Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[Ltbullken]

Yes, in my opinion I would say that's alright, with that being said though.. the grizzly hunt has been and currently is a "trophy" hunt whether or not you care to admit it. Many of these boneheads on this fourm have already insinuated that on this thread already which gives fuel for the fire of people who don't agree with it. They can't just say you have to take meat because that won't solve the real problem.. anyone can then just say I'm a grizzly meat hunter which very few if any are as many have already stated in this thread. (Taking the meat to the dump etc etc etc) should maybe be more careful with what they say.

Again, this is true of every other species hunted. Hunters must claim the edible portions of the meat. So what you are saying is that by and large is that hunters are liars and can't be trusted to abide by hunting regulations. Admit that is what you truly believe hunters are!

[Linksman313]

[QUOTE=Rob Chipman;1927089]Island Wanderer and Wolfdown:

Some of the outrage and emotion (as you describe it) is based on the fact that this is a political move that caters to emotion, and it's happening in a province that badly needs a completely revamped science based conservation policy.

While I understand that you're happy the NDP won the election, and while I understand that you haven't thought through the trophy hunt issue, you're missing the important conservation aspects to this discussion and latching onto positions that can't be defended rationally.

If you review your positions they're based on the idea that other people should not be allowed to like what you don't like. There's no science there. It's just opinion.

Think through the claim that leaving a carcass to rot in the bush is a waste. That is simply a stupid and indefensible statement.

Think through the opposition to trophy hunting. What is it based on? Anything other than personal taste?

Think about the implications of conducting wildlife policy based on social values rather than science. Is there anything you can say to justify that?

Rather than say "It's a good policy because it stops trophy hunting" dive in a little deeper and justify it. There is nothing that you can say to justify it that will stand up to a sound, rational conservation oriented argument.
QUOTE]
Could not say it better Mr. Chipman.

Those that can see no benefit to retaining the hide or skull of an animal they hunted, have probably not actually hunted much.

Agreed, or likely ever.

I wonder if the ecotours will pay a royalty and support the habitat conservation fund the way hunters have done for decades. Bets?

Very good question.

You've shown your colors....

If I kill an animal, I want to make use of as much as the animal as I can. To have legislated waste is not a solution to anything. Tell the people of BC, they are going put millions into habitat.....They are going to change forestry practices, resources based practices that strips animals of much needed wintering habitat...That would help grizzlies and all other animals. Why choose one animal with healthy numbers to put all your time into. That is such a waste of time and money and effort.

There are many species in the province with unhealthy numbers, yet you and your "conservationist" friends don't educate people about those animals. Just the ones that give you return on your investments right!

Well said Frosty, we are of course speaking of the "condo conservationists" who recycle and compost in strata and figure they should have a say in how the rest of us chose to get our protein. Funny these are also the types who consistently buy into unaffordable housing complexes developed on the very land the animals they are speaking out for utilize for survival, anyone else see a conflict here, or am I just being emotional?

My opinion is that anyone who supports legislation forcing hunters to leave useful parts of an animal behind is an absolute idiot.

AAAaaannndd Gates drops the mic and walks off stage right!!

[180grainer]

It's simply really.. it stops the trophy hunt! Good enough for me and apparently a lot of others. Hunt them all you want but use the meat!

Not sure why people keep engaging you in conversation. You're handle suggests you're a complete hypocrite unless you're willing to tell us what a wolf roast tastes like. You also have provided no information whatsoever to suggest why this policy is good with the exception of the hubris statement "it's the right thing to do". Tell us why leaving a wolf carcass in the bush is morally superior to leaving a Grizz carcass there. It's absolutely clear that you're of the mind, like this government, that you're beliefs are superior to those who think differently. It's also clear that you believe imposing your beliefs on others who disagree is justified by some type of moral superiority that you have trouble articulating. Just like wolf, Grizzly is not an animal that is hunted for its meat. Bears in healthy numbers are beneficial to the environment. But like anything else, in unhealthy numbers they can be quite detrimental. There needs to be a balance kept. That's what the Grizzly hunt and the management behind it provides. You clearly failed to address my comment about the next Vegan Premier we get who decides killing "for meat" is immoral. What you're doing and the position you are championing is clearly analogous with that. It's not based on anything but someone else's opinion of what is "the right thing to do". Unless you can demonstrate that the Grizzly hunt is putting the species at risk, you're argument is nothing more than arrogant virtue signalling.

[Gateholio]

It solves the the problem of people hunting the bears for show and nothing more! That's it and I'm okay with that.

So it makes you feel good?

No net benefit to wildlife, just satisfies your personal emotions. Interesting.

[Rob Chipman]

Wolfdown:

"It's simply really.. it stops the trophy hunt! Good enough for me and apparently a lot of others. Hunt them all you want but use the meat!"

You make my point and highlight the problem with the policy. It's a good policy because it stops the trophy hunt, and you don't like the trophy hunt, and not trophy hunting yourself isn't good enough to satisfy you - you need to stop other people from doing what you don't like.

Here's the newsflash: wildlife policy should not be based on what makes you happy. Go outside and look up in the sky. You'll see the sun. You orbit it. It does not orbit you.

Elch jager pointed out some very good stuff:

"Initially I was arrogant and self-righteous – projecting my own personal ethics and values upon others. Eventually I realized that it was an ignorant and conceited approach… assuming I knew better than hundreds of others.… I realized I had no right to judge others and condemn them for ethics and values different than my own".

Ask the hard questions. Can you define trophy hunting? Does it occur much? Is it a problem? Why?

Seems simple, but believe me, a lot of people have through it through and it's clear you have not done that work.

