Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: Michael Arnette on April 02, 2017, 11:24:00 PM
-
http://www.cheknews.ca/chek-point-poll-grizzly-bear-trophy-hunting-ended-b-c-294942/
This is a terrible poll but it's really easy to vote so please do.
Trophy hunting
-
Right now its losing, 45% to 55%. Maybe folks associate trophy hunting with wanton waste. Lack of real education about it likely.
-
On it Michael.
-
Done
-
done also.
-
Done deal. Come on gents we should be able to make this swing the other way.
-
I voted.
Yep, using the word trophy hunting is the way to bias the vote against grizzly hunting (any hunting for that matter).
Might as well ask for a vote on NASCAR by asking if "Street racing should be legal."
-
I just cast my vote as well.
-
We are trying to get grizzly hunting legalized in Montana.
The antis are trying to ban all predator hunting as it is an easy mark and with the predators growing population the other game animals would decrease and then they would be able to stop hunting them easier.
-
Voted.
-
Originally posted by Shadowhnter:
Right now its losing, 45% to 55%. Maybe folks associate trophy hunting with wanton waste. Lack of real education about it likely.
Hence the problem. There is no legal requirement here to salvage any meat from a grizzly. That is the definition of wanton waste. That is why the public is siding with the anti's on this one.
Most hunters here support a move to make meat salvage a requirement in order to keep ther hunt, but the Guide Outfitter Association is against it.
-
Bear snack sticks are great! My brother, son, and I had 3 entire black bears made into these on a recent Idaho bear hunt.
-
Voted!
-
so why is the poll owner influencing the vote by calling it TROPHY HUNTING...why not just GRIZZLY HUNTING????
I hunt....I can appreciate a trophy quality animal but they are all trophies to me especially with a longbow or a selfbow even more.
Using those terms influences the public to think of it as just hunting skull and wasting the animal for nothing more than a measurement of its skull.
-
Voted
-
Voted.
It sure is sad to see all of these anti hunting movements. I'm worried that by the time I'm actually old enough to afford to go on some of these hunts, there won't be any hunts left to go on.
-
Originally posted by Trenton G.:
Voted.
It sure is sad to see all of these anti hunting movements. I'm worried that by the time I'm actually old enough to afford to go on some of these hunts, there won't be any hunts left to go on.
Me too!
-
We lowered our loss by 2 points!
-
This is appealing to sentiment and feeling not knowledge. voted
-
"Polls" and "studies" are very discriminatory in my mind. I dealt with this in my work for years. As was pointed out, one single word can bias the whole thing Where the poll is done and who is targeted will bias the whole thing.
You will get the answer you want if you design it, word it, or market it correctly..... and they do.
-
Voted
hate liberal media
-
Personally, I'd rather see a trophy hunter killed by a grizzly than a grizzly killed by a trophy hunter. At least the grizz will eat what he kills.
But don't worry -- I abstain from this vote. The link gave me a poll about hunting in Canada. Far be it from me to tell another country what they should do within their own borders.
-
Done! Man, who leaves the meat?! Bear jerky YUMMMM! Grilled Bear! Bear with brown gravy! Ohh I'm getting hungry...
-
Originally posted by YosemiteSam:
Personally, I'd rather see a trophy hunter killed by a grizzly than a grizzly killed by a trophy hunter. At least the grizz will eat what he kills.
No disrespect intended here, but that mindset drives me nuts. I see it in almost every hunting related issue that comes up. "I wish the animal had killed him instead..." etc. etc.
I think that the words "trophy hunter" are used to loosely nowadays. I consider a trophy hunter to be someone who holds himself to a certain standard and sets a goal to harvest an animal only if it meets there expectations. For me, my standard is that a buck has to either have six points or be fully mature before I shoot. In that sense, I am a trophy hunter because I limit myself to what I shoot. To me, this is the real definition of trophy hunting. Traveling to B.C. and shooting a grizzly doesn't really seem that different to me. If someone goes with expectations of what they want to harvest, and they are happy with the bear that they get, that is a successful "trophy hunt". That doesn't mean that they hunted with the wrong intentions or conducted the hunt in a dishonorable way (although this could be the case), it just means that they set a standard for themselves and were content with only getting that animal or none at all.
Thats just the way I see it. It may not make sense to others I guess, but it does to me. I just think that the words trophy hunter are thrown around way to loosely, and that leads to misunderstandings of what it really is. Like I mentioned before YosemiteSam, no disrespect meant or anything.
-
Done !
-
Street racing isn't legal ? Voted no !
-
Any animal with a bow is a trophy.....you have my vote.
-
Originally posted by YosemiteSam:
Personally, I'd rather see a trophy hunter killed by a grizzly than a grizzly killed by a trophy hunter. At least the grizz will eat what he kills.
But don't worry -- I abstain from this vote. The link gave me a poll about hunting in Canada. Far be it from me to tell another country what they should do within their own borders.
Really? Weren't you just whining in an ultra long and boring post about hunting in California where the more liberal Americans are having you compete with unchecked (and biologically unhealthy) predator numbers? With all due respect
I do not understand your logic and find it very dehumanizing. You might as well wish I and the others here where hit by a bus!
That's coming from and generally Judeo Christian point of view. I see human beings as totally different than animals, obviously you don't. But let's just take it from a point of you that is likely more similar to yours? A purely scientific point of view based on matters of evolution, natural selection, and general wildlife behavior:
It is widely known that grizzly bears seek out and kill black bears on a regular basis. They also most often don't eat their kill. The same goes for wolves killing coyotes and not eating them as well as coyotes killing foxes etc. so forth and so on. So what I'm saying is that strictly from a scientific point of view we as human beings are the apex predator and are only carrying out our natural predatory instinct to reduce competition. The difference being that we as humans are able to reason out management plans. It's a beautiful thing really! We are the piece to this incredible puzzle that will hold it all together, could it be that earth is depending on us?
