david susuki and global tv

[bridger]

just wondered how many guys saw global tv's report on susuki's latest diatribe saying the hunting was responsible for animals getting smaller and hunting was reducing the overall wildlife populations. for a matter of interest here is a reply one of my friends sent global tv. maybe we all should.

To Whom It May Concern:
I was appalled and disgusted upon watching your anti hunting report on the 6 o'clock news on Jan 13/09. The idea of predation only taking the weak and the sick smacks of fairy tales and Walt Disney! In actual fact, wolves are one of the strongest animals in the wilderness and eat anything they chase, including healthy strong animals!

Also, to suggest animal populations are in trouble in BC is preposterous! When I moved to Fort St John from Langley in 1960 deer populations were half of what they are now. Elk were non existent around Fort St John. We now have so many deer and elk, many farmers & ranchers consider them as pests. It is not uncommon for a rancher to have 300 to 400 animals feeding in his fields.
Have a look in your own backyard, the Fraser Valley is over run with geese because of no hunting. Have you ever looked at the bottom of your shoes after a round of golf?
Getting back to predators, there is no greater predator than the David Suzuki foundation. They know how to use the media to present themselves as protectors of wildlife, when in fact, their real goal is to get ignorant, but well meaning rich widows & elderly citizens of Vancouver and elsewhere to open their wallets and write them fat cheques! By the way, do you know we have paid professionals, biologists & game wardens who know what is going on in our province? I didn’t see you interviewing any of them. I would sincerely like to see some responsible programming. Get with it! .
Sincerely,
Fred Schmidt
Fort St John, BC Cell: 250-262-8506

[pupper]

wow, great response.

[Husky7mm]

Very well said. One question though, doesnt global air canada in the rough?

[huntwriter]

just wondered how many guys saw global tv's report on susuki's latest diatribe saying the hunting was responsible for animals getting smaller and hunting was reducing the overall wildlife populations. for a matter of interest here is a reply one of my friends sent global tv. maybe we all should.

To Whom It May Concern:
I was appalled and disgusted upon watching your anti hunting report on the 6 o'clock news on Jan 13/09. The idea of predation only taking the weak and the sick smacks of fairy tales and Walt Disney! In actual fact, wolves are one of the strongest animals in the wilderness and eat anything they chase, including healthy strong animals!

Also, to suggest animal populations are in trouble in BC is preposterous! When I moved to Fort St John from Langley in 1960 deer populations were half of what they are now. Elk were non existent around Fort St John. We now have so many deer and elk, many farmers & ranchers consider them as pests. It is not uncommon for a rancher to have 300 to 400 animals feeding in his fields.
Have a look in your own backyard, the Fraser Valley is over run with geese because of no hunting. Have you ever looked at the bottom of your shoes after a round of golf?
Getting back to predators, there is no greater predator than the David Suzuki foundation. They know how to use the media to present themselves as protectors of wildlife, when in fact, their real goal is to get ignorant, but well meaning rich widows & elderly citizens of Vancouver and elsewhere to open their wallets and write them fat cheques! By the way, do you know we have paid professionals, biologists & game wardens who know what is going on in our province? I didn’t see you interviewing any of them. I would sincerely like to see some responsible programming. Get with it! .
Sincerely,
Fred Schmidt
Fort St John, BC Cell: 250-262-8506

Fantastic letter. Short and to the point. I haven’t seen the news but did a little research and then responded too. This is the type of hype an unfounded willful misinformation we need to address wherever we see it, read it or hear it.


Very well said. One question though, doesnt global air canada in the rough?

Yes Global does air Canada in the Rough” I watch it every Sunday at 7:30. That makes Global’s Suzuki scam broadcast look even more hypocritical.

[Piperdown]

I tried to find the article about Mr. Suzuki caught fishing for steelhead illegally but could not find the article. Any of you computer wizards want to try and find it, then we can post it all over the place.

[elker]

Some one should sue Suzuki for intentionally faking science report. If you bring him to court, he will only be embarrassed by his sick idea and everyone will know him .


Sadly, no one is doing that .I believe there are hunters who are lawyers as well, they can do something.

Offense is the best defense. Same thing apply to Haida first nation's outrageous request. If everyone rises up to ask government remove all the privileges first nation are enjoying, the first nation will say : OK Ok, we won't ask more, please let us keep what we have.

