Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada

[Ohwildwon]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.21189/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.21189/full)


Any one read this, if so what do you think?

[srupp]

Hmm grizzly bear hunt is sustainable. .i agree..still seeing 9 foot 25 year old grizzlies being harvested yearly..in numerous m.u...
Srupp

[Ohwildwon]

Hmm grizzly bear hunt is sustainable. .i agree..still seeing 9 foot 25 year old grizzlies being harvested yearly..in numerous m.u...
Srupp

Absolutely love your summery, LOL!!

[srupp]

Hmmm they are living long lives....very long lives..growing to immense sizes..proof is in the pudding? As many big bears as 30 years ago..better info than city dwelling granola munching malcontents..or allegations by natives " their " sacred bears are dissappear ing. .
Small percentage of hunters seek out the grizzly..far less than moose hunters..success and size indicates healthy populations..
The agenda to eliminate grizzly hunting based on dwindling numbers is bogus..numbers encountered are good..so is size..
Cheers
Steven

[boblly1]

if one is going harvest a grizzly for consumption take it by all means fill your boots .But if is just for its head or a rug it should be against the law or charge at least triple what it is already. Just saying no animal deserves to die for nothing

[Surrey Boy]

if one is going harvest a grizzly for consumption take it by all means fill your boots .But if is just for its head or a rug it should be against the law or charge at least triple what it is already. Just saying no animal deserves to die for nothing

Die for nothing? A rug is a tangible asset far outlasting a hundred pounds of hamburger!

If hunters don't manage them for free, government agents will do it at great expense.

[houndogger]

if one is going harvest a grizzly for consumption take it by all means fill your boots .But if is just for its head or a rug it should be against the law or charge at least triple what it is already. Just saying no animal deserves to die for nothing
Ok Miley....

[srupp]

if one is going harvest a grizzly for consumption take it by all means fill your boots .But if is just for its head or a rug it should be against the law or charge at least triple what it is already. Just saying no animal deserves to die for nothing

Hmmmm, lynx..
Bobcat
Cougar
Wolves
Start of a very steep slippery slope..
Next comes goats. .who would eat a stinky goat....
Then comes the trophy argument with sheep . it's not about the meat it's the trophy..
Then comes non resident guided hunters..who more than not leave the meat here..distributed to local first nations..

Hunting was never only about what we ate.the most valuable animal historically was the black bear..hide was always used, meat, tendons, claws, fat was rendered used for hundreds of purposes , bones shaped and used from needles to cutting.
Looking at hunting as solely a food source while important..is a long way from complete. .missing so much of the bigger picture.
Problem grizzlies that were not shot on site were relocated at big expense to grizzly holding areas.
By helicopter like Kwatna Bay.right now they are debating shooting well over 100 grizzly bears in just the Bella Coola valley..see Gary James Sheldon assessment..shooting 100 grizzlies and tossing them in the dump helps who? Overpopulation..agressive" natural behaviour that is not checked..resulting in dead pets, raided fish drying rations, crop damage, fruit trees.risking lives..yes humans
Imbalances from preditor males killing young cubs..
Biologists determine the numbers for optimized use by grizzlies..out of these parameters..LEH hunting yes hunters pay for the right to harvest a grizzly keeping males to females..total numbers ..holding capacity of an area..breeding age bears versus old past prime adults..so hunting of this species serves a purpose..other than eating.
Cheers
Steven

[boblly1]

the big picture really that stopped when manufacturing began seriously. My statement is not related in the least with to non hunting protesting or the likes of. The days of neanderthals have come and gone we buy our tools now. walmart cabelas wholesale sports this only about one hunters opinion. I have read and heard it said that grizzly bear does not even resemble decent table fare so why just kill something and keep the proof

[Stone Sheep Steve]

the big picture really that stopped when manufacturing began seriously. My statement is not related in the least with to non hunting protesting or the likes of. The days of neanderthals have come and gone we buy our tools now. walmart cabelas wholesale sports this only about one hunters opinion. I have read and heard it said that grizzly bear does not even resemble decent table fare so why just kill something and keep the proof

You can read thru numberous threads on here to see hunters opinions on the table fare of grizzly bear meat. Like black bears, it depends on their diet.

If you think that everyone thinks it shitty table fare, then I think you may have read too many comments from the antis.

SSS

[BgBlkDg]

the big picture really that stopped when manufacturing began seriously. My statement is not related in the least with to non hunting protesting or the likes of. The days of neanderthals have come and gone we buy our tools now. walmart cabelas wholesale sports this only about one hunters opinion. I have read and heard it said that grizzly bear does not even resemble decent table fare so why just kill something and keep the proof

You. quite frankly, do not know jacksquat about Grizzlies, hunting, Canadian traditions or even writing basic English. I suggest that you confine your foolish comments to subjects where you actually have some knowledge and also enroll in remedial English courses.

MOST, of the SCORES of Grizzly hunters I have known in 60+ years of very active bush experience in BC, AB, the Territories, DO, HAVE and WILL eat the bears that they shoot. One of my relatives in his late 50s has shot several legally hunting and he, his wife and extended family have eaten ALL of them as well as Cougars and the whack of huge elk and moose and deer he has taken.

So, unless you can DOCUMENT any of your claims, maybe just give it up and read and learn, eh.

