Grizzly Bear Foundation

[BigfishCanada]

http://www.grizzlybearfoundation.com/about.html

Tell me about this group? Who are they, are they hunter science friendly? A town hall meeting this Tuesday downtown Van, will BCWF be in attendance?

[Ozone]

More people that want you to give them money because g bears are cute and fuzzy.

[Ohwildwon]

Its called "Emotional based Science"... :roll:

[Whonnock Boy]

Yes, the BCWF has engaged. As some have said, it may not have been a good idea to do so as it gives them credibility, but on the other hand, when someone extends an olive branch so early in the game, we might be silly not to accept it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[srupp]

Tourism operators and those seeking a living from granola munching taxpayers..Redick lousy

Steven

[BigfishCanada]

I think having Conservation/Hunting/Science people involved will help educated

[scoutlt1]

I would suggest they are far from "hunter friendly"....

http://www.cftktv.com/News/story.aspx?ID=2200511

http://fnbc.info/tags/chief-doug-neasloss
http://www.coastalguardianwatchmen.ca/member/douglas-neasloss
https://www.facebook.com/douglas.neasloss

https://www.facebook.com/GrizzlyBearFdn/?fref=ts

[scoutlt1]

A note on one of those involved in this foundation.....

Kiff Archer is founder of the Central Coast Grizzly Patrol and BC-Coastal Bear & Wolf Patrol, an organization of volunteers working to protect bears and wolves in the Great Bear Rainforest from both local and fly-in hunters.

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/2012/09/16/opinion/gorilla-radio-with-chris-cook-dana-siegelman-kiff-archer-janine-bandcroft-sept-17-2012.html

[srupp]

Hmmm they make it sound as if they have been a pointed. ..by who..? The results are in...hunting hurts grizzlies..the grizzlies are threatened..and $$$$$ is available due to viewing oportunities...

Complete rubs
Steven

[adriaticum]

It's another scheme for the chairman to avoid paying taxes.

[BigfishCanada]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14468330_294398257607108_1077874875786016152_o.jpg

Appears to be a Suzuki lying political group acting as something official

[adriaticum]

Organization aimed at ending grizzly bear hunting

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/new-foundation-aims-to-protect-b-c-s-grizzly-bears


(http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/new-foundation-aims-to-protect-b-c-s-grizzly-bears)https://www.facebook.com/GrizzlyBearFdn

[boxhitch]

Hope you get some mileage
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?131129-G-Bear-consultation&highlight=foundation

[Bugle M In]

should just show up there with pots and pans, and clank during the speeches until the party is over!

[Surrey Boy]

Tourism operators and those seeking a living from granola munching taxpayers..Redick lousy

Steven


Its called "Emotional based Science"... :roll:

Should be obvious.

[Jagermeister]

Grizzly Bear Foundation can be served up in these three words. "Money for nothing" Start some sort of "foundation" that you can sucker dimwits into contributing to and you can give up your day job and pursue your pleasures of life at someone else's expense.

[Ohwildwon]

Grizzly Bear Foundation can be served up in these three words. "Money for nothing" Start some sort of "foundation" that you can sucker dimwits into contributing to and you can give up your day job and pursue your pleasures of life at someone else's expense.


Love to go to that meeting and say this and include another foundation or two,
I believe one of them starts with an r...

Unfortunately Ill Be Around Kami in the middle of a 6 day hunt lookin for whitetail does...:D

[J_T]

This audit on the management of grizzlies in BC is flawed from the get go when they list trophy hunting as a threat to bear populations. The important point being (and we can refer to the North American Model of Conservation) if bears are removed from hunting they then become a liability instead of the asset they are now.

The argument for, a grizzly trophy hunt, is a difficult one to defend in social settings. It is important to study that population and manage our grizzly populations and I do see hunting as a relatively controlled process/means to do that.

Concern: What confuses me, is that we seem to be doing studies now where there are participants with the objective of closing down the hunt. When habitat loss, overpopulation, fragmentation, human encroachment and transportation are bigger mortality factors, I’m confused why the discussion always focuses on the social factor of hunting. When I see Clayton Lamb, Proctor and Bergenske squirreling away in a corner, I wonder if simple money is the driver. Scientists want to study animals, but they need money to do so, so if someone gives them a mission, they’ll take their findings and write whatever the guy with the cheque wants.