[BCRiverBoater]

Sounds like something the ol' Buthcer would say. Good for him for not just complaining to his buddies and actually letting the right people see it. Good job Fred and thanks Rich for letting us read this. I did not see the show and I am disgusted they would air something along those lines. Does not surprise me but does disgust me. We should all write them and show our displeasure.

[Chuck]

I might be wrong....again, but I think Fred may have misread it.

The scientists were not saying that the population of game animals (ungulates) was decreasing - what they were saying is that big game hunting may have an adverse effect on the biological make-up of these species.

The example they use is the classic Darwinian theory, and goes something like this as I understand it.

If hunters keep taking the trophy animals, eventually and in time we will see the animals change physically to become lesser than trophy class and lead to possible extinction. Habits will change first of course, in order to survive, such as nocturnal, slowly followed by the physical changes mentioned, such as smaller body size and antlers, thereby becoming less conspicuous.
They understand that female ungulates are no different from female humans and this suggests that most, if not all females, will only breed a male to produce a superior offspring if at all possible, so given that, with a lack of big strong males, the females eventually breed with lesser or younger males and produce these offspring with less than desirable traits, and that leads to extinction.

It's a thought provoking idea, but I think that there's a heck of a lot more to it than that. Geology, habitat and seclusion come to mind. Well it might happen and then it just might not, I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about it.

[guest]

Thanks for speaking up for So many of Us !!!

Not much different then all the misinformation the Green Peace outfit uses. Only one side to the story, the secret is get a youngster hunting, take a buddy, we need strength in numbers to continue to do what we love. Ethical hunting and management is evident throughout the Province.

Thanks CT

[BCRiverBoater]

I might be wrong....again, but I think Fred may have misread it.

The scientists were not saying that the population of game animals (ungulates) was decreasing - what they were saying is that big game hunting may have an adverse effect on the biological make-up of these species.

The example they use is the classic Darwinian theory, and goes something like this as I understand it.

If hunters keep taking the trophy animals, eventually and in time we will see the animals change physically to become lesser than trophy class and lead to possible extinction. Habits will change first of course, in order to survive, such as nocturnal, slowly followed by the physical changes mentioned, such as smaller body size and antlers, thereby becoming less conspicuous.
They understand that female ungulates are no different from female humans and this suggests that most, if not all females, will only breed a male to produce a superior offspring if at all possible, so given that, with a lack of big strong males, the females eventually breed with lesser or younger males and produce these offspring with less than desirable traits, and that leads to extinction.

It's a thought provoking idea, but I think that there's a heck of a lot more to it than that. Geology, habitat and seclusion come to mind. Well it might happen and then it just might not, I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about it.

One problem with this theory and trust me I mention part of it once on here and got blasted. I mentioned the genetic thing when talking 6 point vs 5 point elk and got hammered and many raised a point I overlooked.

Here it goes. If an animal with great genetics breeds another and passes them along then the new born male has great genetics and can pass them on if he breeds. So if you mention a younger animal breeding...guess what? He still passes on his genes. Just because he was only 6 or 7 with only 36" horns does not mean he did not pass them on. His offspring if allowed to grow to maturity could possess the same great rack that his dad could have or his Grandpa did.

This was explained to me by many last year and it makes sense. Age has nothing to do with passing genes. If you have them you will pass them as long as you are breeding.

[huntwriter]

I tried to find the article about Mr. Susuki caught fishing for steelhead illegally but could not find the article.
Do you roughly know what year that has happened? So far I tried several ways to search but all I come up with I David Suzuki spouting off about illegal fishing. I would love to learn more about him fishing illegally.:smile:

[Mr. Dean]

I never liked people who make misleading suggestions and pass on nothing more than innuendo's - Could, should, may, might, maybe, perhaps...... Then holler for fast actions to fix nothing that's broken! ie, fear mongering.

Let science do the talking as it makes sense.

[Piperdown]

Do you roughly know what year that has happened? So far I tried several ways to search but all I come up with I David Suzuki spouting off about illegal fishing. I would love to learn more about him fishing illegally.:smile:

It was a few years ago, I typed in david suzuki liegally fishing for steelhead and it came up on the second or third page, it was a discussion page about him and the heading had the steelhead plug in it but no article. I will ask my brother about it. It may have even been in BC Outdoors. I will keep trying also. Lets nail the *******:mad:

[cainer]

just wondered how many guys saw global tv's report on susuki's latest diatribe saying the hunting was responsible for animals getting smaller and hunting was reducing the overall wildlife populations. for a matter of interest here is a reply one of my friends sent global tv. maybe we all should.

