Rebeka Breder trying to ban Wolf an Bear hunting

[umos]

Lot's of great critique here, and I agree with the sentiment that there were some stronger science-based counter arguments that weren't presented. But debating during an interview is tough. I am sure Jesse will be more prepared next time he is in this position, and he certainly did better than I would have.

But there was one point that went wholly unaddressed, that I think posed the greatest threat to societal views of hunting, and is why Rebecca left the interview smug. Her question regarding BCWF's awards for trophies, which obviously applies beyond BCWF. As Atriaticum and others have pointed out, we hunt for food, this is the biggest driver for most of us, and the public supports that. I liken this to growing a vegetable garden to feed your family, we just choose to harvest from wild systems., and most of us would stop (and maybe become gardeners) the second we felt that our hunting presented a threat to a population or its function within an ecosystem. It is harder to keep the focus on this, and hunters historic and current work and financing for conservation, when anti's can counter by pointing to our records and awards for largest x, y, z.

For most of the questions Jesse fielded, I think he handled them well or could see ways to bolster them with hindsight, but I don't have a good answer that would satisfy a non-hunter, non-anti for that last question.

[mod7rem]

I do understand what you are saying.

Animals are sentient beings.
So what?
Do you think cheetas really care that gazelles are sentient beings?
Maybe we should stop cheetas from eating gazelles. Catch them all and feed them all grass, so they learn the benefits of vegeterian diet.
Why do grizzlies eat elk calfs when they are sentient?
Do you think I am going to get into a debate with someone about this?

Do you think nature really cares that "eaters" don't care that "eatees" are sentient, caring, family oriented animals?
Are cheetas exploiting gazelles?
Are orcas exploiting salmon?

My point is this. We have invented so many bullshit terms like sport hunting, trophy hunting etc. I don't know who invented these terms but I don't like them.
And we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole by using these super duper stupid terms. I can't persuade most people that these terms are destroying our hunting heritage.

We hunt for food and food only.
If we don't hunt for food, we hunt to protect the food source.
We hunt because we are diy-ers in procurement of food.
Just like you try to change the oil on your truck as much as possible, we try to procure our own food as much as possible.

The only thing that can prevent me from hunting is a scientific consensus that it's not sustainable due to over hunting.

The days of the "English hunting model" are long over. The reason people don't hunt in many places in the world is because they have hunted everything to extinction pretty much.
But this is not the case in BC and we need to fight to preserve that. And be careful that we don't overharvest our wild game.

Nobody questions first nations why they hunt and all these anti-hunting groups who want everyone to stop hunting want to allow first nations to continue to hunt because for them it's "sustenance" hunt.
You don't see anti-hunting groups going on reserve and protesting first nations hunts.
For us it's also a sustenance hunt.

I agree with f350ps that Jesse's performance was not that good, it seems that he was busy with something else during the interview. His breething was not normal.
It is very difficult to get your point across in radio interviews. He wasn't prepared I think.
We don't hunt to enjoy the outdoors. That argument can be defeated by an 12 year old.
You can enjoy the outdoors without something getting killed.
There are many ways to enjoy the outdoors.
Enjoyment of the outdoors is a side effect and a reason we enjoy going hunting and fishing againg and again even if we don't bring anything home.
We hunt to eat organic, non spoiled, food as much as possible.
The way nature intended it.

I think just having this discussion on the radio is a defeat for hunters and fishermen.
That woman, however dumb and uneducated, won that just by having the discussion.
The words don't matter because most people don't understand them anyway.

In my opinion, this is not honest for most hunters. This is the spin that a 12 yr old could easily defeat.
I’ve said it in the past, defending hunting needs to be honest and unapologetic. As soon as we bracket hunting into a purely sustenance argument, it will make it that much easier to separate different hunting practices and defeat them one by one using our own argument against us. I don’t think people are stupid enough to believe and accept that all the things we do as hunters, are in the name of sustenance and I don’t ever use that argument to justify what I do. Think of all the time, effort and resources that most of us put into our hunting. For example, how would you justify traveling to different provinces and states to an anti hunter, as a need for sustenance.
The bulk of the people we need to justify this to, are people who eat meat but think that the life of a wild animal has a higher value than a domestic animal, and therefore should be left alone. They are uninformed/misinformed and find the idea of hunting unnecessary, distasteful and disturbing. I’ve heard this argument countless times in the past 20 years. We are never going to convince the extreme anti hunters of our right to hunt, so I think we better get those misinformed people in the middle on our side because they are a far bigger population.
Im not trying to offend anybody, but this is my opinion.