[Wild one]

the big picture really that stopped when manufacturing began seriously. My statement is not related in the least with to non hunting protesting or the likes of. The days of neanderthals have come and gone we buy our tools now. walmart cabelas wholesale sports this only about one hunters opinion. I have read and heard it said that grizzly bear does not even resemble decent table fare so why just kill something and keep the proof

Nothing wrong with the meat of mountain grizz I have eaten it. No real difference than black bear

I have not eaten coastal grizz and have no plans to. Won't hunt fishy black bear either

Not everyone hunts grizz just for the hide. That said I have no issue with the grizz hunt just the way it is. No lack of grizz and from what I have seen over the years I would say they are on the increase in many areas

[Ride Red]

the big picture really that stopped when manufacturing began seriously. My statement is not related in the least with to non hunting protesting or the likes of. The days of neanderthals have come and gone we buy our tools now. walmart cabelas wholesale sports this only about one hunters opinion. I have read and heard it said that grizzly bear does not even resemble decent table fare so why just kill something and keep the proof

Walmart has just extended their Boxing Week sale on grizzly hides.

[BgBlkDg]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ lmao!!!!

[snipersights]

Grabbing some popcorn to watch the show boblly1. Similar bs on Vancouver island where I live. I believe the last bear estimate was 7500 on the island or something like that and the antis say we're killing all the bears. We have a huge population density here with some massive trophy bears being taken yearly?????? People just don't like you hunting them because they think they're special. I like to check websites about bear watching tours to find the best hunting spots hehehe

[boblly1]

bg blk dg maybe you should kiss my --- hows that for english

[.264winmag]

Question at hand is sustainability of hunt not if grizz hunt is immoral or the meat palatable. Again, personal emotion/opinion being confused with facts. Bruce has spent 40 years collecting facts on the subject and the ethics card is still challenging his findings! And by a hunter nonetheless? Each to their own opinion, but the facts are there...

[Hank Hunter]

bg blk dg maybe you should kiss my --- hows that for english

Another Anti with an attitude trolling HBC

[BgBlkDg]

bg blk dg maybe you should kiss my --- hows that for english

MY, my, you DO get irate, eh? Maybe, try to learn some basic manners in addition to the other issues I mentioned above. Laffin' ;)

[ajr5406]

Whether you eat the meat or just use the hide for a nice rug, does that really matter?

Personal ethics aside, if the Griz population is strong and a sustainable harvest/management plan is evidence based, does it really matter if people eat the meat, as long as they are following the regs and hunting within the law?

i don't think anyone here would want to see the Griz wiped out, they are beautiful and powerful creatures, but no one wants to see the ungulate population wiped out because of an overpopulation of bears and wolves etc, just because these animals are somehow seen as more "special" or "iconic" by the general public???

[boblly1]

not really 66 year old hunter since i was 14 years old just have no need for useless knowledge or data that does not mean anything or matter.Somethings just because they are sustianable doesn`t mean it needs to shot. I also live on the island have eaten or at least tried any wild game except grizzly most of the bear on the island other than spring taste like salmon they aren`t worth shooting

[.264winmag]

Makes perfect sense, don't read the facts to become informed on a subject. Just go on a hunch, you're an smrt one...

[eric]

Well,I for one, plan on shooting a Grizz,and leaving the meat.
NDP can kiss my A**

[leadpillproductions]

I seen 8 grizz last spring in a 10km radias in 4 day bear hunting , And always see lots of g bears same area .

[BgBlkDg]

You BIG meanie!!!! I bet Bryce won't even shake your hand and the Dippers, will totally scorn you out!........ ;)

[Wild one]

not really 66 year old hunter since i was 14 years old just have no need for useless knowledge or data that does not mean anything or matter.Somethings just because they are sustianable doesn`t mean it needs to shot. I also live on the island have eaten or at least tried any wild game except grizzly most of the bear on the island other than spring taste like salmon they aren`t worth shooting

So as long as the hunt is sustainable and meat is eaten you have no issue with grizz hunting correct?

[leadpillproductions]

What gets me is people think it goes to waste , but it really dont other animals eat it . They just get a easy meal , kill a predator more moose and elk seems like a good idea to me . Ban all the predator hunting then see where we are at lol

[sherpa-Al]

[QUOTE=leadpillproductions;1863344]What gets me is people think it goes to waste , but it really dont other animals eat it .

Exactly. Here in the Skeena region I can say for a fact that not one ounce of meat from a grizzly goes to waste. The precious eagles and sacred ravens are circling as soon as the bear is down. The wolves and other grizzlies in the area are right behind them. The carcass is completely stripped of all meat in a matter of a couple days. No waste.

Al

[bearvalley]

srupp pretty well summed it up in his rambling style. Hmmmm.....
Like I've said before, the present issue is a ballot initiative of the NDP that is based on information provided to them by a small group that want the grizzly hunt shut down for their own personal, financial gain.
This group is made up of the bear viewing industry and the anti organizations that are donation funded such as Raincoast.
The majority of their followers are emotion driven...not guided by knowledge.
The grizzl hunt is sustainable.
Its a nessasary part of wildlife management.
How the meat is dealt with should be at the discretion of the hunter. If it's a mountain bear, feeding partially on berries it will make better table fare than an old boar on a salmon diet.
Moving forward, if we want to keep the grizzly hunt in the majority of the province I believe we are going to have to lose part of it.
Only small pockets of BC are viable as bear watch locations. The view area needs an attraction that draws the bears day after day. The coast has the areas that have the highest bear viewing potential....and I don't mean just the Bella Colla dump.
My thought is to identify high value bear watch areas and sacrifice the hunt there.
In a short period of time there will be issues in these closed areas with excessive, unmanaged grizzly bears.
When the day comes that corrective steps need to be taken to relocate or permanently remove problem bears the bear viewing industry should pick up the tab.

[chilcotin hillbilly]

That is right BV. The photo tour guides should pick up the tab on grizzly bear relocation and removal. Photographers don't contribute anything to conservation of bears, perhaps they should pay a $200 fee each to bear conservation to pick up the tab.