If Some of the more liberal folks would get their heads out of their you what's for once they might see that humans are part of the solution. We are a part of our environment just like the grizzly bear.
-
Originally posted by lablover:
This is appealing to sentiment and feeling not knowledge. voted
Knowledge of what? Are you aware of the underlying issues with underfunding of resource management in BC, and the history of poor data collection that reflects decisions not made with good science?
Are you aware of the fracturing of ecology that has resulted in diminishing grizzly compartments and poor genetic diversity?
How would you defend this hunt to a non-hunter (not an anti-hunter) if asked why it is an ethical use of resources? How you can justify shooting a grizzly for nothing more than it's skull and hide while leaving 300 plus pounds of meat to rot?
-
I like street racing lol
I don't eat bears so I don't shoot them, I would have to have more information about grizzly population dynamics to vote yay or nay.
I wouldn't hesitate to kill one that was threatening me.
-
Done!
Well articulated response Michael :thumbsup:
-
I voted to keep trophy hunting.
seems a set up - if you vote yes it is to do away with the hunt. I did not see the information about so called wanton waste. I do believe it is fine to kill a bear and take only the skin. I have eaten plenty of bears and more than most but I want you to be able to make the call yourself. There are plenty of factors why you might choose not to eat a bear and I won't get into that now other than to point out Grizzlies are often FULL of parasites. I read occasionally where some guy eats a fox, coyote, carp whatever. This is stupidity. You are on top of the food chain start acting like it. One more point if I have good working dogs in camp I don't even want grizzly meat brought into camp.
-
Strictly out of curiosity, what is expected from us in this country taking a poll on policy in Canada? I don't have any problem with doing so, I'm simply curious is the result from this poll to be used for any purpose?
-
Originally posted by YosemiteSam:
Personally, I'd rather see a trophy hunter killed by a grizzly than a grizzly killed by a trophy hunter. At least the grizz will eat what he kills.
But don't worry -- I abstain from this vote. The link gave me a poll about hunting in Canada. Far be it from me to tell another country what they should do within their own borders.
While I do not believe in nor agree with trophy hunting, I'd never wish death on a fellow hunter or human being.....
My problem with trophy hunting is that it is done to feed the ego and it goes against the grain of the universes, God's, natures, or whatever you'd like to call it design.
The natives of America, Europe, Africa, and Asia all had respect for the animals they hunted and used every part of it.
With trophy hunting I feel bad not only for the animal being killed, but also for the trophy hunter since the animal is being killed primarily for it's "trophy" but on the other hand it takes a person that does not have good values and is corrupt in the mind (of whom I feel bad for) to waste the flesh of an animal.
I'd like to believe that most traditional archers (real archery) do not kill animals for just their trophy though. Trophy hunting seems like something the high tech materialistic egotistical compounders do to try and impress their friends.
Also someone mentioned that eating fox, coyote, and bear and so on is crazy, but I must say I'd eat it. It's better than the growth hormone, steroid, antibiotic, grain and trash fed "meat" if you want to call it that, crap they sell at the super market.....
I'm going to abstain from voting though.
-
Wow!
Every time I go to Africa, I kill all the animals just for trophies, or for my love of the hunt! The only meat I get is what is fed to me while I am there. I know for a fact that almost nothing goes to waste over there, as it is all used by someone. Irregardless of that, I am still hunting just for the trophy aspect of it.
Along the same lines, I love to hunt javelina. Javelina are God's gift to a stalking bowhunter, and they are a blast to hunt. I will not eat javies though, as they are not good table fare. I also will not shoot them if I do not have someone to donate them to that will use them. That being said, I still hunt them just for the trophy, or the fun of the hunt!
Traditional archery is not "real archery"! It is not better than another method of hunting, and I will not degrade others for choosing another method of hunting. It is just the way I choose to do it for myself, and the way I get the enjoyment out of hunting.
Folks who think their way is better, or the only way that is right really amaze me, and there seems to be a lot of that attitude these days!
JMHO
Bisch
-
Originally posted by Bisch:
Folks who think their way is better, or the only way that is right really amaze me, and there seems to be a lot of that attitude these days!
JMHO
Bisch
It has nothing to do with "thinking their way is better". It has to do with sound science and ecological management in the 21st century. It is interesting that i still have not seen a valid response that could be provided to non-hunters in justification of this hunt.
In this day and age of information, we as hunters will lose all ability to hunt if we cannot show valid, soundly based reasons for the hunt to the majority of those that vote, namely non-hunters.
The days of the "big tent" theory are gone."We are at the top of the food chain" is the kind of arrogant replies that actually do more harm than good to the long term dialogue around game management policies.
-
Sorry, I got a bit off topic, my post above was not in reply to Michael's original post, or to whether or not the grizzleys in BC should be hunted for trophies.
Bisch
-
Originally posted by Michael Arnette:
Originally posted by YosemiteSam:
Personally, I'd rather see a trophy hunter killed by a grizzly than a grizzly killed by a trophy hunter. At least the grizz will eat what he kills.
But don't worry -- I abstain from this vote. The link gave me a poll about hunting in Canada. Far be it from me to tell another country what they should do within their own borders.
Really? Weren't you just whining in an ultra long and boring post about hunting in California where the more liberal Americans are having you compete with unchecked (and biologically unhealthy) predator numbers? With all due respect
I do not understand your logic and find it very dehumanizing. You might as well wish I and the others here where hit by a bus!
That's coming from and generally Judeo Christian point of view. I see human beings as totally different than animals, obviously you don't. But let's just take it from a point of you that is likely more similar to yours? A purely scientific point of view based on matters of evolution, natural selection, and general wildlife behavior:
It is widely known that grizzly bears seek out and kill black bears on a regular basis. They also most often don't eat their kill. The same goes for wolves killing coyotes and not eating them as well as coyotes killing foxes etc. so forth and so on. So what I'm saying is that strictly from a scientific point of view we as human beings are the apex predator and are only carrying out our natural predatory instinct to reduce competition. The difference being that we as humans are able to reason out management plans. It's a beautiful thing really! We are the piece to this incredible puzzle that will hold it all together, could it be that earth is depending on us?