Technically speaking-just over a hundred years ago -hunting was responsible for reducing wildlife populations-even making some species extinct. it's a good thing natural resource management was thought up, or we may have run out of animals to hunt.:idea:
Of course, i didn't see the Susuki diatribe, and I'm sure he was insinuating that hunting is currently reducing overall wildlife populations? Because that would definitely be B.S.

[David Heitsman]

I saw the show from my hotel in Kelowna, Russ, the featured trophy hunter and friend of mine had told me it was coming on.

Unfortunately there was little balance to the segment only mentioning Russ and his hunting lifestyle from childhood and then 2 or 3 preservationists from different societies espousing the belief that humans were the ultimate predator (duh!) and that popuations were suffering as a result of the trophy hunter actions selecting only the oldest and biggest from the group, thereby weakening the herd.

Global should have by rights and proper journalism asked a ministry staffer incharge of or familiar with seasons to briefly explain the harvesting strategies and how they vary area to area.

Russ did explain that just because you wanted an animal didn't mean you could go straight away and kill one as they may not even have a season in place for that animal.

All the while they kept going back to this 320 class elk video clip and then on the last clip the camera panned back and you could see a busy highway in front of the elk and he was obviously feeding in a ditch in Jasper or Banff. (No season there I might add.)

I may send a letter of complaint to Global as well.

[Will]

David Suzuki is a Clown.....He travels across Canada preaching about Global warming and the environment being poisoned by emmissions in a 40' Luxury Tour Bus ! :redface:
That didn't go unnoticed.....

What a Farce.....hopefully Folks will eventually see how he makes his living from spouting off this crap and realize he says what is sure to get the most attention...however wrong or exaggerated it may be.

Maybe a Bear will eat him:-|

[6616]

How could you wish such a terrible thing on a poor innocent bear....?

[nano]

Him and Ail Gore sould get together and talk.

[blacklab]

I think him and Gore talk quite often, right now they are talking about how to convince people sitting in the dark in Toronto that the earth is warming.
A lot of these groups are starting to suffer from a lack of donations they will jump on any wagon that comes by.
The big difference between Gore and Suzuki is Gore made enough money to fade away for a while, we're stuck with our homegrown clown.

[cariboobill]

Hey thanks for the thread.

This is what the Susuki foundation is best at. Picking a target that is a emotional button with the majority of the population, make it a cause, which will be funded by the many folks who have bought hook line and sinker into cause. The "modern" way of life of buying food at super markets is what most people know and understand. Hunting can be a real emotional issue for most people here in Canada, who have never grown up with a hunting heritage. So if this foundation is looking for a new source for funding, hunting may just be the ticket!

You may not agree with this issue this foundation has presented to the public, but you may have seen other programs that you did. How the foundation is funded?....From getting the public support for an issue, nothing different than how governments work. Get approval for your cause, get the support....Implement.

Really simple. As most hunting groups know, we are a target for the new world. Some hunters hunt for sport, while others it is away of life. Do ya think the public will know the difference.... I do not..

Lets hope the cause dies, before it grows.

[lunatic]

Maybe a Bear will eat him:-|[/quote]


Two bears are walking down a trail in the bush, when the lead bear feels the other bear licking his arse. He turns around and says to the other bear " what the hell is your problem man?...back off! The other bear backs away and they continue down the trail. A short time later the lead bear again feels the other bear start licking his arse. Again he stops, turns to the other bear and says " dude, what exactly is your problem? ...back off! The other bear backs away and they continue down the trail. Just when the lead bear starts to think everything is good, he again feels the other bear licking his arse. This time he's pissed ! He turns around to confront the other bear and says " man are you a damn pervert or what?...are you looking for a beating? The other bear looks at him sorrowfully and replies.... man i'm real sorry....I ate David Suzuki this morning and I just CAN'T get that taste out of my mouth.

[elkdom]

:lol::lol: lmao, goodnite:biggrin:

[elkdom]

so do you wanna hear my david susuki impersonation :?:




PULL MY FINGER:eek:

[Gateholio]

I do wonder if 4 pt deer seasons and 6 pt elk seasons don't contribute to the theory....Lots of big 3 pts and big 5pts running around, and contributing thier genes, while the small 4 pts and 6pts get shot out.

Just an idea.

