Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[LBM]

The number of problem bears destroyed is higher than the public realizes

This number is going to increase and these bears truly go to waste

Yes this is quit possible. The accurate number of bears put down by COs should be found and made public, for as you say most have no clue.
For grizzly if it could be broke down by MU there is the possibility that the CO kill number is higher then the hunter kill, these things have to be shown to those that think they are saving bears lives by shutting down the season. Many think when the COs are called about a bear or cat that they are coming to take it away and letting it go else where, they are quit shocked when they find out it is going to be destroyed. And yes the vast majority of them are wasted. The odd grizzly hide or skull may be used but very rarely the meat.

[S.W.A.T.]

Will be a lot of grizzlies just left in the bush now.

[Surrey Boy]

Sure what do you want too discuss, but as I have already said with my definition of SSS it is doing some thing illegal or something that should not be done.
So if you have knowledge of them doing it, call higher command for they should be let go of there position and charged the same as any one else.

I'm confused by this. Is SSS something illegal, or something that shouldn't be done? Which one?

[j270wsm]

Sent an e-mail letter .... received the 'automatic response' from Horgan's office .......
Always received a 'human' response from Stephen Harper's office. Questions were answered concisely and promptly ..... a 'hands-on' type of approach!

Sent an email last week and also got the automatic response....

[Rob Chipman]

Bearvalley:

"Rob, what a lot of people don't realize or I truly believe some do not want it realized is that there is a percentage of guide outfitters that place the value of wildlife far beyond the pocket book."

I am certain that you are correct that are some G/Os who feel the way you describe. If we're going to work together we need to see and hear more from those sorts of people.


"Health projects and species studies have been undertaken and funded by guides, local businesses and affiliated groups. These projects are for the betterment of wildlife and the benefit of all. "

I've got two thoughts on that. One, the numbers (i.e. dollars spent) by who and on what should be publicized. When cold hearted business does something for the benefit of everyone it doesn't look quite so cold hearted and money hungry. Two, we (all of us) are often happy to say we do all the work and pay all the bills, but I'm not sure how solid that story looks to the doubters or how many non-hunters know it. I'm not saying it is an untrue story. I'm saying that it's not a widely known story and there will be people who doubt it's veracity.

"Lets face it, outfitters do have skin in the game and over harvest or over allocation is their enemy." You've got to see that having skin in the game just as easily disqualifies your opinions in the minds of many, so it's a two edged sword. I think highly of WSC, and shared their press release with supporters of the political policy. The response? "Just who I need to tell me what's in my best interest. A bunch of guide outfitters" You can imagine that I've run into the same thing in discussions on the real estate market. Despite having lots of knowledge and experience my views have often been dismissed precisely because I have skin in the game.

Is that dismissal/suspicion unfair? Not completely. I won't bore you with how it can be reasonably demonstrated that a business with skin in the game is still capable of being on the side of Satan, but it can happen.


"I fully realize guides and resident hunters are percieved to be in direct competition." By some people all of the time, by some people none of the time, and by some RHs in regard to some GOs. Personally, I haven't seen direct competition but I'm not very sensitive to competitors at the best of times so I might be missing something important on that score.


"In more than one way there are spin off benefits that some never sit down and think out". Excellent. I almost want to start another thread where I throw you roadblocks and you try to bust them down. I think it would get us to a much better level of understanding.
Lets look at the scenario if outfitters are totally removed from the equation.



"Most don't get it that a lot of outfitters run a predator reduction program thru hunting or trapping that in turn enhances wildlife and maintains a fairly stable, sustainable ungulate population for all users." You need some science to back that up. If you make the claim yourself, even if it's true, it's ineffective and appears self-serving. You're aware of science from Alaska indicating how many moose calves are killed by bears, but at the BCWF AGM there was a report of grizzlies in the Flathead that did not support the hypothesis. Remember, groups like Raincoast will effectively fight all of us on science, and they have been effective in introducing the narrative that the science we have is inconclusive (in other words, it'll be a tough fight, but one that can't be ignored).


"How accessable would a lot of the back country be without the network of guides trails?" You're on to something there, although I don't know how effective it is to say "We need trails in areas that regular people only get to in very small numbers for perhaps 2 weeks out of every year, therefore we deserve quota, tenure and the right to sell trophies to rich Yankees". That said, it's clear (and has been recognized in the US fight for public lands) that hunters create lots of benefits for other users, and when hunters fight for access it benefits other users. That's part of the story that all of us have to tell, and I encourage GOs to develop it more fully. If you can demonstrate that non-hunting users benefit from infrastructure you provide you should do so and demand recognition for it.