If Some of the more liberal folks would get their heads out of their you what's for once they might see that humans are part of the solution. We are a part of our environment just like the grizzly bear. [/b]
Interesting, but scientifically non-scientific answer. Predation by other predators is based on carrying capacity and competition as you pointed out. How does a grizzly bear in BC compete with a hunter in Oklahoma?
You cannot have it both ways.Are you a predator at the top of the food chain with an obligation for ecological management because of your brain and "human standing" which means you are "above animals"? This means a valid RATIONAL reason for the hunt. This means that bear is in direct competition for your resource(s). If not, then you are killing strictly for the joy of killing.
You are part of the solution? To what problem? There is not an overpopulation of grizzly bears here. In fact, quite the opposite in many areas of the province.
-
I would only support this if a wanton waste clause was added and I lived in the country in question. I don't agree with any hunting that the animal is not utilized.
Off topic, but the "we are different from the animals" statement is just arrogance. We share the same planet with the animals we hunt. There's not a choice to leave it after you screw up the ecosystem like it's happened in the past. That's the same mentality that's allowed some of the worst decisions made historically concerning the planet and species involved or impacted in those decisions.
-
Originally posted by Bisch:
Wow!
Every time I go to Africa, I kill all the animals just for trophies, or for my love of the hunt! The only meat I get is what is fed to me while I am there. I know for a fact that almost nothing goes to waste over there, as it is all used by someone. Irregardless of that, I am still hunting just for the trophy aspect of it.
Along the same lines, I love to hunt javelina. Javelina are God's gift to a stalking bowhunter, and they are a blast to hunt. I will not eat javies though, as they are not good table fare. I also will not shoot them if I do not have someone to donate them to that will use them. That being said, I still hunt them just for the trophy, or the fun of the hunt!
Don't you ever feel guilty going all the way to Africa just to kill an animal from a continent you are even a citizen of and have no part in and not consuming any it's meat and/or not utilizing it's furs and everything else on it's body? Eat what you kill is hunter code #1. I could never live with myself doing something like that I'd feel like crap.
I did some quick research and Javelina are supposedly good eating, one of the first things that popped up was that they are even better eating than wild hogs!
http://www.javelinahunter.com/recipies.htm
Originally posted by Bisch:
Folks who think their way is better, or the only way that is right really amaze me, and there seems to be a lot of that attitude these days!
Well I have talked to plenty of non hunters and they most definitely believe that the "traditional" method of also eating your game is vastly superior on an ethical and hunter level to that of hunting for trophy. Most people consider trophy hunting immoral.
Regarding archery, even the compounders I know acknowledge that they dislike compound archery and agree that the simplicity of shooting a stickbow, as it has been done for tens of thousands of years is more honorable and satisfactory than using a compound or crossbow!
Originally posted by Bisch:
Traditional archery is not "real archery"! It is not better than another method of hunting, and I will not degrade others for choosing another method of hunting. It is just the way I choose to do it for myself, and the way I get the enjoyment out of hunting.
How is traditional not real archery? Archery was shot with wooden longbows and recurves along with wooden arrows for the past tens of thousands of years! It has only been within the past 50 or so odd years that compounds have been used along with aluminum and carbon arrows.
The fact is that trophy hunting is not true traditional archery and is a modern thing to serve the ego in today's fast paced materialistic industrialized world. I really don't even see the point in trophy hunting using a traditional bow, one would be better served with a compound, crossbow, or gun.
-
I have been keeping tabs on this thread since it began that there would be comments of controversy on this particular subject. And to be honest, I don't like what I see here. And I can assure you that the anti hunting movement, which can see this very posting, would enjoy reading this due to the nature of some of these comments. Even though all of us may not see eye to eye on curtain subject matters, we are here on Tradgang because of our similar and common interest in "traditional archery & traditional bow hunting". If you ask 20 different people what traditional archery is, the chances are that you will get 20 different answers in return. With that as our common ground, we should respect each others opinions as well as input. And that does not mean wishing anybody physical harm in any manner.
On the subject matter of "trophy hunting", I am not a fan but I do respect a mans right to trophy hunt. There are numerous subject matters in the world of hunting that I do not favor but I do respect it to sum degree. I don't like high fence hunting nor the importing of exotic game animals but that's just my opinion, and never would I wish a hunter/individual ill will in his or her pursuit. I also do not believe in baiting the game that I hunt, but in turn, someone may say that the buck decoy that I use is a form of baiting. Like I mentioned, everybody is entitled to their opinions as long as it is in a respectful manner.
I have been blessed in harvesting some big bucks in my life, but that was not because I waited for a big trophy buck, it's because they just happened to be the first one into range. I never kill something that I do not eat but one time two years ago. I shot a small buck that had a compound fracture of his shoulder blade and two ribs that was protruding from his hide. People asked why did I waste one of my Iowa buck tags on a animal that was going to die anyways? I made the decision to put him down due to him suffering but advance gangrene had already set in. My point is this, everybody has their own ethics and morals in regards of hunting.
On this particular subject of trophy grizzly hunting in Canada, I did not vote because of two reasons, I firmly believe it is a Canadian issue that they should decide on. I would not like Canada dictating my rules in regulations in regards hunting here in the United States. Also, I do not hunt or desire to hunt in Canada. There's some beautiful land and hunting there I am sure of, but I have no desire.
I also believe this poll is some what baiting us hunters into making certain comments to only be used by the anti-hunting movement against us hunters. Just look at how it's worded. But thank you for posting Michael because we as hunters need to keep tabs on things of such nature.
Sorry for my rant and I hope that I did not ruffle to many feathers with my comments. I just had emergency surgery on 2 strangulated groin hernias yesterday,,,blame the pain meds!!
