Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[horshur]

Do you think the bear cares when he is dead whether you eat him, make a rug or leave him to rot? He don't have a care being dead and all...so why do you?

[Gateholio]

Good answer Gatehouse, and I do understand that utilizes better not to respond to foolish posts but...

I didn't think that you were insinuating anything about me, if that is your concern.

[325]

Yes and Yes! Why else am I here? I don't support for trophies, hence why I like this law.

Say you are hunting and you see two elk standing together. Ones a small 3 point and the other a massive 6 point. Which would you shoot? Also assume body size is roughly equal between the elk.

[Gateholio]

What would you think of a moose, elk, caribou or deer hunt where only the head and antlers were taken?

I would think it was illegal according to our current laws, and contrary to generally accepted traditions of modern hunting to not make use of moose, caribou, elk or deer meat. From a conservation standpoint, it probably doesn't matter, as other animals in the habitat would make use of the meat.

I also think it would be idiotic to force hunters to leave any parts of the moose, elk, caribou or deer behind.

[Gateholio]

Do you think the bear cares when he is dead whether you eat him, make a rug or leave him to rot? He don't have a care being dead and all...so why do you?

This is the actual practical answer, leaving emotion out of it. Some people disagree with various aspects of hunting due to emotional reasons, regardless if it is biologically sound.

[fireguy]

To quote Island Wanderer on his post from the open chat thread that was locked down because this one was already going.

"Hunting heritage? I thought we were supposed to make decisions based in science not emotion."

So please explain to me , because you seem to like this decision, how it is based on science, not emotion? Of course you can't do that. Even the NDP and the Greens both have stated that it is purely an emotional decision.

[ROY-alty33]

Finally entered the new millennium and began listening to Podcasts. Mostly Steven Rinnella and Joe Rogan(who is a relatively new hunter), especially when he has Rinella or Shockey on. Rinella may be the most well read and charismatic proponent our sport has seen since Ruark or Hemmingway. I would love to hear his response to this asinine regulation. I am pretty sure it would contain references to charismatic super fauna, in my opinion a reference this law is solely based on. It would contain remarks about how removing the $$ value of a species is never good for that species. Want people to truly care about anything put a dollar value on it.
Wish I was wording enough to draft up a response anywhere near as good as he could.

[LBM]

So you "understand" that people still SSS, even if you may not have direct knowledge of specific instances.

I also "understand" that there are crack houses in most towns where people go to buy drugs, but I do not have direct knowledge of every specific crack house in BC.

This is why your questions are foolish, and why I ignored them, as you made a general assumption based on lack of comprehension of what I actually said. Had I said "I know of cases where people have SSS" then your question would have made sense. Got it now?

You don't want to answer the question that is fine your choice, but guess your making a general assumption based on lack of comprehension, where did I say I understand people still SSS even though I dont have any direct knowledge of specific instances. I said what I no.

[ROY-alty33]

3 S's happens all the time and it is your friendly neighbourhood government wildlife police force that does it.

[DarekG]

Do you guys not notice Wolfdown ignoring every well written out post with links to statistics and facts based on science? I noticed after he ignored my earlier posts in this thread directed to him. He's cherry picking comments that can be easily misconstrued to troll you. You might be dumber than him to respond to his trolling!