Breaking news ... Grizzly bear hunt demise

[firebird]

IM a little off topic here but the point I'm going to try and prove is most antis are un aware of the actual reality. I feel i can make a few suggestions supporting that because my mother inlaw and sister inlaw do not like hunting. Thank goodness my wife does.

My mother in law quiet enjoys mcdonalds and M&M meats, she buys a lot of meat at costco and everytime the family is over she is roasting or bbqing store meat. And my father in law has gout. They are overweight from the fast food and food glue in the M&Ms. Heaven forbid you mention hunting or game meat. you get the usual response of "oh the poor animals, how can you shoot them they are so nice". I respond with the fact that I'm not buying meat from a grocery store and can support my immediate family from the animals i kill that have no additives or hormones, that i have seen killed and processed all the way from the woods to the freezer. I also add that with proper shot placement their death is much nicer than cattle or chicken waiting in line at the slaughter house, and i tell her to think about how her nice beef steak was killed. Usually she shuts up and after a few years of this she has stopped making anti comments about hunting but will not touch any wild meat.

My sister in law's husband is a hunter aswell and prior to marrying him she was a vegetarian because she was opposed to the slaughter houses. She is now strictly eating game meat because her husband explained everything to her and she is a reasonable girl.

The uneducated seem to jump on the anti hunting band wagon with very little persuasion. You know it sounds good to oppose killing animals. But when its explained to them they tend to be indifferent or change their position completely.

If they don't like just taking the trophy parts from a grizzly then they should have amended the regs to make it mandatory to take the meat aswell- as previously stated. That is the reasonable thing to do.

So IMO these new regulations/ban is made by very uneducated people backed by some antis with money to keep the uneducated politicians in power.

And unfortuantely i also believe their are many anti hunters in Fish and Wildlife.

[Wolfdown]

IM a little off topic here but the point I'm going to try and prove is most antis are un aware of the actual reality. I feel i can make a few suggestions supporting that because my mother inlaw and sister inlaw do not like hunting. Thank goodness my wife does.

My mother in law quiet enjoys mcdonalds and M&M meats, she buys a lot of meat at costco and everytime the family is over she is roasting or bbqing store meat. And my father in law has gout. They are overweight from the fast food and food glue in the M&Ms. Heaven forbid you mention hunting or game meat. you get the usual response of "oh the poor animals, how can you shoot them they are so nice". I respond with the fact that I'm not buying meat from a grocery store and can support my immediate family from the animals i kill that have no additives or hormones, that i have seen killed and processed all the way from the woods to the freezer. I also add that with proper shot placement their death is much nicer than cattle or chicken waiting in line at the slaughter house, and i tell her to think about how her nice beef steak was killed. Usually she shuts up and after a few years of this she has stopped making anti comments about hunting but will not touch any wild meat.

My sister in law's husband is a hunter aswell and prior to marrying him she was a vegetarian because she was opposed to the slaughter houses. She is now strictly eating game meat because her husband explained everything to her and she is a reasonable girl.

The uneducated seem to jump on the anti hunting band wagon with very little persuasion. You know it sounds good to oppose killing animals. But when its explained to them they tend to be indifferent or change their position completely.

If they don't like just taking the trophy parts from a grizzly then they should have amended the regs to make it mandatory to take the meat aswell- as previously stated. That is the reasonable thing to do.

So IMO these new regulations/ban is made by very uneducated people backed by some antis with money to keep the uneducated politicians in power.

And unfortuantely i also believe their are many anti hunters in Fish and Wildlife.

The issue with that change would be that it's far too easy for a hunter to then just say he's meat hunting when in fact he is purely trophy hunting. There is no easy change that can be made to avoid that.

[firebird]

The issue with that change would be that it's far too easy for a hunter to then just say he's meat hunting when in fact he is purely trophy hunting. There is no easy change that can be made to avoid that.

That can be applied to any game animal

[Ride Red]

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

Considering your comments on here, none of us viewed you as a hunter, just an anti. Whether you support all aspects of hunting or not, the laws are laid out by our government in which we all follow. This new implementation of law only supports the appeasement of anti hunters in the direction of closing all hunting down. Only the naive would believe that this change is for the betterment of wildlife. Sustainable hunting and hunting laws should only be driven by science based decisions, not the emotional plea of city voters who deem hunting barbaric. I for one don't believe that you are a hunter as you continue to drive down the anti line without any support your fellow hunter and sport. It's people like you that continually drive a wedge between a sustainable resource and the people who live/support it. If it weren't for the funds/volunteer time of all hunters in this province where would it be today. I've hunted all over for the last 40 plus years, met a ton of hunters young and old; and you are still an anti-hunter.

[caddisguy]

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!

I noticed that as well. I responded a few times but he wouldn't engage in any real discussion. True definition of a bigot. He knows he does not have a viable argument and that he is simply wrong. I suspect he just hates hunters so much he would rather see things taken away from hunters and condones law being based solely on emotion while the ecosystem is worse off. Guessing someone like that would rather poison a herd of deer so hunters don't get them.