-
Originally posted by forestdweller:
Originally posted by Bisch:
Wow!
Every time I go to Africa, I kill all the animals just for trophies, or for my love of the hunt! The only meat I get is what is fed to me while I am there. I know for a fact that almost nothing goes to waste over there, as it is all used by someone. Irregardless of that, I am still hunting just for the trophy aspect of it.
Along the same lines, I love to hunt javelina. Javelina are God's gift to a stalking bowhunter, and they are a blast to hunt. I will not eat javies though, as they are not good table fare. I also will not shoot them if I do not have someone to donate them to that will use them. That being said, I still hunt them just for the trophy, or the fun of the hunt!
Don't you ever feel guilty going all the way to Africa just to kill an animal from a continent you are even a citizen of and have no part in and not consuming any it's meat and/or not utilizing it's furs and everything else on it's body? Eat what you kill is hunter code #1. I could never live with myself doing something like that I'd feel like crap.
I did some quick research and Javelina are supposedly good eating, one of the first things that popped up was that they are even better eating than wild hogs!
http://www.javelinahunter.com/recipies.htm
Originally posted by Bisch:
Folks who think their way is better, or the only way that is right really amaze me, and there seems to be a lot of that attitude these days!
Well I have talked to plenty of non hunters and they most definitely believe that the "traditional" method of also eating your game is vastly superior on an ethical and hunter level to that of hunting for trophy. Most people consider trophy hunting immoral.
Regarding archery, even the compounders I know acknowledge that they dislike compound archery and agree that the simplicity of shooting a stickbow, as it has been done for tens of thousands of years is more honorable and satisfactory than using a compound or crossbow!
Originally posted by Bisch:
Traditional archery is not "real archery"! It is not better than another method of hunting, and I will not degrade others for choosing another method of hunting. It is just the way I choose to do it for myself, and the way I get the enjoyment out of hunting.
How is traditional not real archery? Archery was shot with wooden longbows and recurves along with wooden arrows for the past tens of thousands of years! It has only been within the past 50 or so odd years that compounds have been used along with aluminum and carbon arrows.
The fact is that trophy hunting is not true traditional archery and is a modern thing to serve the ego in today's fast paced materialistic industrialized world. I really don't even see the point in trophy hunting using a traditional bow, one would be better served with a compound, crossbow, or gun. [/b]
You are a real piece of work, indeed!
No, I do not feel one bit guilty going to Africa to hunt!
I have eaten javelina, and don't like it. There are a LOT of folks who don't like it. Just because someone puts an article on the internet, does not mean it is so!
I eat almost all the critters I shoot, or I find someone that will.
I guess I'm not traditional enough, and too immoral for this place now!
Bisch
-
Originally posted by forestdweller:
The fact is that trophy hunting is not true traditional archery and is a modern thing to serve the ego in today's fast paced materialistic industrialized world. I really don't even see the point in trophy hunting using a traditional bow, one would be better served with a compound, crossbow, or gun.
This is the biggest bunch of hooey I have ever read!!!!!
Bisch
-
Bisch, I apologize because I'm not here to police or judge people based on their reasons for hunting.
I also was not trying to put anyone on a guilt trip or make anyone feel bad about themselves.
We all have opinions and sometime's it's best to keep your opinions to yourself or at least shared with only those close to you or when asked which is what I should have done especially being on the internet where what you say is seen by thousands of people.
I do respect the fact that you enjoy the thrill of the hunt especially stalk and spot hunting which I am the most fond of.
You hunt for your reasons and I'll hunt for mines. No harm intended and I wish you well and wish for your well being and your safety on your hunts.
-
Originally posted by Daz:
Interesting, but scientifically non-scientific answer. Predation by other predators is based on carrying capacity and competition as you pointed out. How does a grizzly bear in BC compete with a hunter in Oklahoma?
You cannot have it both ways.Are you a predator at the top of the food chain with an obligation for ecological management because of your brain and "human standing" which means you are "above animals"? This means a valid RATIONAL reason for the hunt. This means that bear is in direct competition for your resource(s). If not, then you are killing strictly for the joy of killing.
You are part of the solution? To what problem? There is not an overpopulation of grizzly bears here. In fact, quite the opposite in many areas of the province. [/b]
First I want to say that I agree very much with your point that we as hunters need desperately to maintain a biological and scientific reason for hunting in order for it to remain a right!! This is soooo true and will remain our most important foundation which we cannot lose in the fight to enjoy the privilege of hunting in future years. Second I want to point out that with healthy predator populations and keystone species there is no real need for hunting. In other words the ecosystem would remain balanced without our involvement! That is why I believe the standing up for the control of predatory animals is paramount to keeping the privilege to animals in a wilderness environment. (backyard whitetails and other suburban animals aside)
I really believe that if we lose our privilege to use hunting to control predator populations we will ultimately loose our opportunity to hunt at all in wilderness environments.
That aside here is my rebuttal to your other comments:
1: You mention that my opinion in Oklahoma has nothing to do with the Canadian province of BC. The problem with this is that we all share the planet here. What effects me in Oklahoma effects you in your home state because you have as much a right as I do regardless of where you call home. I think that is another reason why these types of debates get so heated because what you chose effects me to and so on
2: You mention that BC Grizzly bear populations are not in excess. This may or may not be true but it has nothing to do with the total banning of grizzly hunting. We aren't saying that grizzlies should be hunting into extinction. I'd just like to have the opportunity to hunt them someday. There should be a happy medium here
Also, grizzly bears in BC effect the hunt able populations of elk, deer, and especially moose in BC which effects the availability of tags and hunter opportunity for hunters here and there around the globe to hunt them. So just as the grizzly bear kills black bears on site to make resources more available to his kind, I am in favor of the same.