Mr Rupp well put as usual. the grizzly populations are on the rise. I believe at an all time high. This year in my concession I saw 25, 2 year old and younger grizzlies.
My concession only takes up about 1/4 of the MU or less yet the government estimate for the MU is 76 bears down from their estimate of 84 bears 4 years ago.

Even talking to the "Land Rangers" that patrol the new land titled area they were asking what they could do to be able to kill some grizzlies. They have come to realize the over population of bears in the west Chilcotin has reflected directly on the ungulate populations.

[souwester]

Srrup and BearValley ....good posts.
boblly1 I have a simple question for you and other hunters that share your sentiments.

Why do you feel that respect for an animal that is hunted is completely 'tied' to if its fine table fare or not ?

I really question what value hunters such as yourself see in hunting and what the experience is for you.For me hunting is about hunting.I appreciate having food in the freezer but at this point in my life I am completely a "trophy" hunter .I have no interest in harvesting any animal unless it is a mature male that truly represents the species,if that means I don't have a deer in the freezer every year I am fine with that.
How can this show apathy or disrespect to a species?

[j270wsm]

The elk valley has a high population of grizz and could sustain both a spring and fall bear hunt, but our tag numbers get reduced every few yrs when all 4 tags( 2 guided - 2 leh ) are filled. When I get another grizz leh I will only be keeping the hide.

Lets be honest.......what's the difference in leaving the meat in the bush or taking it home and then throwing it in the garbage 2 days later......??????

[180grainer]

not really 66 year old hunter since i was 14 years old just have no need for useless knowledge or data that does not mean anything or matter.Somethings just because they are sustianable doesn`t mean it needs to shot. I also live on the island have eaten or at least tried any wild game except grizzly most of the bear on the island other than spring taste like salmon they aren`t worth shooting
I would agree with you to this extent. You don't find killing bears for their hide acceptable so you won't do it. You don't eat bear and therefore won't shoot one. I'm completely comfortable with that and think you should follow your moral compass and not hunt them. It's when you project your personal beliefs on to me and suggest because you find it unacceptable to hunt and kill bears that somehow I should not be allowed to as well. That's where I'd have a problem. In fact, that's the premise of the whole eco-tourist, eco-terrorist manifesto. Forcing their opinions and beliefs on to others despite the reality that the hunt is sustainable and beneficial to the over all management of the environment.

[Ride Red]

I would agree with you to this extent. You don't find killing bears for their hide acceptable so you won't do it. You don't eat bear and therefore won't shoot one. I'm completely comfortable with that and think you should follow your moral compass and not hunt them. It's when you project your personal beliefs on to me and suggest because you find it unacceptable to hunt and kill bears that somehow I should not be allowed to as well. That's where I'd have a problem. In fact, that's the premise of the whole eco-tourist, eco-terrorist manifesto. Forcing their opinions and beliefs on to others despite the reality that the hunt is sustainable and beneficial to the over all management of the environment.

Like Button!!!

[Whonnock Boy]

This....


I would agree with you to this extent. You don't find killing bears for their hide acceptable so you won't do it. You don't eat bear and therefore won't shoot one. I'm completely comfortable with that and think you should follow your moral compass and not hunt them. It's when you project your personal beliefs on to me and suggest because you find it unacceptable to hunt and kill bears that somehow I should not be allowed to as well. That's where I'd have a problem. In fact, that's the premise of the whole eco-tourist, eco-terrorist manifesto. Forcing their opinions and beliefs on to others despite the reality that the hunt is sustainable and beneficial to the over all management of the environment.

And this... especially the highlighted. Well said gentlemen.


srupp pretty well summed it up in his rambling style. Hmmmm.....
Like I've said before, the present issue is a ballot initiative of the NDP that is based on information provided to them by a small group that want the grizzly hunt shut down for their own personal, financial gain.
This group is made up of the bear viewing industry and the anti organizations that are donation funded such as Raincoast.
The majority of their followers are emotion driven...not guided by knowledge.
The grizzl hunt is sustainable.
Its a nessasary part of wildlife management.
How the meat is dealt with should be at the discretion of the hunter. If it's a mountain bear, feeding partially on berries it will make better table fare than an old boar on a salmon diet.
Moving forward, if we want to keep the grizzly hunt in the majority of the province I believe we are going to have to lose part of it.
Only small pockets of BC are viable as bear watch locations. The view area needs an attraction that draws the bears day after day. The coast has the areas that have the highest bear viewing potential....and I don't mean just the Bella Colla dump.
My thought is to identify high value bear watch areas and sacrifice the hunt there.
In a short period of time there will be issues in these closed areas with excessive, unmanaged grizzly bears.
When the day comes that corrective steps need to be taken to relocate or permanently remove problem bears the bear viewing industry should pick up the tab.

[scoutlt1]

The elk valley has a high population of grizz and could sustain both a spring and fall bear hunt, but our tag numbers get reduced every few yrs when all 4 tags( 2 guided - 2 leh ) are filled. When I get another grizz leh I will only be keeping the hide.

Lets be honest.......what's the difference in leaving the meat in the bush or taking it home and then throwing it in the garbage 2 days later......??????


Maybe we will have to submit stool samples to the province to prove that the bear meat was eaten. Three samples per 10lbs of meat perhaps? Sarcasm of course, but after re-reading.....maybe I shouldn't give anybody any ideas!! :)

[Fisher-Dude]

if one is going harvest a grizzly for consumption take it by all means fill your boots .But if is just for its head or a rug it should be against the law or charge at least triple what it is already. Just saying no animal deserves to die for nothing

So when you trap a mouse to control and manage their population, do you eat it?

Or does it just die for nothing?

[JSaw]

I think the hunt is sustainable, given information provided by biologists and experts in the field. I for one don't have an interest in hunting Grizzlies or other apex predators simply because I like to eat what I shoot. It's just a personal choice I'm not a granola munching tree hugger, I've shot predators before. I will however never knock anyone who wants to trophy hunt as long as it is within the confines of the law.