[mod7rem]

I just wanted to add that I’ve been hunting for a long time and in that time I’ve never had a conversation about hunting with a rabid anti hunter. I have had lots of conversations about hunting with those misinformed anti hunters in the middle. It doesn’t take much rational explanation and information about the hunting lifestyle to start changing their opinions.

[wideopenthrottle]

^^ This is the basis of the never ending debate. She/anti doesn't have to be rational or logical. They have won the debate just because they show up. The Mike Smythe's love this kind of thing . . . . . and we collectively 'bite every time'.
The dumbest fish in the pond is the one with all the hooks in its mouth. That's us.
Good post adriaticum!

perhaps reminding her how almost all the sentient beings that used to live in the forested land that was the most productive for wildlife are all dead so she can have her farmland...

this is how it needs to be framed …

it blows their mind when it is presented that hunters kill less wildlife (and in a sustainable way) than creating farmland did because everything down to soil bacteria has been eliminated in some cases...

[wideopenthrottle]

are soil bacteria sentient beings in her mind....heheheh

[bearvalley]

There’s a few key points that should be kept in mind;

- man has hunted for thousands of years.
- predators (competition or threat to life) have been thinned out by man for thousands of years.

Now let’s look at what’s going on, we’ve got an anti hunting enviro movement taking place that’s asking for the shutdown of predator hunting & trapping.
What will it do to the “Social License” of the anti hunting organization if they are successful in their closures of Apex predators and all species of wildlife are decimated due to their actions.
I would suggest that you study on what happens when so called “Predator Pits” are created through irresponsible or non existent wildlife management.
For wildlife management to exist all species must be included in the plan .....you cannot leave a handful out of the equation.
The anti group driving this campaign can’t be reasoned with.
The “motherships” are in it for the money and for the most part the followers are irrational.
The 80% of BC’s population that are neither pro of anti hunting are who we should be talking to and tell that if the support this anti movement their Social License towards the well being of wildlife will no longer exist.
We will gain more ground going that route than defending bear hunts because our families like double smoked bear hams.
We’ll just be told to go to the store and buy some pig.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Bear is a food species that just happens to be a predator.

YUP ! But so are Wolves - Coyotes - Cougars - Lynx- Bobcat - All of which are Legal to Harvest and do not require meat removal ! But i would only EAT the Cats myself - NO Dog meat for me ! RJ

[adriaticum]

In my opinion, this is not honest for most hunters. This is the spin that a 12 yr old could easily defeat.
I’ve said it in the past, defending hunting needs to be honest and unapologetic. As soon as we bracket hunting into a purely sustenance argument, it will make it that much easier to separate different hunting practices and defeat them one by one using our own argument against us. I don’t think people are stupid enough to believe and accept that all the things we do as hunters, are in the name of sustenance and I don’t ever use that argument to justify what I do. Think of all the time, effort and resources that most of us put into our hunting. For example, how would you justify traveling to different provinces and states to an anti hunter, as a need for sustenance.
The bulk of the people we need to justify this to, are people who eat meat but think that the life of a wild animal has a higher value than a domestic animal, and therefore should be left alone. They are uninformed/misinformed and find the idea of hunting unnecessary, distasteful and disturbing. I’ve heard this argument countless times in the past 20 years. We are never going to convince the extreme anti hunters of our right to hunt, so I think we better get those misinformed people in the middle on our side because they are a far bigger population.
Im not trying to offend anybody, but this is my opinion.

Being honest and appologetic is good, but it really doesn't matter.
You can't defeat agenda with honesty.
Most of the time you can't defeat agenda with reason and logic, but it is our best weapon.

I have to concede and say that I probably went too far by saying "food only".
I understand that there are other reasons like being outdoors, family, besting your best, one upping your next door neighbour, bringing meat to your cave woman etc.
Whatever it may be.
But food is and should be the primary driver.

Justifying why people travel to far away places to hunt is easy.
How do you justify some people paying top dollar for rare caviars, bluefin tuna sushi, kobe beef and other things most of us don't eat?
Why are these people legitimate in spending loads of money on some food that other people bring for them and guys who spend loads of money to go and get the food for themselves are not?
Why are people spending $78,000 on a bottle of whiskey?
Are they trophy drinking?

There is always an element of exotic, hard to get resources that some people can get to and most can't.
There is also always an element of "I have more money than you do" in everything in the world of humans, so in hunting as well.
Isn't that the human peacock's way of telling the peahens that they have brigther feathers?
Why should a guy be allowed to spend $10,000 on a steak that someone killed, butchered and prepared for him.
And a guy who goes and gets his own dinner can't?

Hunting for many people is profitable and cheaper than going to a store to buy meat. Not to mention healthier.
Except for us urban rats, most guys in the boonies can get a deer, bear or moose practically any time they drive an hour outside of town.