3: You pointed out that I couldn't have it both ways? Well I think you can come to the same conclusion for predator control based on a religious or scientific belief in the obligation to be good stewards of the planet. What I am saying is that niether worldview would make it wrong either scientifically or religiously to kill a grizzly bear strictly for the enjoyment of it and or the manipulation of predator competition to allow for favoring of us as human predators having more hunting availability. I'm saying that scientifically we see this as a pattern in which species prey on each other without hunger and feeding in mind...it is perfectly natural.
4: Lastly and most importantly, I feel that a very dangerous worldview is creeping into our society that Human life can be compared to animal life. That is why I was angry to hear someone wish death on someone else purely based on their point of view. And believe me I'm still pretty angry about that. He has some nerve!
Also, while we are on the subject of eating what we kill and apparently lambasting one of our best members here because he did not personally eat all of his Kudu :dunno:
My question is this: How and why is it wrong to kill and not eat or kill and waste? I can understand it being frowned upon and wasteful but really, what natural or scientific pattern tells us this? If the belief is based on religious beliefs that is a matter of opinion and it needs to be weighed with the balance of our shared ecosystem in mind.
Someone once told it best: "nature never wastes anything"
-
-
Originally posted by Michael Arnette:
Originally posted by Daz:
[qb]
Also, while we are on the subject of eating what we kill and apparently lambasting one of our best members here because he did not personally eat all of his Kudu :dunno:
My question is this: How and why is it wrong to kill and not eat or kill and waste? I can understand it being frowned upon and wasteful but really, what natural or scientific pattern tells us this? If the belief is based on religious beliefs that is a matter of opinion and it needs to be weighed with the balance of our shared ecosystem in mind.
Someone once told it best: "nature never wastes anything" [/b]
There are a lot of things wrong with that mentality and I'm not going to go into too much detail here because it's just going to lead to back and forth posts. But it boils down to this.
The view that killing and wasting meat is fine and that there's no scientific evidence showing that it's wrong (or something along that line) is apart of the belief system known as nihilism.
What you just said is akin to saying that it's fine to throw an innocent person in prison for life since they will just naturally die over time and nothing would be wasted since their body will just decay and become apart of Earth again as it decomposes back into the soil.
What if the animal that is killed for the sake of killing is pregnant? What if it had a mother that cares about it? As crazy as it may sound animals and even plants operate and speak a language that we do not understand. I have witnessed rabbit's and squirrels playing around and their life should be valued just as much as a humans life.
A better question would be, do you feel good after killing an animal for no reason other than the sake of killing itself? If so than I would want to steer clear of that person since they lack morality and if they do not value an animals life, why would they value my life?
There's a direct link that has been shown between abusing and killing animals for no reason and violent psychopath tendency's. Again, not the type of person I want to associate with.
As for human life being more valuable than animal life. That's all subjective. From the point of nihilism and other religions we are all equal. I'd value my dog's life over a strangers life as most people would.
Some religions say that animals are less worthy than humans or have no souls (which gives some people justification for killing with reckless abandonment) but there's no evidence for any of that.
-
Forgive me. I see conflict as an opportunity to learn something. It makes us all pretty darned uncomfortable but I'm usually grateful for the sharing of minds that comes in the process.
Michael (and others) - from all I can tell in CA, our meager game populations are mostly due to habitat loss and too many darned people. Our game management process has an objective of maximizing the number of recreational hunting days (more people hunting more days), not the health of the game populations or of the ecosystem at large. I hope your states have better objectives. I don't see lions or yotes as part of the problem but, rather, indicative of our problems.
I don't expect that you would understand my logic. But I'm not asking you to. I'm just expressing my thoughts. Do with them as you will.
I don't wish harm on any specific person. I'm familiar with the practical applications of trophy hunting to benefit a species (say African Rhinos and other threatened species). And let's not forget, I'm a hunter, too. I kill. I eat.
I live. And my life requires the death of other species. Life is full of contradictions. How we wrestle with these contradictions in real life is more important than how we rationalize them in our minds. Don't worry -- it's not like I'm raising a grizzly bear army or something really crazy. Forgive me for my primitive fantasy of a grizzly taking down a vainglorious trophy hunter. It was mostly tongue-in-cheek.
No, I don't think that humans are special. And our grand civilization is not the only culture of humanity. Our systematic killing is not the same thing as a territorial dispute between two bears. Systematic, totalitarian killing and "management" is only something we've been doing for about 10k years and less than a few hundred on this continent. It has its benefits (for us). But it has its drawbacks and I'm skeptical of its future.
Game management is often like medical interventions -- you need an increasing amount of intervention to deal with the problems created by intervening. In medicine and finance, it's called iatragenics -- harming through help. It's a very big problem. Medical malpractice is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. Before the discovery of antibiotics, modern doctors killed more people than they healed (think bloodletting). We'll see how antibiotic resistance changes things. We all know the damage financial "innovations" can cause. Ecological interventions are a necessary protection but mostly a protection from ourselves. I don't have any answers here. But I'm deeply skeptical of any claims that we somehow know better than nature. I don't think it's wrong to kill a grizz, a wolf or any other creature (I'm a hunter, remember). What makes it moral or immoral to me is simply the "why" and the "how" of it all. Display your furs and antlers with pride -- I do.
Does the earth depend on us? Sorry -- I can't buy that one. Most of the animals on this planet evolved just fine before us. We're the young-uns on this rock and even with all our knowledge, we have the wisdom of a toddler relative to other species when it comes to how to survive over the long-haul of evolution.
In an appeal to the Judeo-Christian perspective, I've been re-reading Genesis lately -- the creation story, Cain/Abel and Jacob/Esau. I've been fascinated by how the ancients embedded conflicting worldviews and clashes of cultures into these stories. Suffice it to say that our current ways of reading this text aren't necessarily the only way that they were meant to be read. Message me if you're curious. Otherwise, just dismiss that one as yet one more crazy thought.
We all have our own journeys. I wish you well on yours. The worst vice is ad-vice but I'll offer one bit that you can take or leave: beware your own conflicts of interest. We see all see what we want to see (yes, myself included). Be skeptical of whatever you think when it benefits you but harms others (other species included).