What I don't agree with is when someone says "You're helping out the ungulates, Grizzlies are over-populated" etc.. a 2008 study estimated 16,000 GB in the province, another study conducted in 2012 estimated 15,000. Taking into account for some of the many variables involved in such a study, this tells me that their population is fairly constant. Grizzlies and ungulates have lived side by side by thousands of years without one being wiped out. Populations trend up and down over time, they always have and always will. Bringing ungulates into the GB hunting argument is a moot point in my opinion. That being said, I do agree that ungulates are at risk but not because of the Grizzly. If you want to look at the biggest problem facing ungulates look at human encroachment and development (logging, mines, oil and gas, lack of fire on the landscape etc.) I'll stop at that point there so I don't open up a whole new can of worms and stray too far from the subject.

Anyway, if trophy hunting is your thing, awesome. If you don't agree with the hunt, awesome. Sometimes I think people let emotion overwhelm rational thought. Do your research first and if it still doesn't sway your opinion, explain why. I've attached some articles that I found interesting.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly-bear-harvest-management-2016.pdf
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf

[two-feet]

When i shoot a moose the hide stays in the bush. This makes me feel a little guilty and uncomfortable but i realize it is legal and moral. And it does not go to waste in the bush.

If i ever shot a grizz i would take the meat and hide but that is my personal choice. I love bear meat and beleive anybody that does not just needs to learn how to cook.

So like most things its complicated. Just follow the law and try not to judge.

[tuner]

I would agree with you to this extent. You don't find killing bears for their hide acceptable so you won't do it. You don't eat bear and therefore won't shoot one. I'm completely comfortable with that and think you should follow your moral compass and not hunt them. It's when you project your personal beliefs on to me and suggest because you find it unacceptable to hunt and kill bears that somehow I should not be allowed to as well. That's where I'd have a problem. In fact, that's the premise of the whole eco-tourist, eco-terrorist manifesto. Forcing their opinions and beliefs on to others despite the reality that the hunt is sustainable and beneficial to the over all management of the environment.
I'm beating the living shit out of a nonexistent LIKE button right now!!! Well said 180G!

[BgBlkDg]

I think the hunt is sustainable, given information provided by biologists and experts in the field. I for one don't have an interest in hunting Grizzlies or other apex predators simply because I like to eat what I shoot. It's just a personal choice I'm not a granola munching tree hugger, I've shot predators before. I will however never knock anyone who wants to trophy hunt as long as it is within the confines of the law.

What I don't agree with is when someone says "You're helping out the ungulates, Grizzlies are over-populated" etc.. a 2008 study estimated 16,000 GB in the province, another study conducted in 2012 estimated 15,000. Taking into account for some of the many variables involved in such a study, this tells me that their population is fairly constant. Grizzlies and ungulates have lived side by side by thousands of years without one being wiped out. Populations trend up and down over time, they always have and always will. Bringing ungulates into the GB hunting argument is a moot point in my opinion. That being said, I do agree that ungulates are at risk but not because of the Grizzly. If you want to look at the biggest problem facing ungulates look at human encroachment and development (logging, mines, oil and gas, lack of fire on the landscape etc.) I'll stop at that point there so I don't open up a whole new can of worms and stray too far from the subject.

Anyway, if trophy hunting is your thing, awesome. If you don't agree with the hunt, awesome. Sometimes I think people let emotion overwhelm rational thought. Do your research first and if it still doesn't sway your opinion, explain why. I've attached some articles that I found interesting.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/plants-and-animals/grizzly-bears.html
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grizzly-bear-harvest-management-2016.pdf
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf

Perhaps, YOU do not agree, however, in my opinion and my experience has been posted here to substantiate it, the Grizzly populations in some BC areas ARE too high relative to the actual sustaining habitat. I also have been told as much by highly experienced guides, etc, who live year round in northern regions and see bears, etc. every week.

There are TOO MANY Grizzlies, now, in the West Kootenays as the frequent incursions into long settled cities like Nelson, demonstrate and this NEVER happened when I lived there, 1946-81. I go back often, stay in touch with relatives and friends and most of the genuine bush people, NOT hippies and trendoid urbanites from elsewhere feel as I do.

So, the figures you post are estimates, the seeming downfall in them means squat over time and Grizzly attacks upon VERY skilled bush people are FAR more frequent now than ever before. To me, that says something.

[JSaw]

Perhaps, YOU do not agree, however, in my opinion and my experience has been posted here to substantiate it, the Grizzly populations in some BC areas ARE too high relative to the actual sustaining habitat. I also have been told as much by highly experienced guides, etc, who live year round in northern regions and see bears, etc. every week.

There are TOO MANY Grizzlies, now, in the West Kootenays as the frequent incursions into long settled cities like Nelson, demonstrate and this NEVER happened when I lived there, 1946-81. I go back often, stay in touch with relatives and friends and most of the genuine bush people, NOT hippies and trendoid urbanites from elsewhere feel as I do.

So, the figures you post are estimates, the seeming downfall in them means squat over time and Grizzly attacks upon VERY skilled bush people are FAR more frequent now than ever before. To me, that says something.

I agree the numbers are estimates and seeing the downfall means nothing in the way of proof that numbers are declining, all I'm saying is numbers fluctuate amongst all populations over time. Could the increase in attacks on people be because more people have taken up hunting and more and more people are heading into the bush? Could the reason that more and more GB are moving into communities be from human sprawl and humans having to spread further into the bush to log/mine? I don't know. Perhaps the GB populations are too high in some areas, I'm not sure. But my point is that you have to look at the bigger picture and while shooting Grizzlies and other predators WILL have a positive affect on ungulate populations BUT it is only a temporary fix.

