Charter Tofino
Well-Known Member
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.
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 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.
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 my friend are trophy hunting as well.Would I enjoy catching a larger fish than is typical? Yes
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.
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.
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.
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?
You are saying that we should hunt bears because they are a threat to our safety?
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
If I WANT to do something (harvest a Grizzly) and the population is sustainable why shouldn't I be allowed to?