-
quote:
Originally posted by forestdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Arnette:
Originally posted by Daz:
[qb]
Also, while we are on the subject of eating what we kill and apparently lambasting one of our best members here because he did not personally eat all of his Kudu :biglaugh:
-
It's only natural to value your dog's life over a strangers life. It's a primal tribal natural thing. The dog is apart of your tribe whereas the stranger is an outsider.
-
Daz: I know BC isn't a state I'm not that stupid lol. Just used to calling things states...my bad. I was aware that you are educated by your style of writing, no need to mention it although your line of work is pretty cool!
My answer: you are right as well as the anti hunting advocates are. There isn't a real and pressing need to kill Grizzlies or other predators in a balanced ecosystem (one having north wolves/Grizzlies and all other keystone species) but their is a right to the privilege that all humans have of being involved our ecosystems as predatory animals. My argument is that hunting should be maintained simply because there are thousands of people who would like to have the opportunity to do so. There is no real reason to ban them from doing it.
Humans are in their very genetic makeup predators, we have a place in the ecosystem just as any other predator. Just as coyotes will diminish based on wolf populations so should grizzly populations diminish for us the ultimate apex predator.
Plus there will be more black bears and they are about as soft and cuddly as a bear could ever be comparatively speaking. Much less of a dangerous threat to hikers and campers.
Also, it's good for bears to fear humans through hunting
So I guess the question needs to be turned around to them! Why should the hunting of grizzly bears be stopped?
-
Originally posted by forestdweller:
It's only natural to value your dog's life over a strangers life. It's a primal tribal natural thing. The dog is apart of your tribe whereas the stranger is an outsider.
I agree, it is more natural. In fact I would probably feel less remorse at the death of a stranger than the death of my dog. However, I have a moral obligation to pull a stranger from a burning car before my dog because I strangers human life is more valuable. Human life is the most valuable thing on earth.
-
If ever I saw a rigged voting. terrible wording for voting.
-
Originally posted by Kingstaken:
If ever I saw a rigged voting. terrible wording for voting.
X's 2
-
Originally posted by Michael Arnette:
Daz: I know BC isn't a state I'm not that stupid lol. Just used to calling things states...my bad. I was aware that you are educated by your style of writing, no need to mention it although your line of work is pretty cool!
My answer: you are right as well as the anti hunting advocates are. There isn't a real and pressing need to kill Grizzlies or other predators in a balanced ecosystem (one having north wolves/Grizzlies and all other keystone species) but their is a right to the privilege that all humans have of being involved our ecosystems as predatory animals. My argument is that hunting should be maintained simply because there are thousands of people who would like to have the opportunity to do so. There is no real reason to ban them from doing it.
Humans are in their very genetic makeup predators, we have a place in the ecosystem just as any other predator. Just as coyotes will diminish based on wolf populations so should grizzly populations diminish for us the ultimate apex predator.
Plus there will be more black bears and they are about as soft and cuddly as a bear could ever be comparatively speaking. Much less of a dangerous threat to hikers and campers.
Also, it's good for bears to fear humans through hunting
So I guess the question needs to be turned around to them! Why should the hunting of grizzly bears be stopped?
It comes back to three arguments that are made against the hunt:
1.The meat is not salvaged, therefore it is a "trophy hunt". Again, this is seen time and time again in polling as well as anecdotal interactions with the non-hunting public. Speak to them of a need they understand: food.
Too many are disconnected from the true biological impetus to be hunters, so that is a wasted argument if there is no food on the table as a result of the process.They don't get it.
The threat of removing the black bear hunt here years ago was defused by implementing a meat salvage policy. It ended the argument, and i can shoot two black bears this year.
2. There is not a sustainable management plan based on solid science that is reflective of the possession of good data.
3. The third and growing issue of contention is the public perception that it is well off foreign nationals who come to BC strictly to shoot an animal for "the joy" of it (perception is reality).My issues with the Guide Outfitters Association of BC is another can of worms, and has no place in this discussion.
So, knowing that these are the main points that are working against us, how do you defend against them?
Remember, we have to defend the hunt, they don't have to defend removing it. Public perception is with them. In my mind, the only way to defend it is to change how it is managed and done. The status quo will not work. That has been my main thesis statement in all of this.
Sidebar:My time spent gathering samples is as a volunteer, and i will begin doing that shortly while i hunt for black bears. That is why i was asked to participate, because of the amount of time i spend in the back-country in bear habitat in the spring hunting the "other" bears. .
My job that pays for my back-country addiction is nowhere near as much fun.
-
-
[/QUOTE]Daz: I went back and read your posts. You appear to have a large amount of very relevant knowledge and experience. You indicated that you have grizzly hunted with the intent to salvage meat. Given your hands-on experience, I assume you made an educated decision about whether or not to hunt grizzlies and believe grizzly hunting is ethical and otherwise appropriate so long as the meat is salvaged.
So I am curious, what would you tell the non-hunting voters of BC?
Would you tell them that they should allow grizzlies to be hunted so long as the meat will be salvaged? Is it that simple?
If so, would the hunter have to eat the meat himself or would it be ethical to donate the meat to a homeless shelter. I think I could make the case that donating meat to needy folks is more ethical than eating the meat myself, but I am sure there are others who would disagree. [/QB][/QUOTE]
My argument needs sound data first: What is the composition and population of the bears to be hunted? Is it a genetically diverse population that has a good cross section of age and sex? If the data says it is a sustainable population that can be hunted, then hunt them. Monitor the kill and population to ensure it meets the sustainable harvest goals.The one argument is that the grizzly population here is vulnerable. Hard to argue to hunt for something in that state.
Second, ensure that meat is salvaged. The law of BC states removal of edible portions of game to a place of dwelling. Some people use game meat (not just bear) to feed domestic animals. It annoys me a touch, but it is legal and also meets the test of public perception of what hunting should be for. This as i stated above defuses the perception of "trophy" hunting.
