Hunting bears …. Why do we hunt them?

In BC we have no shortage of bears with an estimated Black Bear population ranging from 120,000 to 150,000.
At present the provincial Grizzly numbers are around 15,000 even tho our ability to hunt them has been shut down.
Maybe ….. just maybe there’s a chance to see that season reopened ….. but we’d better get our shit together.

Why do we need to hunt bears?
We don’t if we don’t really care about other species of wildlife … ungulates.
Recent studies in Alaska have shown that the average grizzly bear kills & consumes 34.5 moose or caribou calves per year.
Im sure our BC bears follow the same pattern and our Black Bears aren’t living on a strict dandelion diet if there are elk calves or deer fawns to snack on.

The reason we need to be hunting bears is to try and get a balance back into wildlife….the predator/prey ratio needs a correction.
We need to get this message out to ears that will listen.

Sure, we want the hide for a rug.
The meat makes good blueberry smoked hams.
Really ….. not the message we should be putting forth.

Recently I was able to sit down with a provincial Minister (NDP by the way) and the question was asked ….”if the grizzly hunt comes back should it be to eat them”?

My answer was that “eating a grizzly should be the hunters choice ….the same for black bears”.
A bear that is left on the land does not go to waste.
Other creatures including bears will feed on the carcass and the biomass from that dead bear in many cases will keep some living, breathing animal from being lunch.

Bears that are taken to the “hunters place of residence or the meat cutter” that end up in a local landfill serve no purpose.
If the bears not going to be consumed and is only packed out to satisfy regulations…. the bear is wasted.

Back to the grizzly topic.
First Nations in northern BC have hunted grizzly bears for many generations.
They kept the hide & claws for clothing & decoration.
I guess that made them trophy hunters?
The used some bones off the bears to make tools.
They did not eat grizzly bears because “eating grizzly bear will make you sick”.

Each to his own but I’d say the advice passed down thru the years from these people might be worth listening to.
They also believe in hunting bears to keep predator/prey levels in check.

Let’s hear what others have to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearvalley

In BC we have no shortage of bears with an estimated Black Bear population ranging from 120,000 to 150,000.
At present the provincial Grizzly numbers are around 15,000 even tho our ability to hunt them has been shut down.
Maybe ….. just maybe there’s a chance to see that season reopened ….. but we’d better get our shit together.

Why do we need to hunt bears?
We don’t if we don’t really care about other species of wildlife … ungulates.
Recent studies in Alaska have shown that the average grizzly bear kills & consumes 34.5 moose or caribou calves per year.
Im sure our BC bears follow the same pattern and our Black Bears aren’t living on a strict dandelion diet if there are elk calves or deer fawns to snack on.

The reason we need to be hunting bears is to try and get a balance back into wildlife….the predator/prey ratio needs a correction.
We need to get this message out to ears that will listen.

Sure, we want the hide for a rug.
The meat makes good blueberry smoked hams.
Really ….. not the message we should be putting forth.

Recently I was able to sit down with a provincial Minister (NDP by the way) and the question was asked ….”if the grizzly hunt comes back should it be to eat them”?

My answer was that “eating a grizzly should be the hunters choice ….the same for black bears”.
A bear that is left on the land does not go to waste.
Other creatures including bears will feed on the carcass and the biomass from that dead bear in many cases will keep some living, breathing animal from being lunch.

Bears that are taken to the “hunters place of residence or the meat cutter” that end up in a local landfill serve no purpose.
If the bears not going to be consumed and is only packed out to satisfy regulations…. the bear is wasted.

Back to the grizzly topic.
First Nations in northern BC have hunted grizzly bears for many generations.
They kept the hide & claws for clothing & decoration.
I guess that made them trophy hunters?
The used some bones off the bears to make tools.
They did not eat grizzly bears because “eating grizzly bear will make you sick”.

Each to his own but I’d say the advice passed down thru the years from these people might be worth listening to.
They also believe in hunting bears to keep predator/prey levels in check.

Let’s hear what others have to say.

---

I have to disagree with some of your comments. Firstly there were thousands more grizzlies from California to Alaska and ungulates were doing just fine so all the blame cannot fall onto grizzlies. Secondly optics of the hunt was a major factor that ended the grizzly hunt. Around the world its seen strictly as a trophy hunt and nothing more. Taking the hide and skull and leaving the meat has left a image that's not favorable. Alaska has seen the writing on the wall and there is discussions going on re: have hunters take the meat out. Now what you do with the meat when you get home is entirely your decision. This is not a capitulation. To Ignore what others around the world have to say about grizzly trophy hunting is not the answer. As you Know in B.C. you are required to take all edible parts of the black bears. to suggest that black bears also should be the hunters choice whether to pack it out is a non starter and in my opinion going to increase friction. The age old comment " well im leaving the meat so that other animals can benefit from the carcass is not going to appease those opposed. As a hunter for over 50 years i don't support that comment myself.

I haven't hunted or shot a black bear since 2017 because I have had enough deer meat in the freezer.