I don't discredit you're experience or the trends you've seen.

[HarryToolips]

Whether you eat the meat or just use the hide for a nice rug, does that really matter?

Personal ethics aside, if the Griz population is strong and a sustainable harvest/management plan is evidence based, does it really matter if people eat the meat, as long as they are following the regs and hunting within the law?

i don't think anyone here would want to see the Griz wiped out, they are beautiful and powerful creatures, but no one wants to see the ungulate population wiped out because of an overpopulation of bears and wolves etc, just because these animals are somehow seen as more "special" or "iconic" by the general public???
x2...............

[Fred1]

Great thread! 99% great points! Best read I've had here in a while. Yup no shortage of Gbears I've noticed from Vancouver to Muncho...

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

The whole Griz thing is unilateral bullshit generated by antis like we've even heard from earlier. It's nothing but those spineless, spiritless and espcialy and entirely irrefutably ball-less bitchbois like forgettable clown whatchamacall alleged leader of no down payment. Looking forward to their upcoming defeat and one day winning/buying an LEH tag here. If the lieberal or whoever flipmode and ban Grizzin', I'll be booking a Hunt with an Alaska outfitter. Needless to say, would rather do it here at home and spend that money buying stuff and things to support our local BC ecomonies!

P.S- In ya face antis!!!

[Dannybuoy]

The whole Griz thing is unilateral bullshit generated by antis like we've even heard from earlier. It's nothing but those spineless, spiritless and espcialy and entirely irrefutably ball-less bitchbois like forgettable clown whatchamacall alleged leader of no down payment. Looking forward to their upcoming defeat and one day winning/buying an LEH tag here. If the lieberal or whoever flipmode and ban Grizzin', I'll be booking a Hunt with an Alaska outfitter. Needless to say, would rather do it here at home and spend that money buying stuff and things to support our local BC ecomonies!

P.S- In ya face antis!!!

Spoken like a true (upcoming) curmudgeon !:wink:

[Fisher-Dude]

Could the increase in attacks on people be because more people have taken up hunting and more and more people are heading into the bush?

No. Hunter numbers are only 60% of what they used to be.

[untilthelastbeat]

Great thread guys and great opinions for the most part. 5 pages and everyone is still playing nicely together. Keep it up its been a while. Almost feels like the old days of hbc again

[JSaw]

No. Hunter numbers are only 60% of what they used to be.

I'd love to see where you got that number from. But even then you can't disagree that more and more people are getting into outdoor recreation. Whether it be ATVing, fishing, hunting, camping or hiking. Thus greater exposure to bears.

[Whonnock Boy]

Our greatest number of licensed resident hunters was 178,000 est. And yes, you are correct. Our back country is being used more than it ever has been by all users.
I'd love to see where you got that number from. But even then you can't disagree that more and more people are getting into outdoor recreation. Whether it be ATVing, fishing, hunting, camping or hiking. Thus greater exposure to bears.

[Ohwildwon]

Like I've said many times before, you can't hunt all big game animals and leave the apex predator alone..

This is a human ego/emotional issue...

In the end it is just another big game animal, no more or less important then the rest of them...

[Fisher-Dude]

I'd love to see where you got that number from. But even then you can't disagree that more and more people are getting into outdoor recreation. Whether it be ATVing, fishing, hunting, camping or hiking. Thus greater exposure to bears.

Highest hunter number level was 174,088 in 1981. http://huntingheritage.org/sites/default/files/declininghunters.pdf

Current number is 105,000.

Want me to do the math for you?

[JSaw]

Highest hunter number level was 174,088 in 1981. http://huntingheritage.org/sites/default/files/declininghunters.pdf

Current number is 105,000.

Want me to do the math for you?

I'm going to ignore your sarcastic insult and say thanks for referencing it!

[Rob Chipman]

"Question at hand is sustainability of hunt not if grizz hunt is immoral or the meat palatable."

I'd disagree, not because I think morals or meat are the issues, but because the other side has a vote, and they think that the moral aspect is a big factor.

The new NDP candidate actually disputes the science on the issue in an essay that calls the bear "the King". That's straight up anthropomorificationization (yeah, Dubya made me write that!) of the bear, and is completely anti-science. It's falling in love with charismatic mega fauna.

His other complaint is that the science says that the "hunt" is sustainable, not that the bear population is sustainable.

Those aren't my opinions - they're the opinions of the people who oppose the hunt. They are currently saying they agree that science is important, but they disagree with any science that doesn't support their positions.

We've seen that dynamic at work with climate change, and I think we need to conclude that simply appealing to a scientific approach doesn't resolve any issue. The most effective approach in climate change was to establish as a widely accepted belief that 99% of all scientists agree that man made climate change is real (disagree with the idea of AGW or not - that isn't the point. The point is that if you disagree you can be labelled a climate and a science denier, and your opinions are marginalized. There's a lesson there).

We've also seen (heard, actually, on the CBC interview) the kid from Raincoast responding to Jesse Zeman's science counter-argument that science isn't the best way to decide this, but morality is.

We need to figure out a good way to counter the moral objection. That counter argument exists (nothing is wasted, even if a human doesn't eat it, charismatic mega fauna isn't the "king" or any more majestic than the animals it kills, etc, etc). We need to get that message out there more.

Bear Valley makes sense when he says we may have to concede losing some of the hunt somewhere in the province. I think he sees the tactical reality. However, if we look at it as "win/lose" rather than "change/share" I think we're going to find ourselves in a long term losing battle where bears were just the start.

I also think we need to start welcoming disagreement. If someone has a differing opinion, even if it is a low information one, we're better to listen than to shut them down. If we listen we can respond and persuade or effectively marginalize.