We need to shed the British colonial hunting heritage where only aristocrats were allowed to hunt.
Peasants were shot on the spot if they were caught hunting.
I suspect this is where "Trophy hunting" comes from.

Today you can't procure your own food because majority don't have the skill and forgot what that's about.
Tomorrow cooking will also be illegal because some obscure group won't have the skill.
For me personally, since I work with computers and machines all the time, hunting also keeps me human.

[madcalfe]

Lot's of great critique here, and I agree with the sentiment that there were some stronger science-based counter arguments that weren't presented. But debating during an interview is tough. I am sure Jesse will be more prepared next time he is in this position, and he certainly did better than I would have.

But there was one point that went wholly unaddressed, that I think posed the greatest threat to societal views of hunting, and is why Rebecca left the interview smug. Her question regarding BCWF's awards for trophies, which obviously applies beyond BCWF. As Atriaticum and others have pointed out, we hunt for food, this is the biggest driver for most of us, and the public supports that. I liken this to growing a vegetable garden to feed your family, we just choose to harvest from wild systems., and most of us would stop (and maybe become gardeners) the second we felt that our hunting presented a threat to a population or its function within an ecosystem. It is harder to keep the focus on this, and hunters historic and current work and financing for conservation, when anti's can counter by pointing to our records and awards for largest x, y, z.

For most of the questions Jesse fielded, I think he handled them well or could see ways to bolster them with hindsight, but I don't have a good answer that would satisfy a non-hunter, non-anti for that last question.

i dunno don't they do awards for nicest/ biggest vegetables grown to? how dare those vegans put those poor harmless veggies up for display like that.

[mod7rem]

Being honest and appologetic is good, but it really doesn't matter.
You can't defeat agenda with honesty.
Most of the time you can't defeat agenda with reason and logic, but it is our best weapon.

I have to concede and say that I probably went too far by saying "food only".
I understand that there are other reasons like being outdoors, family, besting your best, one upping your next door neighbour, bringing meat to your cave woman etc.
Whatever it may be.
But food is and should be the primary driver.

Justifying why people travel to far away places to hunt is easy.
How do you justify some people paying top dollar for rare caviars, bluefin tuna sushi, kobe beef and other things most of us don't eat?
Why are these people legitimate in spending loads of money on some food that other people bring for them and guys who spend loads of money to go and get the food for themselves are not?
Why are people spending $78,000 on a bottle of whiskey?
Are they trophy drinking?

There is always an element of exotic, hard to get resources that some people can get to and most can't.
There is also always an element of "I have more money than you do" in everything in the world of humans, so in hunting as well.
Isn't that the human peacock's way of telling the peahens that they have brigther feathers?
Why should a guy be allowed to spend $10,000 on a steak that someone killed, butchered and prepared for him.
And a guy who goes and gets his own dinner can't?

Hunting for many people is profitable and cheaper than going to a store to buy meat. Not to mention healthier.
Except for us urban rats, most guys in the boonies can get a deer, bear or moose practically any time they drive an hour outside of town.

We need to shed the British colonial hunting heritage where only aristocrats were allowed to hunt.
Peasants were shot on the spot if they were caught hunting.
I suspect this is where "Trophy hunting" comes from.

Today you can't procure your own food because majority don't have the skill and forgot what that's about.
Tomorrow cooking will also be illegal because some obscure group won't have the skill.
For me personally, since I work with computers and machines all the time, hunting also keeps me human.

Just to clarify, I said “honest and unapologetic”.

And I agree with most of what you say.

I think if we lean hard on a sustenance argument, it will further divide hunters and weaken our right to hunt. I say “right to hunt” because you’ll never convince an anti-hunting group that there is a need to hunt in this country.
I also don’t agree that “food is and should be the primary driver” to hunt. Why should that statement be accepted as a moral goal post when in reality it’s not true for a large portion of hunters. Don’t get me wrong I’ve been eating wild meat for a long time, but food supply has never been the primary driver or a lot of the hunters that I’ve known. I know a lot of long time hunters that give away a lot of their wild meat because it’s not an approved food source in their families. That’s reality. In my experience, the primary driver for most hunters is the experience of hunting itself, and what makes up that experience is different for everybody. Some people love hunting trips with friends/family and really aren’t concerned whether it produces meat or not. Why are we stuck on this false moral that hunting is only acceptable in order to feed ourselves? Why not make it mandatory to use the hides for clothing or fur rugs for a bed?
I still look at wildlife as a resource. I know guys that like to get lynx and beaver so they can have good quality winter mittens made. Their primary driver for targeting those animals doesn’t match “food is and should be the primary driver” but maybe their primary driver is just as valid. The statement doesn’t fit for all.