Findings: At Present, most of the money that is necessary for a lot of the study work comes from hunting organizations. Safari Club actually donated $50,000 towards the Elk Valley study and the Sparwood Fish and Wildlife Assoc. is presently purchasing radio collars for the next phase of the Elk Valley study to the tune of about $30,000

The “Foundation” and town hall meetings are being held on the basis of awareness and clarifying how much people care and want the grizzly bear. Let’s be clear, most everyone who attends (hunters and non hunters alike) wants healthy grizzly populations. These town hall meetings might talk about climate change, or habitat loss, but at the end of the day, their focus seems to be hunting.

Neither scientific research group is dictating what they want to hear from the research other than the facts. It's ironic that its the hunters that pay the freight but we're the first one's to be affected by a drop in grizzly numbers or management adjustments via hunting opportunity.

Clayton makes it very clear in his report that it is hunters that are paying for the research.

Bergenske states that hunting is not a conservation concern and Wildsight is concentrating their efforts on minimizing non-hunting mortality and habitat protection by all the means listed above and then some. Isn't that what we want? More studies, focused on non hunting impacts.

I think for most of us, this is where we get angered. We feel targeted, as the scapegoat solution. Stop hunting, and we’ll have more grizzly bears. If we talk about actual numbers and not percentages, the number of grizzlies harvest through hunting is not that high.

Grizzlies expand their range for a few reasons, one is in search of habitat, another is because their own population is increasing and the larger bears are threatening the younger bears. Why, when a couple of grizzlies show up in Alert Bay on Cormorant Island do we capture them and put them back where they came from, when we don’t know why they left? Should we not find out? Are we sending them back to their demise if we return them?

Why do we see the solution as, closing the hunt, when the solution might be, better community planning, or reducing the commercial picking of huckleberries, or reducing speeds on our rails and highways? I would surmise right now, in some areas, the biggest negative influence on grizzly bears is mtn biking. There are so many trails out there, being built and being ridden, it has to upset the solitude the bear desires. So they move.

Bergenske is engaged in the study because he wants large landscape conservation to support healthy bear populations, and bears get the attention he needs.

I don’t hunt grizzlies, but I know that we moved our hunt location 5 years ago, because we went from virtually no bears to 11 grizzlies in the one area. Now, in the area were we are hunting, we’ve gone from 3 or 4 bears to about 9. In some pockets, we see an increase in bear populations. In fact, we’re seeing grizzlies now during our late season (December) whitetail hunt. I’m in full support of people enjoying the back country. Yet, I’m confused with the obvious solution to avoiding human bear conflict is going to be, stay home and lock our doors.

[souwester]

Good post J_T.
Our Government throws a million dollars at developing a moose recovery strategy ,,,,
A private corporation throws 500,000 [ probably more,and tax deductible I'm sure] at creating a plan to influence provincial grizzly management.....

Pretty interesting.

Sometimes it appears the province is headed in the direction that in the future there will have to be predator hunters on the gov payroll again.
It would be interesting to see the publics reaction when the management plan is just quietly kill ANY bear ..Sow,cub, boar don't matter.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

J-T this is the information that should be said at these meetings. It is open for comments from the public.

Hunters need to attend these meetings and say how the the population is booming and scientific based management through hunting is the answer. Without the sportsmen the tax payers will be paying for the management themselves.

[2chodi]

J-T this is the information that should be said at these meetings. It is open for comments from the public.

Hunters need to attend these meetings and say how the the population is booming and scientific based management through hunting is the answer. Without the sportsmen the tax payers will be paying for the management themselves.

The inquiry board has heard this message at all the meetings to date. That is about all they heard in Fort Nelson — it will be interesting to hear what happens at the upcoming meetings in the larger centres. I know that the BCWF will be well represented, but I suspect there will be many more voices in the crowd.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

2chodi I hope they have heard it everywhere. This is one fight the BCWF and the GOABC need to stand together on and fight hard. I wish I could make the Vancouver date that should be a good one.

[eric]

Never seen so many G Bears up in and around Tumbler this yr.
Had them in my front yrd this yr, and Blacks in my back yrd.
Probably seen close to a dozen different ones where I work,and my coworkers have seen more then that.
Me thinks the population his very healthy and doing just fine.

