Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[happyhunter]

This has been an interesting read, going through this thread. I definitely appreciate those who have respectfully stated their thoughtful opinions and maintained their civility towards others who may not share their opinion.

For those who resort to name calling, profanity, and other types of disrespectful communication, I understand you're passionate about the issue, but, man, if you're trying to get people on your side, that's not a productive way.

.

People have have responded to the antis with respectful, considerate, and well thought out arguments many times in this thread and many others. But it's a wasted effort and far more than the antis deserve, they aren't even reading them. They don't respond with respectful opinions of their own, they ignore the others arguments, write lol without addressing a thing said, or their favourite, they twist and spin the others words. It's called willful ignorance and you cannot get through with logic or reason. They have no place here.

[Piperdown]

So you fish purely for the experience then.

Do you see how that makes you a hypocrite?

Words to live by don"t argue with an idiot it brings you down to their level

[brownmancheng]

Poll opened on Vancouver Sun - http://vancouversun.com/news/local-n...ly-trophy-hunt

voted! we are way down here

[monasheemountainman]

is there a possibility that the media has it wrong? I mean I haven't seen any government article saying we have to leave the hide and head in the bush...perhaps theyre just idiots and mis understood?

[Ron.C]

My office is here in Victoria is full of non hunters. No surprise. All but one are pretty much neutral when it comes to hunting and not what I would consider anti hunters .They could care less that I hunt or not, but they all have the same opinion on this issue. They have no support for the grizzly hunt if the meat is left to waste or any other hunt that is done for no other reason than obtaining a trophy. So my question is, how many people out there go from a neutral position on hunting to the anti because of issues such as meat removal? What explanation can a hunter provide to these neutral parties to make them see it any other way? If there is a scientific reason to ensure xxx number of bears get removed annually, then we have done a poor job getting that information out. Or at least dispell the BS that the anti hunting ranks are spewing.

[Fisher-Dude]

is there a possibility that the media has it wrong? I mean I haven't seen any government article saying we have to leave the hide and head in the bush...perhaps theyre just idiots and mis understood?

Not according to the minister in charge of this, as of yesterday:

When asked how hunting would be policed, Donaldson said the exact regulations would be determined following consultations with guide-outfitters and others between now and Nov. 30.

"There's not going to be any loopholes," he said.

"Hunters will no longer be able to possess the hide or the head or the paws of the grizzly bear."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...nced-1.4247060

[MB_Boy]

My take on the confusing tale of the government's inept grizzly bear policy.

http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/2017/0...y-bear-policy/

Mr Weaver, what say you of the reporting by CTV Morning Live in Vancouver stating something to this effect, "Green Party leader Andrew Weaver states the ban doesn't go far enough". Sure puts a spin on your above statement.

I fail to see the logic of this "ban", I am sure all the uninformed only read headlines of the article and are unaware that nonresident hunters will pretty much shoot and leave the animal? Will there be a requirement for the GO's to do anything with the bear?

Why not visit the requirement to remove the meat like with black bears and ungulates as opposed to just doing a 180 on the current requirements as to what you must remove and can't possess? Roughly 250 bears harvested each year (I believe), what does Suzuki say about the fact that there will be 250 heads and hides and 1000 paws left in the bush each year but bears are still being hunted? Seems like a bit of an ass backwards train of thought, "the bears will still be hunted, we are just changing what you can possess."

Do you consider resident LEH grizzly hunting a trophy hunt because there is currently not a requirement to remove the meat?

[jassmine]

Not at all there jasmine.

When have I ever posted anything showing me to be against grizzly hunting?
Please show us all where the proof is? All I've been advocating for was better and more complete science.
So please keep my name out of your mouth unless you're going to back up your accusation.

[russm86]

I think some hunters are making decisions based in emotion. Think it through, this seems like good policy. What are hunters really losing? The experience? No. The meat? No. Some decoration that hangs on the wall and is thrown in the garbage after we get old and go into a home? Yes.

So now we are told we can't use as much of the animal as possible? Seems backwards to me. So black bears are next by this same logic... then deer and moose because lots of people still display their heads and antlers... I'm biting my tongue here instead of telling you what I really think of you...

[russm86]

So they were concerned about the wastefulness of leaving meat behind so they introduce legislation that encourages wastefulness by forcing hunters to leave behind the hide, skull and claws.

Yup... the fail and stupid is strong in this government...