"Would bushplane charter companies be viable without outfitter business?" Who cares? Serious question. As a hunter who might want to charter one, I care, but opponents of hunting don't. If you think that you can argue that a small business needs support because it's tough to make it...well you clearly haven't argued over minimum wage with any intelligent NDPer. The stock answer to the claim that a business may fail if NDP legislation is brought in is "Well, if it can't survive it probably shouldn't be in business anyway".


"This proposed rule change on the grizzly hunt is just the beginning of our loss of hunting privileges if we allow it to happen." I don't doubt it, although I don't think of them as privileges. We all understand the hypocrisy and dedication of many anti-hunters. That's the reason we're having this discussion. However, the pinch point is that meat hunting is an easy sale and trophy hunting is toxic. That leads back to the same two questions: are we all in the same boat, and if so, are some people chopping holes in the boat? That's not just directed at GOs, and I don't think all GOs are chopping holes in the boat, but there are some people who we include in our wider hunting community who probably should be chucked out.


Anyway, I appreciate the thought you put into that response, and I think that hashing a bunch of the real and perceived conflicts of interests between RHs and GOs can only be beneficial.


Goat Guy:

Good call. I'll be contacting my MLA and I encourage everyone else to do the same. It's fun, easy and free! I need someone who lives in North Van-Lonsdale (Bowinn Ma, NDP MLA) and I'll happily go and talk to any MLA in the Lower Mainland outside my riding (I'm fin North Van-Seymour) if guys here in the LML contact me and help me get in to talk to their MLAs with them. DM me or email me direct at rob@robchipman.net

[Fisher-Dude]

[Wild one]

The more back lash against the NDP regarding the grizz hunt the better

Now some FN have spoke against it and both the GOABC and BCWF are pushing back. Would only get better if the three reach out to each other and move as one

Maybe this issue can be used to open some possitve communication bettween the 3

[horshur]

Science is a waste of time to sway public opinion. In case you never noticed science was never used and guess what public opinion is??
We are victims of a chronic Nihilism where we look to and despise who we are, who we were, where we are going. We look to science but despise its answers for it cannot show us right or wrong. We look in the past which judges the present and we love the present social mores so we hate the past. We look to religion but we created it so we look in a mirror yet again. We love what we created and we hate it all the same... Primarily the current social norms are a luxury and as long as they remain that way they will continue and the battle for freedoms will be people's feelings. If and when times change and the luxuries get in the way of survival, history has shown what mankind is capable of. We have not yet shed canines.

[gcreek]

I'm confused by this. Is SSS something illegal, or something that shouldn't be done? Which one?

The only illegal part of a livestock or property owner removing a problem is if they are stupid enough to remove a souvenir from the carcass of a bear or cougar. The COS would rather you call them but in most cases aren't willing to attend in a timely matter. A rotting carcass in your yard isn't something most want to keep around.

i should have added that only the offenders of the crime should be removed. A big boar grizzly that is not a livestock killer should be left alone as he is likely to keep all other bears out of his territory.

[180grainer]

Science is a waste of time to sway public opinion. In case you never noticed science was never used and guess what public opinion is??
We are victims of a chronic Nihilism where we look to and despise who we are, who we were, where we are going. We look to science but despise its answers for it cannot show us right or wrong. We look in the past which judges the present and we love the present social mores so we hate the past. We look to religion but we created it so we look in a mirror yet again. We love what we created and we hate it all the same... Primarily the current social norms are a luxury and as long as they remain that way they will continue and the battle for freedoms will be people's feelings. If and when times change and the luxuries get in the way of survival, history has shown what mankind is capable of. We have not yet shed canines.

Most of the social dysphoria we are seeing, especially in the US, is due in large part by the infiltration and usurping of our major institutions, (universities, government) by classical Marxist/Leninist ideology. Collectivism over Individualism. What happened in Charlottesville in the US last week is an example. Most people see it as simply tearing down statues of Confederate Solders who to some represent people who fought to maintain slavery, (which is an oversimplification). Now some are calling for the tearing down of statues of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson because they were slave holders. De-legitimize them, and it's just a short step to De-legitimizing the Constitution and the 1st and 2nd amendments. And that's the real goal. Shut people up and disarm them. We have a Communist in Ottawa and we now have a Communist in Victoria. Look at some of the laws being proposed out of Ottawa. Having it against the "law" not to use the proper pro-noun when addressing a transgender person or maybe stating something that "someone" else will call Islamiphobia.

As repugnant as slavery and racism are, you won't see a bulldozing of the pyramids or the ancient Aztec ruins, or a chopping down of Haida totem poles, or a whole host of other cultural symbols from pretty much every other culture and race. The Egyptians, the Aztecs, and the Haida were all slave holders......but their not white, they didn't champion individualism, and they didn't create law that protected "all people" from government tyranny or the tyranny of the mob.