I enjoy bear meat (including grizzly), and have no intention of leaving it in the field.
My argument is not "my ethics are better", but rather "my ethics are in line with the majority of the non-hunting public that votes". These are the people that will ultimately determine whether there is ANY hunting here in the next 50 years.
Donation of game meat to shelters varies health authority to health authority (regional in province). Some areas require the meat to be inspected by a government inspector. Others do not.
-
Daz - thanks for the quick response. Two follow up questions -- see below:
My argument needs sound data first: What is the composition and population of the bears to be hunted? Is it a genetically diverse population that has a good cross section of age and sex? If the data says it is a sustainable population that can be hunted, then hunt them. Monitor the kill and population to ensure it meets the sustainable harvest goals.The one argument is that the grizzly population here is vulnerable. Hard to argue to hunt for something in that state.
Is this information available? I would have assumed that the Department of Wildlife (or BC equivalent) would have gathered this information prior to setting the original season and bag limits??
Second, ensure that meat is salvaged. The law of BC states removal of edible portions of game to a place of dwelling. Some people use game meat (not just bear) to feed domestic animals. It annoys me a touch, but it is legal and also meets the test of public perception of what hunting should be for. This as i stated above defuses the perception of "trophy" hunting.
So the current BC law requires that the meat be salvaged? Do you believe the solution is to be more specific that the meat has to be eaten by humans?
-
Originally posted by TexasTrad:
Daz - thanks for the quick response. Two follow up questions -- see below:
My argument needs sound data first: What is the composition and population of the bears to be hunted? Is it a genetically diverse population that has a good cross section of age and sex? If the data says it is a sustainable population that can be hunted, then hunt them. Monitor the kill and population to ensure it meets the sustainable harvest goals.The one argument is that the grizzly population here is vulnerable. Hard to argue to hunt for something in that state.
Is this information available? I would have assumed that the Department of Wildlife (or BC equivalent) would have gathered this information prior to setting the original season and bag limits??
Second, ensure that meat is salvaged. The law of BC states removal of edible portions of game to a place of dwelling. Some people use game meat (not just bear) to feed domestic animals. It annoys me a touch, but it is legal and also meets the test of public perception of what hunting should be for. This as i stated above defuses the perception of "trophy" hunting.
So the current BC law requires that the meat be salvaged? Do you believe the solution is to be more specific that the meat has to be eaten by humans?
Sorry. i should have been more clear. That salvage requirement is for all game meat except grizzly bears. All ungulates and black bears require salvage of edible portions.
Our ministry of environment has been subjected to massive cuts over the last twenty years. Our data on most species is woefully inadequate. An example is out plummeting moose population that has not had a valid census done since 2005.
So again, hard to defend a hunt without good data. Makes for poor management.
-
I've been told by Game&Fish to kill as many coyotes as possible.
Sometimes it comes down to game management.
Certain animals need to be thinned out or simply controled.
Not saying Grizzlies are overpopulated but I promise you I kill coyotes every chance I get and I dont eat them.
Obviously there are some that dont understand that human life is not the same as an animal's life.
Human life is above an animals life.
Unfortunately in our culture that has been distorted.
-
When the replies consistently reach 6"-8"s vertically, we have officially reached full "pissing contest" status!
-
And begin to bear a striking resemblance to the "other" trad site.
-
Objective facts are the enemy of all liberal,(which is really not liberal, it is socialist), agendas. Often things are diversions. Right now thousands of pedophiles connected to the sex slave industry are getting arrested. The namby pambies and the liberal/socialist news outlets could care less. Instead, there are diversions that get the front and center attention. We are seeing it in Washington as well. Liberals are getting caught on almost a daily basis with their hands dirty. What do they do? They attack and declare perfectly normal and illegal things as great sins, so everyone is running from the new boogie man. How does this have anything to do with trad hunting? They are throwing flack at all things that they do not control. We should not be fooled by these diversions, but check them out so we can keep the enemy in our sights. Society and politics are at war. The lying control freaks are not going to give up without a fight. don't fall for their tricks, this BS poll is one of those tricks.
-
Pavan, well said in a nut shell.
-
We need a virtual round of beers. Anybody know a good traditional bowhunting joke to lighten things up a bit?
-
Hhhm seems like a salvage requirement might maintain the right to hunt grizzly bears?
-
Originally posted by Michael Arnette:
Hhhm seems like a salvage requirement might maintain the right to hunt grizzly bears?
That would go a long way to shifting public perception. The main objections to this policy change have come from the Guide Outfitter's Association which sees it as an onerous requirement that complicates their business model.
I would like to see 100% of hunter/fishing licence revenue returned back to the ministry to allow good data collection and management. That would go a long way to sustainability and public goodwill.
More than anything i encourage open thoughtful dialogue among sportsmen and women about all facets of an issue, rather than shortsighted, knee-jerk reactions (on either side of the spectrum). If we really care about the game we pursue on the lands that it inhabits we have to be methodical and open to adapting.
-
Voted
Brock is correct. The title should say Grizzly Hunting instead of trophy hunting.
Deno
-
I did some quick research and Javelina are supposedly good eating, one of the first things that popped up was that they are even better eating than wild hogs!
http://www.javelinahunter.com/
Well if it's on the internet it must be true!!!
I hunt javies also, but don't eat them, I give them away just like ol' Bisch.
-
Originally posted by Jim Wright:
When the replies consistently reach 6"-8"s vertically, we have officially reached full "pissing contest" status!
This is caused by folks talking about things they don't know about. Most of the "more trad than thou" guy's on here have never killed a single critter with a stick bow. People just talking and being keyboard heros.
I have found that the guys who are very successful with a trad bow could care less if you hunt with a stick or an AR. its about the hunt, not about the tool.
LONG LIVE THE HUNT!!
-
Originally posted by bornagainbowhunter:
Originally posted by Jim Wright:
When the replies consistently reach 6"-8"s vertically, we have officially reached full "pissing contest" status!
