Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada

[.264winmag]

To hunt or not to hunt? Is that the question now? I'm not going to waste my breathe on that one...
Instead of even thinking about ending a harvest on a population of animals that is proven to be sustainable, stable, and on the rise in many areas. How about we do something for habitat enhancement towards them, maybe start with some controlled burning etc. Increasing and improving habitat means more grizz for everyone to look at, potentially more tags let out and an overall healthier woods with more critters of all kinds. Why can't we have our grizz, and eat it too?

[J_T]

To hunt or not to hunt? Is that the question now? I'm not going to waste my breathe on that one...
Instead of even thinking about ending a harvest on a population of animals that is proven to be sustainable, stable, and on the rise in many areas. How about we do something for habitat enhancement towards them, maybe start with some controlled burning etc. Increasing and improving habitat means more grizz for everyone to look at, potentially more tags let out and an overall healthier woods with more critters of all kinds. Why can't we have our grizz, and eat it too?

While the initial discussion might have come across as a to be or not to be a hunter question, further in the thread the discussion took a turn about how to have a conversation with the non and anti hunting crowd on the question of moral and social grounds. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with your statement, if hunting a population is sustainable then it should continue. (my paraphrase). In fact, you provided a solution toward balance. Increase habitat and then the balance tips (more animals), resulting in more opportunity to bring things back into balance. Staying with the topic of balance rather than hunting.

For anyone, it just depends how you want to have that conversation with someone that doesn't agree with you. Avoidance, positional, or collaborative. By being a dick and standing on the high ground telling them it's your right (which it isn't), thus pushing them away with new thoughts of what a hunter is, or really engaging and having a conversation which might lead them to ask questions of themselves, have they just been sheep, following someone else's mis-information?

[Bonz]

we`ll never change the view of the antihunter with all that money they make selling lies or missinformation. no way they`ll ever give that up.
only thing i see is to just prove them as the liers we all know they are for financial gain and sympathy, think alot of the public actual has began to see the mental issues on that side with the open death threats and so on these days.
i say use their own ignorance and crimes to expose what their realy like.

[Bonz]

i also dont even think we`ll get an native groups on resident hunter side either.

[.264winmag]

While the initial discussion might have come across as a to be or not to be a hunter question, further in the thread the discussion took a turn about how to have a conversation with the non and anti hunting crowd on the question of moral and social grounds. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with your statement, if hunting a population is sustainable then it should continue. (my paraphrase). In fact, you provided a solution toward balance. Increase habitat and then the balance tips (more animals), resulting in more opportunity to bring things back into balance. Staying with the topic of balance rather than hunting.

For anyone, it just depends how you want to have that conversation with someone that doesn't agree with you. Avoidance, positional, or collaborative. By being a dick and standing on the high ground telling them it's your right (which it isn't), thus pushing them away with new thoughts of what a hunter is, or really engaging and having a conversation which might lead them to ask questions of themselves, have they just been sheep, following someone else's mis-information?

I, along with others am tired of the argument with anti's. I have no problem with non-hunters' and can appreciate their views' and do not try to tell them they're wrong. So I appreciate when they do the same towards myself.

Sister in-law along with rest of outlaws came for Xmas one year knowing full well I am an avid hunter. She stated I needed to take all the shoulder mounts, antlers and hunting pictures down and put away. Guess what I said, and guess who hasn't visited for Xmas since.

I usually ask anti's to source factual writings done by educated people, if that doesn't work I'm not a psychologist. I am just another hunter trying to stay atop the food chain I guess.

[bearvalley]

we`ll never change the view of the antihunter with all that money they make selling lies or missinformation. no way they`ll ever give that up.
only thing i see is to just prove them as the liers we all know they are for financial gain and sympathy, think alot of the public actual has began to see the mental issues on that side with the open death threats and so on these days.
i say use their own ignorance and crimes to expose what their realy like.

Theres only a very few at the top that are making money off the anti campaign....the rest are just handing it over.
The ones making death threats aren't making a dime.

i also dont even think we`ll get an native groups on resident hunter side either.

Dont worry so much about getting FN's on the resident hunter side.
Work to get FN's on the side of wildlife and educated in what needs to be done to realize sustainable wildlife populations for the use of all.
The my side, their side and your side attitude has got us nowhere.

[wideopenthrottle]

Dont worry so much about getting FN's on the resident hunter side.
Work to get FN's on the side of wildlife and educated in what needs to be done to realize sustainable wildlife populations for the use of all.
.

I really like this concept but I am unsure how to make it a reality. The notion that if "we" help Natives to reconnect to the land their attitudes will realign with hunter/conservationists and they will police their own bad actors

[horshur]

people like being righteous..They invent all sorts of noble reasons their life is what it is. But they are seldom honest. Ie all the kayakers protesting in plastic kayaks. I think confronting the dichotomy that most live is probably our best chance....being honest about how people are really living and why..Too many have sin's forgiven by sending money to humane society, liking a post on Facebook, not eating GMO food..buying electric car ect.....nothing that actually helps the problem cause we all are the problem collectively. Me selling my car and going off grid doesn't solve anything collectively..someone is still driving my car I just look and act righteous..but not much "Right" has happened but I feel good about it. Kinder Morgans media campaign is along these lines. This is what is happening in the world..you depend on it everyday..we can do it better then anyone else.

My two bits.

[Bonz]

Theres only a very few at the top that are making money off the anti campaign....the rest are just handing it over.
The ones making death threats aren't making a dime.



Dont worry so much about getting FN's on the resident hunter side.
Work to get FN's on the side of wildlife and educated in what needs to be done to realize sustainable wildlife populations for the use of all.
The my side, their side and your side attitude has got us nowhere.

you wont get FN to do that either. it doesnt bennefit them. no offence to them on that comment but its fact, they already sell lies we cant eat bear as it is..but they can..and do

[Bonz]

and it isnt my attitude thats got us nowhere. its more allowing this racist law crap that stops anything from changing