[Will]

....I ate David Suzuki this morning and I just CAN'T get that taste out of my mouth.
:lol::lol::lol:

[gwillim]

So, leaving David Suzuki aside for a moment...the story he was reporting on is not something he made up. The hypothesis that human predation is altering the gentic make-up of target species was published by a Unniversity of Calgary biologist, Paul Paquet. The idea doesn't seem that crazy, if you keep shooting the superior animals and leaving the scrawny ones (or smaller antlered, or whatever), the odds are better for the scrawny ones to mate and pass on their genetics. Multiply this by a hundred generations, and you start to see a difference in the average population.

The Globe and Mail published a story on the theory in their Science section last week, and today I heard an interview with Paul Paquet on "Quirks and Quarks", the CBC science show. I didn't get the sense that the guy was a raving anti-hunter. He just thinks there may be smarter ways to manage the hunt without harming the gene pool of the game animals that we all like to chase around.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090113.wspecies13/BNStory/Science/home

[BCRiverBoater]

So, leaving David Suzuki aside for a moment...the story he was reporting on is not something he made up. The hypothesis that human predation is altering the gentic make-up of target species was published by a Unniversity of Calgary biologist, Paul Paquet. The idea doesn't seem that crazy, if you keep shooting the superior animals and leaving the scrawny ones (or smaller antlered, or whatever), the odds are better for the scrawny ones to mate and pass on their genetics. Multiply this by a hundred generations, and you start to see a difference in the average population.

The Globe and Mail published a story on the theory in their Science section last week, and today I heard an interview with Paul Paquet on "Quirks and Quarks", the CBC science show. I didn't get the sense that the guy was a raving anti-hunter. He just thinks there may be smarter ways to manage the hunt without harming the gene pool of the game animals that we all like to chase around.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090113.wspecies13/BNStory/Science/home


Could be true over many generations but guess what.

I do not buy it really as I do not know many people shooting trophies left and right. How many big animals are taken in a given area? There is not that many animals getting shot that are the largest in a given breeding area.

Look at all the trail cams. People see monster deer, elk or whatever every night. Very few if any of these ever get shot. Outfitters see trophies all the time in the summer when cutting trails or in the winter chasing wolves. What is the success rate of these coming back and getting that exact animal?

I guess it could happen if we actually took the biggest animals time after time but reality is we don't or we would all have our names in the book.

[Will]

I guess it could happen if we actually took the biggest animals time after time but reality is we don't or we would all have our names in the book.
Bang on !
Exactly what I was thinking ! :smile:

[huntwriter]

So, leaving David Suzuki aside for a moment...the story he was reporting on is not something he made up. The hypothesis that human predation is altering the gentic make-up of target species was published by a Unniversity of Calgary biologist, Paul Paquet. The idea doesn't seem that crazy, if you keep shooting the superior animals and leaving the scrawny ones (or smaller antlered, or whatever), the odds are better for the scrawny ones to mate and pass on their genetics. Multiply this by a hundred generations, and you start to see a difference in the average population.

The Globe and Mail published a story on the theory in their Science section last week, and today I heard an interview with Paul Paquet on "Quirks and Quarks", the CBC science show. I didn't get the sense that the guy was a raving anti-hunter. He just thinks there may be smarter ways to manage the hunt without harming the gene pool of the game animals that we all like to chase around.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090113.wspecies13/BNStory/Science/home
Even that “science” is flawed. Sure everybody would like to kill a big one, but fact is that very few do. I would wager that over 90% of hunters kill genetically inferior game animals. Why else would it be that the really big antlers are always found as sheds from deer or elk we never saw during hunting season. There is also an American study that says that big antlered whitetail deer are more common then they have been 20 years ago, and from what I see in the woods that must be true.

[hannibal]

I saw the article. It was crap and unfortunately a whole bunch of armchair environmentalist, anti-hunters will take that information to heart with no regard for any opposing view or science. That being said it was an interesting point of view.

[hunter1947]

Good wright your buddy did ..

What we need to do is have someone do a follow up speech on the remarks of what Mr Susuki had said in his TV interview and give the real story on how we conserve animals and how healthy the numbers are from the work of our biologies etc.

[Squirrelnuts]

Unniversity of Calgary biologist, Paul Paquet.


I wouldn't put an ounce of faith in anything he says. This is a start: http://www.prosts.com/Article-Wolf-Dispersal-Genetic-Connectivity.htm

[CanuckShooter]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=30354



more thoughts same subject.:shock: