Vote to keep grizzly hunting legal

[goobersan]

Voted

hate liberal media

[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.

[nineworlds9]

Done!  Man, who leaves the meat?!  Bear jerky YUMMMM!  Grilled Bear!  Bear with brown gravy!  Ohh I'm getting hungry...

[Trenton G.]

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.

[HARL]

Done !

[njloco]

Street racing isn't legal ? Voted no !

[yeager]

Any animal with a bow is a trophy.....you have my vote.

[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.

[Daz]

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?

[bobman]

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.

[23feetupandhappy]

Done!

Well articulated response Michael  

[Cory Mattson]

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.

[Jim Wright]

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?

[forestdweller]

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

[Daz]

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

[Daz]

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.

[JR Belk]

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.

[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.