Vote to keep grizzly hunting legal

[Zwickey-Fever]

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

[forestdweller]

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.

[Michael Arnette]

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          

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"

[Daz]

[forestdweller]

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                      

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.

[YosemiteSam]

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).

[Michael Arnette]

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              

[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.

[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?

[Michael Arnette]

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.

[Kingstaken]

If ever I saw a rigged voting. terrible wording for voting.

[Zwickey-Fever]

Originally posted by Kingstaken:
If ever I saw a rigged voting. terrible wording for voting.

X's 2

[Daz]

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.

[TexasTrad]

[Daz]

[/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.

[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?

[Daz]

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.

[TGbow]

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.