave, you obviously don't understand what I am saying. Managers are by definition both considering, and working diligently towards "what's best for the resource". Semantics, "ethics" if you prefer, simply do not, nor should not enter into the equation while doing so. When managing for Sustainability, when managing for greater population Health / Growth / what have you, it matters not whether the meat is utilized or not. The point is to maintain a healthy population while simultaneously striking a balance within the system as a whole. Removal of some for the benefit of all occurs on a regular basis in the case of most species. The hard fact of life is that it matters not to overall management objectives how, or even if those removed are utilized in any fashion. A nice fringe benefit when they can be obviously, but inconsequential in the long run to the somewhat tricky business of striking a balance between specific population health/growth and that of the system as a whole.
On the matter of why those who manage Hunters do not require the meat to be removed from Grizzlies or cougars, the answer is simple enough. It is for the same reason one is not required to take the meat of wolves, coyotes and most other carnivores - there is reasonable potential that meat is carrying any one of handful of human-transmissible diseases and/or parasites. Much more so than with deer, elk, moose, etc. For this (and related reasons) the meat of most carnivores is considered unpalatable. And while I recognize the exception regarding Black Bears, I am uncertain as to why the exception exists beyond the fact that many like to consume them.
The perception of "waste" when the meat of these species is left behind is a misnomer. Nothing gets "wasted" in nature, rather it is recycled immediately within the ecosystem the animal originated in. This too is a matter of personal perception, and again has no bearing on HOW a population is managed and the ecosystem's health overall.
As for just what future generations may think of today's practices, I am comfortable knowing that although they may dismiss them as somehow being erroneous, they will be able to show their grandchildren Grizzlies in the wild. And the reason they will be able to do so is specifically due to those Grizzly populations being properly managed according to Science.
Cheers,
Nog
Similar threads
