Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat

[brownmancheng]

Is there not a way to hold MS. Harper to account for her comments regarding Mr. Ecklunds appendages? With all of todays sexual harassment commentary I find this type of comment unacceptable. If a man was to make a public statement towards a Woman he would likely be chastised

[scttcanuck]

Good evening,

As per the Globe and Mail’s marketing campaign to “Support Quality Journalism,” the publishing of yesterday’s Chris Darimont’s “Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat” leaves me with several questions as to what is appropriate commentary within an opinion piece. Within an opinion piece published in the G&M, is the author allowed to make false statements or express their personal superiority? Many of Darimont’s comments were just that.

Darimont employs the claim that Wildlife Managers often use “questionable science” in their population-level estimates to abdicate for his stance on social Wildlife Management. Never does he defend that comment with facts within the commentary.

When Darimont claims people understand evolutionarily and culturally that meat of large carnivores should be avoided, he ignores the fact that many aboriginal groups worldwide eat meat from carnivores (seals, canines etc). I myself have eaten cougar meat many times. Does Darimont assume that he is more evolved and culturally superior to me and many aboriginal people throughout the world?

Mr. Darimont’s position is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the self-declared superiority of his personal ethics and impose them on society at large. Science should dictate wildlife population management. Sharing the emotionally charged and unsupported rhetoric of an anti-hunter pushing the ideology of the Raincoast Organization Is not quality journalism.

Please consider this on subsequent publications,

[boxhitch]

Unacceptable / No kidding
He is attacking a lifestyle because it doesn't follow his beliefs. Being a hunter is a whole lot more than just meat-on-the-table.
Many so-called hunters don't even get the whole picture and they are quick to sell out one faction or another.
Taking trophies is as much of hunting as sitting around a campfire with friends and family planning the next days chase.
Too many urbanites think hunting is just about jumping in the rice burner and going out for fresh food, and express the need for instant success.
If hunters can't stick together on all issues then we're just lemmings heading for the cliff.
And when someone makes the conscious effort to attack a lifestyle , they should be called out as the bigot and dogmatist that they are.

[scoutlt1]

Unacceptable / No kidding
He is attacking a lifestyle because it doesn't follow his beliefs. Being a hunter is a whole lot more than just meat-on-the-table.
Many so-called hunters don't even get the whole picture and they are quick to sell out one faction or another.
Taking trophies is as much of hunting as sitting around a campfire with friends and family planning the next days chase.
Too many urbanites think hunting is just about jumping in the rice burner and going out for fresh food, and express the need for instant success.
If hunters can't stick together on all issues then we're just lemmings heading for the cliff.
And when someone makes the conscious effort to attack a lifestyle , they should be called out as the bigot and dogmatist that they are.

Amen. The likes of Darimont need to be exposed, and castigated, for the despicable pieces of sh*t that they truly are.

[dana]

Boxhitch, it is nice to see you on the same page as me. The question remains though, there are many of those biggots right here on this site that have been dominating for years. Are you ready to call them out. Dividing hunters, has been the game. Elitists looking down their noses at Joe Sixpack, knuckledragger. Do you see where I am going with this? I know you know of whom I speak.

[Frosty]

Good evening,

As per the Globe and Mail’s marketing campaign to “Support Quality Journalism,” the publishing of yesterday’s Chris Darimont’s “Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat” leaves me with several questions as to what is appropriate commentary within an opinion piece. Within an opinion piece published in the G&M, is the author allowed to make false statements or express their personal superiority? Many of Darimont’s comments were just that.

Darimont employs the claim that Wildlife Managers often use “questionable science” in their population-level estimates to abdicate for his stance on social Wildlife Management. Never does he defend that comment with facts within the commentary.

When Darimont claims people understand evolutionarily and culturally that meat of large carnivores should be avoided, he ignores the fact that many aboriginal groups worldwide eat meat from carnivores (seals, canines etc). I myself have eaten cougar meat many times. Does Darimont assume that he is more evolved and culturally superior to me and many aboriginal people throughout the world?

Mr. Darimont’s position is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate the self-declared superiority of his personal ethics and impose them on society at large. Science should dictate wildlife population management. Sharing the emotionally charged and unsupported rhetoric of an anti-hunter pushing the ideology of the Raincoast Organization Is not quality journalism.

Please consider this on subsequent publications,

I like it! Very well written. Reach out and write more! Thanks