This is caused by folks talking about things they don't know about. Most of the "more trad than thou" guy's on here have never killed a single critter with a stick bow. People just talking and being keyboard heros.
I have found that the guys who are very successful with a trad bow could care less if you hunt with a stick or an AR. its about the hunt, not about the tool.
LONG LIVE THE HUNT!! [/b]
The simpler your tool the more skill is required and the more rewarding the hunt is and the more you are respected.
Guys like Bill Negley were very adamant that bow hunting was the most difficult and the real "true" way to hunt and the last time I checked he was very successful.
Originally posted by bornagainbowhunter:
I did some quick research and Javelina are supposedly good eating, one of the first things that popped up was that they are even better eating than wild hogs!
http://www.javelinahunter.com/
Well if it's on the internet it must be true!!!
I hunt javies also, but don't eat them, I give them away just like ol' Bisch.
I checked multiple links and they are most definitely edible. I even checked the online encyclopedia known as wikipedia. People like you won't eat them because you are too picky and have too many options of food to eat.
People like me will literally eat any meat.
The sad thing is that people actually kill animals just for their head. I'd never thought that a modern single string archer would condone trophy hunting let alone trophy hunt.
I thought we were all better than that. Traditional archery is a life style which is about old way traditional ethics, values, food you consume, and so on.
Trophy Hunting on the other hand is very modern and something that was just started in Europe in the 1800's as an ego boost. Trophy hunting is something that goes hand in hand with the compound world.
Also someone mentioned that vermin like Coyote are not edible which is NOT true at all. Coyote are most definitely edible and there is a guy on dual survival that eat's the back straps and I know of a few people that find it to be delicious especially in a stew.
Since people are posing lot's of questions in this thread my question is, if you are not going to eat the meat why the hell are you going to kill it? All life has value and whether we like it or not we are equal to all other animals. I promise you that if you were a Grizzly Moma Bear you would value your life and your cubs life over that of a humans. We only believe that a humans life has more value because we are a human.
If you were that grizzly that was just being killed for it's head your world and opinions would flip upside down so please show some respect to these beautiful creatures and at least eat the damn meat like your ancestors did.
-
Forest dweller. One time when I was in high school I shot a coyote and being the noble type that I am :laughing: I wanted to try to eat it. Let me tell you I got about halfway through gutting it before the stench started making me gag.
I did tan the hide myself though and recently made a really cool quiver out of it...but no I will not eat coyote unless I'm starving
I have since tasted dog in Nigeria and though it was some of the best meat I've ever had. I'd say the same about black bear but dont know anything about grizzly meat.
-
I never once said javelinas were not edible. I said they taste like crap, and I don't eat them because I don't like them. Why should I eat something I don't like when there are other things out there that I do like to choose from? You are way overboard with the way you look down on everyone who does not do things the way you think they should be done!
I'm out!
Bisch
-
...I found javelina meat to be very good as well. I don't touch feral hogs that I shoot though varmints have to eat too
-
Squirrel!!!
So, we are off topic and that is ok too.
It looks like a javelina is a pretty small critter. What is there for meat on one? To my eye it looks like after head/hide/viscera maybe about ten to fifteen pounds? How do you cook them?
I remember years ago being told that they have some kind of glands that make them smell kind of funky and can have an effect on meat quality.
-
I fried my first bit of javelina and put the second batch in the crock pot like a pot roast. The trick is to not touch the meet with knife, hands, or anything that has touched the hide. The scent is all over the hide and especially around the scent gland.
-
OK, here is the best javi recipe that I have found:
1. Skin javi (being careful not to mess with the musk gland on the back) and lay out flat on a piece of clean plywood.
2. Take a 2x4 and beat the crap out of the javi to tenderize it.
3. Throw the javi away and eat the 2x4!
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Bisch
-
:biglaugh:
-
This will probably get me tarred and feathered here, but Bisch's recipe describes my experiences with how wild turkey should be handled...I've never killed one, but i have eaten a few helpings and have found it be a pretty unpleasant experience every time.
-
Originally posted by Daz:
This will probably get me tarred and feathered here, but Bisch's recipe describes my experiences with how wild turkey should be handled...I've never killed one, but i have eaten a few helpings and have found it be a pretty unpleasant experience every time.
Ever had it soaked in buttermilk and chicken fried? Mmm-mmm Good!!!!
Bisch
-
:biglaugh:
Deno
-
Originally posted by Bisch:
OK, here is the best javi recipe that I have found:
1. Skin javi (being careful not to mess with the musk gland on the back) and lay out flat on a piece of clean plywood.
2. Take a 2x4 and beat the crap out of the javi to tenderize it.
3. Throw the javi away and eat the 2x4!
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Bisch
My cousins have a similar receipt for bluefish. The only difference is they put it on a shingle and leave it on the roof for a few weeks. :laughing:
-
Everyone likes what they like. We are a weird species. We have large brains and rationalize the heck out of things. Sometimes, due to wiring code differences, what I rationalize is not what you rationalize.
In all cases of rationalization however, a common thread appears to be.... I am right and you are wrong.
Killing a griz, or a wolf, or a coyote, for whatever reason we have is " not good" to many folks. Terrible, but those mice that get into my stuff, or chipmunks that burrow under my sidewalk and cause it to sink, or groundhog that digs up and eats up my gardens, or those mosquitos and ticks.... or the birds that crap on my new car.....kill all of those *****s. They are worthless creatures. I should know... I said so. and I am right.
-
ChuckC is correct.
-
makes me question who owns the poll as it seems to be worded for EMOTION and against TROPHY HUNTING.
-
IMHO hunting in todays world comes down to wildlife management and who commits more and puts there money to that more than ethical hunters. I myself have no motivation to trophy hunt, if I don't like to eat it I have to have an ethical reason to kill it, all within management laws and regulations,hopefully intelligent ones.