If we shut them down or dismiss them? Well, if you don't know where that leads, ask Hillary if she's figured it out! :-)

[wideopenthrottle]

once the bear pops are over capacity, hunters will not be allowed to "take the bear food (ungulates)" cuz the bears need it more than people do.....

[BgBlkDg]

Sorry, but, the term in your context would be "anthropomorphizing" and it is actually poor usage.

The term "king" has been used in reference to apex predators, specifically African Lions, aka "The King of Beasts" since Biblical times, so, the "antis" are simply following popular tradition.

I do agree with Mike, (BV) on his points, but, I do not have any confidence that such concessions on our part will satisfy the "antis" as MONEY is involved.........LOTS OF MONEY!!!

[Ajsawden]

Rob Chipman. Very well spoken. Very well executed argument. Very difficult reality to manage. It's damn near impossible to fight an 'enemy' that has no real standpoint. The moral standpoint is one that facts will rarely swing an opinion. Example: The argument that the hunt is sustainable but not the bear population is a direct ignorance of fact. A sustainable hunt directly correlates to sustainable bear populations. If bears go extinct, the hunt is not sustainable. If we can hunt x number of grizz per year until the end of time then the population is sustainable, period.

Sadly I have little more to contribute without getting all angry. I tried writing more but it was too negative to post. Cheers All, and happy hunting!

[J_T]

I agree that the science argument does not always work. Many of the non or anti hunting community want to talk about the social morals of hunting. So I agree, we need to be willing to go there.

Like others, I've maintained in part, the question becomes one of how do we see man, in nature. Is man a part of nature, his impact on nature, and if the answer is yes he is a part of nature and he has an impact on it, then we work to find agreement that man has a responsibility to understand nature and all that entails. This is the argument right now on climate change. Man (all mankind) has an impact on the climate so what is man going to do about it? Regarding climate change and wildlife, we then need to make wise decisions about these resources. If we equate wildlife management (it is not just hunters that impact wildlife) principles to climate change or vice versa, we might be able to find some common ground with the social moral group.

Step back. Let's not see Wildlife management as hunting. Let's see it for what it is. Finding balance. Managing mans impact on the resource. It is not about hunting, it's about managing the wildlife component. For the most part I don't hunt predators, but I feel we need to manage them and hunting and trapping are two key components in managing the balance.

We can make a health and social argument for hunting. Hunting is a great physical, spiritual and emotional experience. It's a wonderful mentoring tool for young people to emerge as responsible adults. These components are focused on the being in the out of doors. Not the killing.

[HarryToolips]

^^^^well said JT....

[Rob Chipman]

"Managing mans impact on the resource."

Right on. I've been puzzling my way through this lately. It's not really about managing the wildlife so much as our impact on them and the landscape. You nailed it.

[J_T]

I want to add that science is still very important to the social or moral argument. As an example, science is proof that hunting is not the primary source of grizzly mortality. And the cumulative impacts of mans footprint make finding balance in wildlife management, everyones responsibility. Not just hunters. Hunter are conservationists first.

[elch jager]

I would agree with you to this extent. You don't find killing bears for their hide acceptable so you won't do it. You don't eat bear and therefore won't shoot one. I'm completely comfortable with that and think you should follow your moral compass and not hunt them. It's when you project your personal beliefs on to me and suggest because you find it unacceptaKble to hunt and kill bears that somehow I should not be allowed to as well. That's where I'd have a problem. In fact, that's the premise of the whole eco-tourist, eco-terrorist manifesto. Forcing their opinions and beliefs on to others despite the reality that the hunt is sustainable and beneficial to the over all management of the environment.

+++ 1

excellent post! well said.
while I would never hunt a Grizzly myself, I do respect your right to do so. where I do have an issue is when people display their trophy all over the place purposefully inciting anti-hunters into a frenzy. That is disrespectful and does not reflect well on the hunting community.

[Surrey Boy]

I'm not surprised at how many hunters are against hunting. See how many HBCers think their dogs are people!

[goatdancer]

I'm not surprised at how many hunters are against hunting. See how many HBCers think their dogs are people!

Our dogs are just like our children.

[Whonnock Boy]

I honestly do not see what you are talking about in regards to the discussion here, as one, maybe two posters are opposed to the hunt. Otherwise, this has so far been a very productive discussion with like minded individuals expressing thoughts on how we should be proceeding as hunters and conservationists.

On a side note, I know my pup is not a person, but she certainly is treated like one. lol


I'm not surprised at how many hunters are against hunting. See how many HBCers think their dogs are people!

["No Choke"Lord Walsingham]

The anti mindset and that of the climate change clan is wrong thinking at best, true mental illness at worst. Antis are reform-able back into rationale, reasonable people. Hitlery Shitton lost for so many reason, none of the crux of which did you touch on. People are sick of gov't overreach and prohibitionist attitudes et al.

ATTN: HBC - Here is the solution to the moral argument, in short. Paraphrase, read between the lines and apply it in your conversations if need be -

Animals, including Griz are not immortal. Their alternative (to being humanely harvested by a Hunter or whatever spineless placation a person wishes to employ to describe the kill. I don't compromise) causes of death are truly horrible ends that people wouldn't even wish on their worst enemy. Animals are killed by: starvation, disease, exposure, or being eaten (often alive and from the hindquarters forward. Even an "apex" predator may have an off day and succumb to an attack).
Never once in the history of the four leggeds has one died peacefully in bed, under the care of it's physician with a steady morphine drip surrounded by beloved family and friends. Quickly avoiding a horrid, slow and excruciatingly painful death is the moral and ethical thing to do and any Human who has the opportunity and inclinations should do. It is the role of Humans to help out in such a manner.