Ask another one: why does human consumption of the meat make a difference? Again, a simple question but the implications are huge - are you part of nature or apart from it and somehow special? Are you a participant in the natural world or an observer?

Last question to ask yourself: is your position logically consistent or are you being a hypocrite?

The hunt is sustainable. That means we can do it but it doesn't mean we have to do it. I can make an argument about why we should maintain the hunt. Can you make a cogent argument about why we should stop it? (Saying "Because we should! Simple!") isn't an argument. There is a good argument for stopping the trophy hunt, btw, (its a good tactic for marginalizing anti-hunters) but you haven't made any sustainable argument at all.

Lay out your reasoning and guys who have thought it through will help you clarify your thoughts.

This policy is bad because it continues the politicization of wildlife in order to get votes. Votes don't benefit wildlife.

This policy is bad because it's short term partisan wrangling. It'll be over-turned when the government changes. Short term wrangling isn't good for wildlife.

This policy is bad because it's divisive. The proof of that is self-evident. Division of the tax base is not good for wildlife.

The policy is bad because it's misleading. It looks like the government is doing something for wildlife as long as you don't look closely, but the government itself admits that this is not wildlife policy - it's payback. Payback that looks like wildlife policy is not good for wildlife.


Hunters don't express their positions well. That's been proven time and time again. You seem to think that people unhappy with the policy are unhappy because they can't hunt bears and keep a trophy. I'd suggest that they're more unhappy because we were on the cusp of getting partisan politics out of the mix, getting a funding model and getting long terms goals and science based management in place.

That's all gone (and a bunch of us regret that) adn it's replaced with non-science based politically motivated non-wildlife policy dressed as wildlife policy.

[jimbc]

There's been tonnes of excellent points made on this post. I am not a bear hunter; they can eat me. However, I would defend anyone's wish to hunt and shoot a bear if they have a tag during an open season in an open area.

This has probably already been mentioned, but I haven't read each post. If only the meat can be removed and the skull (in particular) is left to rot, how do wildlife biologists recommend sustainable harvest levels without compulsory inspection? My understanding is that the skull provides important age, sex, and condition data that is required to assess and manage the grizzly population. It's already been said the science is spotty, but now what? No data? That is hands down the worst way to "manage" any natural population. Management decisions become "shots in the dark" which centuries of history have shown spells doom for any natural population with a harvest. The decision seems utterly based upon emotion.

Here will be the controversial part of my post given the tone of some of the First Nations-related posting. I will bet the lack of consultation with First Nations regarding this decision will be the catalyst that halts this before the NDP can even wet their pens to amend the regulations. Perhaps aboriginal hunters and non-aboriginal hunters will not be quite so far apart as we seem to be when I read SOME posts, but not ALL. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Skull Hunter]

Preventing people from retaining all portions of a legally harvested animal is idiotic (with the exception of parts that promote poaching ie gall bladders, sex organs). To value one portion of an animal over another is ridiculous, why not say we now have to pack out all deer and moose hides as well? I'm all for removing the edible portions of all big game animals, but to limit a hunters ability to utilize the animal in its entirety is asinine. How a portion of an animal is used is up to the hunter, and we cannot judge a person on their choices. Weather that means eating the meat, donating it to a wildlife sanctuary, feeding it to dogs, using it as trapping bait, etc it is all purposeful. The same can be said with the hide and skull, one can make a garment, jewelry, decorations, or an educational piece, all again serve a purpose.

I can totally see the rational for legislating meat to be taken out of the bush, but even meat that is left behind does not go to waste. Nature is just a big recycling program. A dead animal will feed numerous scavengers and provide the soil with a bunch of required nutrients to sustain plant life.

Bottom line is, the hunt is sustainable, wildlife management should be made based on scientific evidence. This ruling is short sighted and really should not be allowed to stand as it reads. I imagine it would not hold up against some sort of appeal processes if there was any way to challenge it.

[Pemby_mess]

Preventing people from retaining all portions of a legally harvested animal is idiotic (with the exception of parts that promote poaching ie gall bladders, sex organs). To value one portion of an animal over another is ridiculous, why not say we now have to pack out all deer and moose hides as well? I'm all for removing the edible portions of all big game animals, but to limit a hunters ability to utilize the animal in its entirety is asinine. How a portion of an animal is used is up to the hunter, and we cannot judge a person on their choices. Weather that means eating the meat, donating it to a wildlife sanctuary, feeding it to dogs, using it as trapping bait, etc it is all purposeful. The same can be said with the hide and skull, one can make a garment, jewelry, decorations, or an educational piece, all again serve a purpose.

I can totally see the rational for legislating meat to be taken out of the bush, but even meat that is left behind does not go to waste. Nature is just a big recycling program. A dead animal will feed numerous scavengers and provide the soil with a bunch of required nutrients to sustain plant life.

Bottom line is, the hunt is sustainable, wildlife management should be made based on scientific evidence. This ruling is short sighted and really should not be allowed to stand as it reads. I imagine it would not hold up against some sort of appeal processes if there was any way to challenge it.

If it had a well orchestrated challenge in court, I doubt it would stand up for the reasons you mention. There's no clear rationale behind it, and things like that usually fall apart when they get legally tested. I think removal of edible portions is an other thing entirely, and I personally think hunter's as a group should support that.

[Riverbc]

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion...tat-1.21917556

[Surrey Boy]

So it makes you feel good?

No net benefit to wildlife, just satisfies your personal emotions. Interesting.

Is it really interesting?

Plenty of people act illogically, arrogantly, and selfishly to gratify their superficial emotions. Most of them get their way because they have boobs.