Some anti-hunters are simply uninformed and switch sides after a rational discussion about conservation. For others, it is like a religion and it is part of their identity. I believe for some the thought of considering viewpoints of actual hunters is a very scary thing, as it would threaten their identity and meaning and separate them from their community.

In the case of Wolfdown, we have tried to engage in coherent discussion, but said discussion is simply ignored while he repeats the same emotional line and refuses to elaborate. That is the signature of someone with an agenda who has realized they simply do not have a case and just wants to stir the pot.

On the positive side, he has done the hunting community a wonderful favor. Any neutral person reading any of this thread will see how limited the thought process of an anti-hunter is and will come away from it respecting hunters as conservationists.

[Wolfdown]

That can be applied to any game animal

Yes, but MOST any game animal that we hunt aren't hunted just for their hide/skull and that alone. The vast majority of grizzly hunting is 100% trophy hunt whether you like to use that term or not! Sure some people do hunt them and eat the meat.. but very very few!

[Wolfdown]

I noticed that as well. I responded a few times but he wouldn't engage in any real discussion. True definition of a bigot. He knows he does not have a viable argument and that he is simply wrong. I suspect he just hates hunters so much he would rather see things taken away from hunters and condones law being based solely on emotion while the ecosystem is worse off. Guessing someone like that would rather poison a herd of deer so hunters don't get them.

Some anti-hunters are simply uninformed and switch sides after a rational discussion about conservation. For others, it is like a religion and it is part of their identity. I believe for some the thought of considering viewpoints of actual hunters is a very scary thing, as it would threaten their identity and meaning and separate them from their community.

In the case of Wolfdown, we have tried to engage in coherent discussion, but said discussion is simply ignored while he repeats the same emotional line and refuses to elaborate. That is the signature of someone with an agenda who has realized they simply do not have a case and just wants to stir the pot.

On the positive side, he has done the hunting community a wonderful favor. Any neutral person reading any of this thread will see how limited the thought process of an anti-hunter is and will come away from it respecting hunters as conservationists.

You guys keep saying the same thing over and over.. this has nothing to do with conservation! The hunt isn't ending completely.. these animals will still be managed. How is that hard to understand?! I get your upset you can't keep the only reason you hunt these animals.. but cmon you can't keep bringing up the conservation part when in fact they still will be getting managed. On a side note.. I'd say some of the bonehead comments from some of you on here as done nothing but the opposite of what you're saying and giving fuel to the anti hunters. Forcing hunters to make an extra trip to take out the meat just to take it to the dump is one good example!

[hunter fisher]

i have a few "trophies" in my game room. some euro mounts, a couple shoulder mounts and a rug. and pictures, lots of pictures. when my friends or guests want to see, i take them downstairs and its fun for me too because i get to re-live the hunt a little bit. when they ask about a specific animal, my thoughts don't go to the "trophy" on the wall. And although i enjoy it, my thoughts don't jump to thinking about the meat and how my family enjoyed it. I think about the hunt, and my friends/family that were there with me to share the memory of the hunt. there are always obstacles to overcome on any hunt, and its hard work and perseverance as a team that gets the job done, and thats what bonds hunters and makes the whole experience so special

so the ndp can play their games and take away a rug and a skull, and yea i guess ill have some more miles to put on hiking out a few loads meat, but at the end of the day, give me some memories that ill be able to look back on and stories ill be able to tell, and you have not deterred my passion to hunt one bit. ill still apply every year for that grizzly hunt, might even have better odds with the new rules

an anti hunter will never understand that (for me at least) its not about the trophy, its not about the meat, its about the hunt

[rimfire]

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

So you would be ok with the "trophy" hunt as long as the meat is utilized? Why haven't you simply stated that position. Instead, you skirt the issue and virtual signal by agreeing with wasting the hide and skull.

[rimfire]

The issue with that change would be that it's far too easy for a hunter to then just say he's meat hunting when in fact he is purely trophy hunting. There is no easy change that can be made to avoid that.

So? What is the issue with that? Are we going to attack an elk hunter who chooses an 8 point over a 6? Or a deer hunter that chooses a 6 point over a 4? We are all trophy hunters, either by regulation or by choice. I haven't met too many deer hunters who throw the antlers out... Even if you are solely a "meat" hunter, you still are allowed to keep the antlers. If you choose to hunt grizzly, you should have to retain the meat but you should also be allowed to retain the hide and skull.

Regulations such as this which are not based on utilization or science are a political maneuver. I believe the fear in this community is successive governments could then decide that retaining other types of "trophies" such as antlers and hides could be banned as well. It sets a dangerous precedent.

Wolfdown, if you cannot see this, you are quite ignorant. In addition, your bigoted opinion does nothing for the debate here. You haven't given a well thought out or multi line response as to why it should be banned other than - keep meat, give up hides so no one trophy hunts - which is a naive position as pointed out by numerous other members.