Then deploy the highly successful "if you don't like us, there's something wrong with you" public relations tact that has worked so successfully to normalize previously unacceptable behaviors and inclinations such as LGBTQLMOZ, got murders of the unborn legalized, et al.

Then we go on about "we were born this way, we have no choice we can't be happy or look ourselves in the mirror blah blah blah if we don't Hunt".

Then we ALL unite! We do this by realizing that all firearms should be legal, even if you don't care to carry a handgun. Even if you don't use guns but are an avid, passionate Archer. Even if you don't hunt but fish etc etc. The gays and the bi people never used to get along I heard? Now that they're all united with the trannies et al they are a huge lobbying force and get their way every time.

The trick is to hardline this shit and NEVER compromise, surrender or give up. Not only should we not concede - We need to Make Hunting Great Again by bringing back the killing of Glacial/blue merle and white Bears. It is Racist AF to only kill the Black ones, Brothers and Sisters!

They are wrong, not us. If you don't believe me you are on the wrong forum! And are an anti. The antis sense of morality can not disallow these arguments as their ENTIRE WORLD VIEW is based on this exact kind of shit coupled with the illogical and severely insane ideology that all negative actions and consequences are due to external stimuli. Ie no person is ever responsible for their own actions, evil doesn't exist and what have you.

P.S. - In ya face antis! We're here, we hunt get used to used it. It has been going on since time immemorial and will never stop.

[takmaster]

I thought it was a good read. Populations are healthy and the hunt is sustainable. Certainly no need to get rid of the hunt.

[hunteryad]

Can anyone tell me when your 2017 spring grizz leh has to be in by?
thx

[Whonnock Boy]

February 10th. Page 3. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sports-recreation-arts-and-culture/outdoor-recreation/fishing-and-hunting/hunting/limited-entry-hunting/leh_16_17.pdf


Can anyone tell me when your 2017 spring grizz leh has to be in by?
thx

[snipersights]

Absolutely agree with one part of your statement elch jager. I think as a people (hunters that is) we have to try not to encourage anti hunters to hate us further or give them reasons to. I've seen people with deer strapped to the hood of a pickup driving through town bleeding all down the hood. This helps no one and only furthers the Belief that we are all serial killers. The same with us quadders 4x4 guys and bush drinkers we gotta clean up and not destroy everything in our wake. After all it's the only land we have. Sorry a little off topic.

[.264winmag]

To hunt or not to hunt? Is that the question now? I'm not going to waste my breathe on that one...
Instead of even thinking about ending a harvest on a population of animals that is proven to be sustainable, stable, and on the rise in many areas. How about we do something for habitat enhancement towards them, maybe start with some controlled burning etc. Increasing and improving habitat means more grizz for everyone to look at, potentially more tags let out and an overall healthier woods with more critters of all kinds. Why can't we have our grizz, and eat it too?

[J_T]

To hunt or not to hunt? Is that the question now? I'm not going to waste my breathe on that one...
Instead of even thinking about ending a harvest on a population of animals that is proven to be sustainable, stable, and on the rise in many areas. How about we do something for habitat enhancement towards them, maybe start with some controlled burning etc. Increasing and improving habitat means more grizz for everyone to look at, potentially more tags let out and an overall healthier woods with more critters of all kinds. Why can't we have our grizz, and eat it too?
While the initial discussion might have come across as a to be or not to be a hunter question, further in the thread the discussion took a turn about how to have a conversation with the non and anti hunting crowd on the question of moral and social grounds. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with your statement, if hunting a population is sustainable then it should continue. (my paraphrase). In fact, you provided a solution toward balance. Increase habitat and then the balance tips (more animals), resulting in more opportunity to bring things back into balance. Staying with the topic of balance rather than hunting.

For anyone, it just depends how you want to have that conversation with someone that doesn't agree with you. Avoidance, positional, or collaborative. By being a dick and standing on the high ground telling them it's your right (which it isn't), thus pushing them away with new thoughts of what a hunter is, or really engaging and having a conversation which might lead them to ask questions of themselves, have they just been sheep, following someone else's mis-information?

[Bonz]

we`ll never change the view of the antihunter with all that money they make selling lies or missinformation. no way they`ll ever give that up.
only thing i see is to just prove them as the liers we all know they are for financial gain and sympathy, think alot of the public actual has began to see the mental issues on that side with the open death threats and so on these days.
i say use their own ignorance and crimes to expose what their realy like.

[Bonz]

i also dont even think we`ll get an native groups on resident hunter side either.

[.264winmag]

While the initial discussion might have come across as a to be or not to be a hunter question, further in the thread the discussion took a turn about how to have a conversation with the non and anti hunting crowd on the question of moral and social grounds. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with your statement, if hunting a population is sustainable then it should continue. (my paraphrase). In fact, you provided a solution toward balance. Increase habitat and then the balance tips (more animals), resulting in more opportunity to bring things back into balance. Staying with the topic of balance rather than hunting.

For anyone, it just depends how you want to have that conversation with someone that doesn't agree with you. Avoidance, positional, or collaborative. By being a dick and standing on the high ground telling them it's your right (which it isn't), thus pushing them away with new thoughts of what a hunter is, or really engaging and having a conversation which might lead them to ask questions of themselves, have they just been sheep, following someone else's mis-information?

I, along with others am tired of the argument with anti's. I have no problem with non-hunters' and can appreciate their views' and do not try to tell them they're wrong. So I appreciate when they do the same towards myself.

Sister in-law along with rest of outlaws came for Xmas one year knowing full well I am an avid hunter. She stated I needed to take all the shoulder mounts, antlers and hunting pictures down and put away. Guess what I said, and guess who hasn't visited for Xmas since.

I usually ask anti's to source factual writings done by educated people, if that doesn't work I'm not a psychologist. I am just another hunter trying to stay atop the food chain I guess.