I would like to see the Government give out more LEH for this area.

[2chodi]

Experts find ‘high level of rigour’ in grizzly management
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016FLNR0263-002022

[VLD43]

Experts find ‘high level of rigour’ in grizzly management


https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016FLNR0263-002022

After reading the attached link, and in light of the fact that the inquiry is hearing from hunters, I wonder if there is any way to shift the focus of the conversation to a habitat loss issue, as the most important issue here. If this could be done effectively, it would benefit a lot more wildlife than just Grizzlies

[Pemby_mess]

After reading the attached link, and in light of the fact that the inquiry is hearing from hunters, I wonder if there is any way to shift the focus of the conversation to a habitat loss issue, as the most important issue here. If this could be done effectively, it would benefit a lot more wildlife than just Grizzlies

That's the best idea. Avoid contentious assertions and getting baited into arguments about things that the antis have already decided are not worthy of the incorporation of scientific data.

What you say above is common ground for all stakeholders and therefore should be the focus of any contact or collaberation. Action points can be devised and potentially their funding becomes indirect hunter funding.

[GoatGuy]

Concern: What confuses me, is that we seem to be doing studies now where there are participants with the objective of closing down the hunt. When habitat loss, overpopulation, fragmentation, human encroachment and transportation are bigger mortality factors, I’m confused why the discussion always focuses on the social factor of hunting. When I see Clayton Lamb, Proctor and Bergenske squirreling away in a corner, I wonder if simple money is the driver. Scientists want to study animals, but they need money to do so, so if someone gives them a mission, they’ll take their findings and write whatever the guy with the cheque wants.

When I was told you said something to this effect I didn't believe it and defended you.

I was wrong.

[Ourea]

http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by J_T http://huntingbc.ca/forum/images/shades_of_green/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1830507#post1830507) Concern: What confuses me, is that we seem to be doing studies now where there are participants with the objective of closing down the hunt. When habitat loss, overpopulation, fragmentation, human encroachment and transportation are bigger mortality factors, I’m confused why the discussion always focuses on the social factor of hunting. When I see Clayton Lamb, Proctor and Bergenske squirreling away in a corner, I wonder if simple money is the driver. Scientists want to study animals, but they need money to do so, so if someone gives them a mission, they’ll take their findings and write whatever the guy with the cheque wants.

J_T
I speak with Clayton at length weekly.
With all due respect I find your comments on Clayton to be assumptive and off base.
I say this not simply to defend him, I say this because your above comment is wrong.

[J_T]

I guess misunderstanding is what we expect when we read a partial statement on the internet.

I was clear, that Clayton reported that Hunters are the ones that pay the price. Seems to me, he had the right perspective. My point was simple, if someone hires you to write a report, they are the ones that dictate the objective. It seems reasonable to ask the question, who's paying and what's the objective? The point is, hunters are paying, and support for the continuation of the hunt should be the objective. Again, I pointed out Clayton's statement that (while hunters are paying) hunters are paying the price.

What seems wrong is a grizzly foundation using hunter driven studies, to further their own cause of ending the trophy hunt.

Apologies for any confusion.

[bearvalley]

The biggest weakness's we hunters have is our continual disagreement and each other's personal agendas.
When it comes to the never ending studies done by so called wildlife experts it seems in too many cases that the career of one individual is to study and prove something to be true.....only to be replaced by another who's career goal is to study and prove that their predecessor was wrong.
Net result.....resources wasted and nothing accomplished.
Theres not much point in the team pulling for the same goal to undermine each other in this case.

[BigfishCanada]

Was anyone at the meeting?

[Ourea]

Was anyone at the meeting?

Only 63 people bothered to show up in Vancouver.......as compared to several hundred in meetings that were held outside the lower mainland.

[tuner]

Only 63 people bothered to show up in Vancouver.......as compared to several hundred in meetings that were held outside the lower mainland.
This is very interesting, quite surprising actually, i would of thought that every triggered,whimpering, anti hunting SJW from the LML would have been present,in the full despondent hysteria.

[GoatGuy]

I guess misunderstanding is what we expect when we read a partial statement on the internet.

I was clear, that Clayton reported that Hunters are the ones that pay the price. Seems to me, he had the right perspective. My point was simple, if someone hires you to write a report, they are the ones that dictate the objective. It seems reasonable to ask the question, who's paying and what's the objective? The point is, hunters are paying, and support for the continuation of the hunt should be the objective. Again, I pointed out Clayton's statement that (while hunters are paying) hunters are paying the price.

What seems wrong is a grizzly foundation using hunter driven studies, to further their own cause of ending the trophy hunt.

Apologies for any confusion.

no confusion in this message at all- loud and clear
When I see Clayton Lamb, Proctor and Bergenske squirreling away in a corner, I wonder if simple money is the driver. Scientists want to study animals, but they need money to do so, so if someone gives them a mission, they’ll take their findings and write whatever the guy with the cheque wants

[Surrey Boy]

At the Victoria meeting, sizing up the crowd.

[Surrey Boy]

Tons of hate, anti hunters, Indian reps, and wildlife tourism. One supposed hunter by the name of Jamie Scott denounced trophy grizzly hunting and threw us under the bus. Hounds, guides, and taxidermists received the most opposition.

[Seth]

Tons of hate, anti hunters, Indian reps, and wildlife tourism. One supposed hunter by the name of Jamie Scott denounced trophy grizzly hunting and threw us under the bus. Hounds, guides, and taxidermists received the most opposition.

What do you mean by "threw us under the bus"? How so?

[Surrey Boy]

A fellow named Stu Rhodes is doing very well. I salute him.

[Surrey Boy]

What do you mean by "threw us under the bus"? How so?

Said he got a draw but became educated about Grizzlies and decided not to cut his tag and said that most hunters actually oppose grizzly hunting.

[bassplayer]

Said he got a draw but became educated about Grizzlies and decided not to cut his tag and said that most hunters actually oppose grizzly hunting.
I like how they always say that most hunters or British Columbians oppose the grizzly hunt but nobody has phoned me or knocked on my door to ask me yet and i wont hold my breath lol. And if most of the hunters truly were against the grizzly hunt then there wouldn't be a grizzly hunt at all due to the lack of grizzly LEH entries being submitted lol.

[BigfishCanada]

I dont hunt Grizz, never been to africa , but I have read why science with Hunters do more for conservation than any hunting ban, anti hunter group ever has and ever will. Why would he stand up and say something like this, the back end agenda is do ban all hunting and even fishing

[325]

I think the chances of Jamie Scott actually being a hunter are pretty slim....

[bassplayer]

I think the chances of Jamie Scott actually being a hunter are pretty slim....
My friend Dean found this link for me. Jamie Scott is 7th one down.

https://justiceforbcgrizzlies.com/about/grizzly-ambassadors/

[Surrey Boy]

A fellow named Stu Rhodes is doing very well. I salute him.

He pointed out some great facts.

The group is comprised of tour operators, biology researchers, developers, Indians, and NDP members, all of whom have a vested interest against hunters, yet claim impartiality and morality. They're all advocating for government subsidies in some form.

It kept being said that bear viewing and bear hunting are incompatible, yet the photo tour operators lamented that guide outfitters hold viewing expeditions in summer but hunting expeditions in spring and fall.

[jimbag]

I actually said trophy hunting grizzly bears is what most hunters disagree with.. but I guess if your only there half listening I see how that could be misconstrued, I do hunt and as much as I dont sit here as an arm chair critic I did manage to stand up (did you? Or did you just sit in the back not standing up for hunting?) I Still believe "trophy hunting is a black eye on the hunting community". Further more the Grizzly bear foundation Wil not be using me as Trojan horse to eliminate hunting any animal and they are well aware of my prostance on ethical hunting! That bio on their website was not written by me or have any of my own wording in it. So if you want to stand up for hunting maybe next time actually stand up and not hide behind your screen calling people out who are actually trying to save hunting

[BigfishCanada]

Well Jim Bag, what they describe as "trophy" I call a spike buck down "trophy hunt" , I also believe that hunting Grizzlies helps conserve the great animal. If they really cared about the population they would work with Hunting groups, its a hidden political agenda and if the general liberal understood what hunters stood for and did these groups wouldn't have not near their support. We have to be careful how we word things because they lie for their own cause whenever they want. Next will be sheep, and big game.

PS. Saying "Most" hunters disagree with is a huge statement

[jimbag]

I completely agree with you and my whole argument was based on how their little agenda does not Match my views on hunting but if we keep down this path hunters might end up on the wrong side due to public image and the misconception of true ethical hunters, I honestly can say that no animal is any more or less special than any other species unless it's deemed endangered obviously.. The question was asked how do your friends feel about trophy hunting I responded 90% of them disagree just to be clear. I also stated that I was not being the voice for hunting of course and that it was just my opinion that if there could be a neutral ground between the two opposing sides alot more could be accomplished. Just an opinion. I just wanted to come on here and defend my self from being "thrown under the bus"

[wideopenthrottle]

awe...do we have to put down the pitchforks and put out the torches now then?....

[jimbag]

Lol Just wanted to say my actual part on the matter for what it's worth.

[325]

I completely agree with you and my whole argument was based on how their little agenda does not Match my views on hunting but if we keep down this path hunters might end up on the wrong side due to public image and the misconception of true ethical hunters, I honestly can say that no animal is any more or less special than any other species unless it's deemed endangered obviously.. The question was asked how do your friends feel about trophy hunting I responded 90% of them disagree just to be clear. I also stated that I was not being the voice for hunting of course and that it was just my opinion that if there could be a neutral ground between the two opposing sides alot more could be accomplished. Just an opinion. I just wanted to come on here and defend my self from being "thrown under the bus"

You threw yourself under the bus. Either you haven't taken the time to understand current grizzly bear management in the province, or you are just very naïve. Stating in front of a largely anti-grizzly hunting crowd that as a hunter you saw the light and are now against grizzly hunting can only be taken one way buy those of us who think a regulated grizzly hunt is not only ethical, but desirable for a bunch of reasons.

Ever plan on a sheep hunt? Sheep hunters eat the meat, but nobody drives 2000km, takes two weeks off work, spends thousands of dollars on gear for 60 pounds of meat. Nobody. We do it to experience true wilderness, hunt a fascinating animal, and hopefully, put a set of horns on our wall. Given that, you might as well make a public statement against sheep hunting too.

[jimbag]

If it were just the same as back bear it would not be deemed so bad in some outside opinion at least take the meat, even dogs need to eat! But Atleast it wouldn't be so brutal in the public eye and we as hunters might be able to sway the wrong oppinion they Impose on us.

[adriaticum]

I actually said trophy hunting grizzly bears is what most hunters disagree with.. but I guess if your only there half listening I see how that could be misconstrued, I do hunt and as much as I dont sit here as an arm chair critic I did manage to stand up (did you? Or did you just sit in the back not standing up for hunting?) I Still believe "trophy hunting is a black eye on the hunting community". Further more the Grizzly bear foundation Wil not be using me as Trojan horse to eliminate hunting any animal and they are well aware of my prostance on ethical hunting! That bio on their website was not written by me or have any of my own wording in it. So if you want to stand up for hunting maybe next time actually stand up and not hide behind your screen calling people out who are actually trying to save hunting

So you think grizzlies are hunted for trophy eh.
Really

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10396281_10152634649572303_1811432465310589618_n.j pg?oh=694835b5851012931435f19ec00457f4&oe=58A5D972

[Stone Sheep Steve]

I completely agree with you and my whole argument was based on how their little agenda does not Match my views on hunting but if we keep down this path hunters might end up on the wrong side due to public image and the misconception of true ethical hunters, I honestly can say that no animal is any more or less special than any other species unless it's deemed endangered obviously.. The question was asked how do your friends feel about trophy hunting I responded 90% of them disagree just to be clear. I also stated that I was not being the voice for hunting of course and that it was just my opinion that if there could be a neutral ground between the two opposing sides alot more could be accomplished. Just an opinion. I just wanted to come on here and defend my self from being "thrown under the bus"

There was a poll conducted here on HBC on Grizzly bear hunting (non-scientific of course)...and over 95% of hunters supported the hunt.
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?105984-Grizzly-Hunt-hunter-s-poll&highlight=support+grizzly+bear+hunt

I would suggest you and your hunter friends are special group of people.

SSS

[bearvalley]

Further more the Grizzly bear foundation Wil not be using me as Trojan horse to eliminate hunting any animal and they are well aware of my prostance on ethical hunting! That bio on their website was not written by me or have any of my own wording in it.
Are you saying the Grizzly Bear Foundation circulated your bio without your acknowledgement of the message you would be putting forth?

[jimbag]

Jesus Christ... Lol I was discussing the ones that are by non resident hunters... It makes hunters look really bad and other interest groups are using it to their advantage.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Jesus Christ... Lol I was discussing the ones that are by non resident hunters... It makes hunters look really bad and other interest groups are using it to their advantage.

You are exactly the type of hunter that the anti-hunters love. Someone who is willing to throw other hunters under the bus. This is one issue that resident hunters and GO's must stick together.
And...no one is LOL'ing except for you on this matter.

SSS

[bearvalley]

Jesus Christ... Lol I was discussing the ones that are by non resident hunters... It makes hunters look really bad and other interest groups are using it to their advantage.
Is there a difference in how a harvested grizzly bear is dealt with by a resident or non resident hunter?
My suggestion to you is if you really are a hunter....sit back and think about how your hunting opportunities are going to crash if some of the groups you seem to have aligned yourself with succeed. If the GBF, WDL and other likeminded groups manage to get their way, all wildlife in BC will be in jeaprody due to the over abundant, protected and habituated predator population that will be created.
Think about it.

[jimbag]

Okay well have your oppinion and go to these meetings and fight for it. All in all I Beleive I Grizzly bear hunting. I have stood up for it and have made my points to any group that would and will say otherwise.

[bearvalley]

Okay well have your oppinion and go to these meetings and fight for it. All in all I Beleive I Grizzly bear hunting. I have stood up for it and have made my points to any group that would and will say otherwise.
I've been to a few wildlife related meetings dealing with this issue and others.
Never really saw where throwing a specific hunt or my fellow hunters under the bus was going to gain much traction as far as improving overall future hunting opportunities.
By the way, NO organization would be publishing my bio without my consent and my full endorsement of their goal.

[325]

Okay well have your oppinion and go to these meetings and fight for it. All in all I Beleive I Grizzly bear hunting. I have stood up for it and have made my points to any group that would and will say otherwise.

I didn't see in your published quote anything about you "believing" in grizzly bear hunting, or that you support resident grizzly bear hunting. Only that you destroyed your tag once you realized grizzly bears shouldn't be hunted. Am I misreading that?

You also say you are against "trophy" hunting. So...lets say you see and shoot a 200" mule deer. Will you display the antlers in your house somewhere where you can admire them? Or will you throw them away once you've butchered your deer and no longer need them for legal reasons?

[Rob Chipman]

Jimbag:

Trophy hunting is a trigger word that means different things to different people. Some well informed hunters will take the position that trophy hunting doesn't exist, for example, and that position is much more reasonable and logical than the run of the mill statement that "trophy hunting occurs just because some guy wants to stick a head on a wall".

In other words, trophy hunting is a minefield, and unless you really understand it you're running a huge risk condemning it, especially among hunters who are informed as opposed to low information non-hunters.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? You go to a meeting because you want to preserve grizzlies. Good intention. You tell low information individuals and individuals with a very different agenda that most hunters oppose a trophy hunt? You don't do grizzlies or hunters any good.

Ya gotta be careful.

[jimbag]

Thank you rob I am understanding that and I apologize to the people I offended.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Jimbag-How do you feel about wolf hunting?? There is no requirement to pack out wolf meat. I know no one who eats wolf meat but most of the people that I know eat grizzly bear meat.

What about cougar hunting? We are not obligated to pack out cougar meat but I know ZERO cat hunters that leave it behind.

[Surrey Boy]

I spoke in favour of Grizzly hunting, as did two other hunters. I believe you and your girlfriend had left by that time.

When Michael Audain asked why you applied for the LEH, you answered "Peer Pressure". It cast your hunting partners in a very negative light.

[jimbag]

I showed up alone and left alone. But I do wish I saw your speech I just had to leave. There was alot of misinformed people there me included I just simply dont stand for the trophy hunting for head and hide if it were a deer or moose I'd be the same just take the meat. I don't Beleive the number 1 killer of bears are hunters and also hunters are not destroying the habitat and that bear viewing is just as harmful for them. Too many people with too many agendas happening at the meetings I figured mine was pretty simple I was not speaking on behalf of any Grizzly procurement project.. Just my opinion and yes when applying for the tag it was affected by pressure but I said that it wasn't because of the lottery system we use that made it more desirable. Also Ive never heard of hunting bears with dogs like was said at the meeting. Any how again I wish I was there for your and others speech I am most certainly not anti hunting.

[adriaticum]

I showed up alone and left alone. But I do wish I saw your speech I just had to leave. There was alot of misinformed people there me included I just simply dont stand for the trophy hunting for head and hide if it were a deer or moose I'd be the same just take the meat. I don't Beleive the number 1 killer of bears are hunters and also hunters are not destroying the habitat and that bear viewing is just as harmful for them. Too many people with too many agendas happening at the meetings I figured mine was pretty simple I was not speaking on behalf of any Grizzly procurement project.. Just my opinion and yes when applying for the tag it was affected by pressure but I said that it wasn't because of the lottery system we use that made it more desirable. Also Ive never heard of hunting bears with dogs like was said at the meeting. Any how again I wish I was there for your and others speech I am most certainly not anti hunting.


Do us all a favour and next time you speak on behalf of someone, get their consent first.

[Rob Chipman]

Jimbag:

As you can see, you touched nerve! :-)

It occurs to me that there are a few very effective questions to ask that can guide just about anyone through the trophy hunting discussion:

1) Do you have a definition of trophy hunting that you can express in a few sentences?
2) Once you've defined trophy hunting, can you tell me what is wrong with the activity?
3) Are you willing to hear conflicting interpretations of the facts you're presenting, and is it possible that those counter interpretations could change your opinion of trophy hunting?

I think those three questions could be column headings if you were organizing complaints against your comments (sheep hunters don't travel 2000 miles for the meat, would you show off your 4 pt muley, do you think people should be required to retrieve edible portions of a wolf, etc).

There's a ton of guys on this forum who, if presented with those three questions, could use it as a jumping off point to really educate people (because they've thought the issue through for years and had to face the same low information hypocritical opposition time and time again). Try getting yourself to that same point.

Quick example of the flawed thinking we often run into: trophy hunting bad, but if you take the meat, good. Even if you feed it to dogs. But if you leave it in the bush it's a waste. Because other animals, all the way down to bugs, don't use those nutrients. Except when its a salmon and a grizzly kills it, eats the best parts, and leaves the rest to feed scavengers, the river and the woods. Yeah, that's the ticket. I hate trophy hunters because they're psychopaths with small penises who can't afford Corvettes, but if they eat the meat then it's all good.

That's the kind of stupid bs logic that drives guys who have thought trophy hunting through nuts. The requirement to remove grizzly meat is not a logical one - it's only logically supportable as a way to outflank anti-hunters.

[souwester]

The fact that a wealthy individual feels he can effect or change provincial policies to suit his personal beliefs is what people should be arguing if you ask me .I f Mr Audain truly cared about grizzly conservation and not preservation the money used to start his foundation could of done a heck of alot of good
Donated to programs in place.
Shame on you Mr Audain.

[BigfishCanada]

The fact that a wealthy individual feels he can effect or change provincial policies to suit his personal beliefs is what people should be arguing if you ask me .I f Mr Audain truly cared about grizzly conservation and not preservation the money used to start his foundation could of done a heck of alot of good
Donated to programs in place.
Shame on you Mr Audain.

Yep, agree

[Gateholio]

Said he got a draw but became educated about Grizzlies and decided not to cut his tag and said that most hunters actually oppose grizzly hunting.

He sounds like a cartwheeling efftard

[Rob Chipman]

Souwester wrote:

"...conservation and not preservation..."

That is a very important and poorly understood distinction. I've got no problem with a rich guy changing policy to suit his beliefs ****if**** his beliefs are well informed and made public. I'm willing to bet that Mr. Audain, smart and efficient as he may be, doesn't know the real ins and outs of conservation.

Just be glad he didn't see some wolves..... :-)