[bearvalley]

we`ll never change the view of the antihunter with all that money they make selling lies or missinformation. no way they`ll ever give that up.
only thing i see is to just prove them as the liers we all know they are for financial gain and sympathy, think alot of the public actual has began to see the mental issues on that side with the open death threats and so on these days.
i say use their own ignorance and crimes to expose what their realy like.

Theres only a very few at the top that are making money off the anti campaign....the rest are just handing it over.
The ones making death threats aren't making a dime.


i also dont even think we`ll get an native groups on resident hunter side either.

Dont worry so much about getting FN's on the resident hunter side.
Work to get FN's on the side of wildlife and educated in what needs to be done to realize sustainable wildlife populations for the use of all.
The my side, their side and your side attitude has got us nowhere.

[wideopenthrottle]

Dont worry so much about getting FN's on the resident hunter side.
Work to get FN's on the side of wildlife and educated in what needs to be done to realize sustainable wildlife populations for the use of all.
.

I really like this concept but I am unsure how to make it a reality. The notion that if "we" help Natives to reconnect to the land their attitudes will realign with hunter/conservationists and they will police their own bad actors

[horshur]

people like being righteous..They invent all sorts of noble reasons their life is what it is. But they are seldom honest. Ie all the kayakers protesting in plastic kayaks. I think confronting the dichotomy that most live is probably our best chance....being honest about how people are really living and why..Too many have sin's forgiven by sending money to humane society, liking a post on Facebook, not eating GMO food..buying electric car ect.....nothing that actually helps the problem cause we all are the problem collectively. Me selling my car and going off grid doesn't solve anything collectively..someone is still driving my car I just look and act righteous..but not much "Right" has happened but I feel good about it. Kinder Morgans media campaign is along these lines. This is what is happening in the world..you depend on it everyday..we can do it better then anyone else.

My two bits.

[Bonz]

Theres only a very few at the top that are making money off the anti campaign....the rest are just handing it over.
The ones making death threats aren't making a dime.



Dont worry so much about getting FN's on the resident hunter side.
Work to get FN's on the side of wildlife and educated in what needs to be done to realize sustainable wildlife populations for the use of all.
The my side, their side and your side attitude has got us nowhere.

you wont get FN to do that either. it doesnt bennefit them. no offence to them on that comment but its fact, they already sell lies we cant eat bear as it is..but they can..and do

[Bonz]

and it isnt my attitude thats got us nowhere. its more allowing this racist law crap that stops anything from changing

[markomoose]

I've seen Grizzlies in places where they were not for many years.The hunt is absolutely sustainable!

[elch jager]

So one of my hunting partners is putting in for LEH Spring Grizz... wants me to come along. In past years I haven't been interested in Grizz, but chatter here about too many of them and predation of ungulates as well as a threat to back-country users... well, I am considering it. I thought It may be advantageous to take one out of my preferred Moose or Elk areas...

The consensus here and the opinion of our resource managers is that Grizzly hunting is SUSTAINABLE... so what the heck, I just might join in on the hunt. Although I would need to gift the rug to a bachelor friend... and lie to the missus about what we are hunting...

I see there are no shared or group hunts applied to grizz so can't use that to improve odds... don't want to reduce his odds by applying to the same area... so thought to apply in the adjacent wmu so we can each hunt one side or the other of a boundary...

I do have my 45-70 1886 for 'government work'... I suspect my 7mm rem mag is a bit light for longer shots (which is where i would prefer to take my shots from...) So should Ii be looking at yet another gun? Favourite calibers? I like the idea of a 7mmRM necked up to .35cal... what is that called? 35 Whelen Improved? Is that enough gun or should I be going bigger? Partner has a 338 WM... (PM if this is going on a bit of a hijack)

[BgBlkDg]

I have witnessed about a dozen Grizzly kills, never wanted one myself and these were .270Win, ,30-06, 7RM, 300WM and .338WM, cant recall every chambering.

I think that the old '06, with good premium bullets is fine and carried one for working alone in Grizzly country. I do tend to prefer a .338WM-250NP, but, it is ONLY "better" IF you can shoot it fast and well.

I detest skinning bears so am not into getting one, but, I cannot recall ever seeing as many Grizzlies, close to human habitation as in recent years. To me, the "cure" is obvious.

[Linksman313]

Hmmmm, lynx..
Bobcat
Cougar
Wolves
Start of a very steep slippery slope..
Next comes goats. .who would eat a stinky goat....
Then comes the trophy argument with sheep . it's not about the meat it's the trophy..
Then comes non resident guided hunters..who more than not leave the meat here..distributed to local first nations..

Hunting was never only about what we ate.the most valuable animal historically was the black bear..hide was always used, meat, tendons, claws, fat was rendered used for hundreds of purposes , bones shaped and used from needles to cutting.
Looking at hunting as solely a food source while important..is a long way from complete. .missing so much of the bigger picture.
Problem grizzlies that were not shot on site were relocated at big expense to grizzly holding areas.
By helicopter like Kwatna Bay.right now they are debating shooting well over 100 grizzly bears in just the Bella Coola valley..see Gary James Sheldon assessment..shooting 100 grizzlies and tossing them in the dump helps who? Overpopulation..agressive" natural behaviour that is not checked..resulting in dead pets, raided fish drying rations, crop damage, fruit trees.risking lives..yes humans
Imbalances from preditor males killing young cubs..
Biologists determine the numbers for optimized use by grizzlies..out of these parameters..LEH hunting yes hunters pay for the right to harvest a grizzly keeping males to females..total numbers ..holding capacity of an area..breeding age bears versus old past prime adults..so hunting of this species serves a purpose..other than eating.
Cheers
Steven

Well informed, well researched and well stated as usual Srupp, thank you