Grizzly bears have never been on my radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneramhunter

I have to disagree with some of your comments. Firstly there were thousands more grizzlies from California to Alaska and ungulates were doing just fine so all the blame cannot fall onto grizzlies. Secondly optics of the hunt was a major factor that ended the grizzly hunt. Around the world it’s seen strictly as a trophy hunt and nothing more. Taking the hide and skull and leaving the meat has left an image that's not favorable. Alaska has seen the writing on the wall and there is discussions going on re: have hunters take the meat out. Now what you do with the meat when you get home is entirely your decision. This is not a capitulation. To Ignore what others around the world have to say about grizzly trophy hunting is not the answer. As you Know in B.C. you are required to take all edible parts of the black bears. to suggest that black bears also should be the hunters choice whether to pack it out is a non starter and in my opinion going to increase friction. The age old comment " well im leaving the meat so that other animals can benefit from the carcass is not going to appease those opposed. As a hunter for over 50 years i don't support that comment myself.

---

A great first comment and it nails the biggest problem we are faced in wildlife management today.
Too much input & interference from politicians that are rounding up votes and emotional, uneducated members of the public throwing out their Disneyland beliefs.
The sooner we can get decision making back to a regional level …. the better off we’ll be.
Democracy isn’t working for wildlife.

“Thousands of grizzlies from California to Alaska and ungulates were doing just fine”
Is that true….a lot of changes have taken place since then and I don’t think the old line that “nature will balance itself” is going to work well any more.
Sounds like a line the wolf huggers would peddle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearvalley

A great first comment and it nails the biggest problem we are faced in wildlife management today.
Too much input & interference from politicians that are rounding up votes and emotional, uneducated members of the public throwing out their Disneyland beliefs.
The sooner we can get decision making back to a regional level …. the better off we’ll be.
Democracy isn’t working for wildlife.

“Thousands of grizzlies from California to Alaska and ungulates were doing just fine”
Is that true….a lot of changes have taken place since then and I don’t think the old line that “nature will balance itself” is going to work well any more.
Sounds like a line the wolf huggers would peddle.

---

It appears that In your mind you are right and everyone elses opinion is b.s. Keep ignoring the vast population that is opposed to the very practice of leaving the meat behind and see where it goes. Hunters do not have exclusive rights to grizzly they belong to everyone not a hard concept to understand. Hunting, Logging and loss of habitat are reasons for declines in the Grizzly population . And yes in the 1800's fact there were a hell of a lot of grizzlies. Quit asking for comments if you simply want to throw out that it must be a line a wolf hugger would peddle. Ive spent a life time in the back country and feel confident that i can opinion on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneramhunter

It appears that In your mind you are right and everyone elses opinion is b.s. Keep ignoring the vast population that is opposed to the very practice of leaving the meat behind and see where it goes. Hunters do not have exclusive rights to grizzly they belong to everyone not a hard concept to understand. Hunting, Logging and loss of habitat are reasons for declines in the Grizzly population . And yes in the 1800's fact there were a hell of a lot of grizzlies. Quit asking for comments if you simply want to throw out that it must be a line a wolf hugger would peddle. Ive spent a life time in the back country and feel confident that i can opinion on this subject.

---

Ok….I’ll play your game.
Where’s BC’s decline in grizzly bears outside of populated areas?
You sure we haven’t seen an increase?
Some of us that do spend some time in the bush can see a change.
No one said hunters had an exclusive right.
Hunters can be part of the solution to a problem.

My minds not closed ….it’s just not programmed.

If i got the chance to hunt a grizzly i could compromise and eat it with no squables if that is what gives us social license to bring that hunt back.

Is there any one here that wouldn’t?

I for one would certainly be willing to bring all edible portions home if it meant getting the Griz hunt back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneramhunter

It appears that In your mind you are right and everyone elses opinion is b.s. Keep ignoring the vast population that is opposed to the very practice of leaving the meat behind and see where it goes. Hunters do not have exclusive rights to grizzly they belong to everyone not a hard concept to understand. Hunting, Logging and loss of habitat are reasons for declines in the Grizzly population . And yes in the 1800's fact there were a hell of a lot of grizzlies. Quit asking for comments if you simply want to throw out that it must be a line a wolf hugger would peddle. Ive spent a life time in the back country and feel confident that i can opinion on this subject.

---

Typical….you seem to be as weak of spirit as you are of mind…..right and wrong don’t matter to you. What matters to you is what the most vocal have to say and you are simple enough to work in the confines placed upon you by them, rather than try to make the right thing happen out there in the open. You’re in the closet….happily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RugDoctor

Typical….you seem to be as weak of spirit as you are of mind…..right and wrong don’t matter to you. What matters to you is what the most vocal have to say and you are simple enough to work in the confines placed upon you by them, rather than try to make the right thing happen out there in the open. You’re in the closet….happily.

---

Rug as usual. keep the insults flying lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneramhunter

Rug as usual. keep the insults flying lol

---

You’re right. My apologies for coming off like that….the spirit of my comment stands though. You seem to be happy to do what the (my opinion) perhaps wrong vocal but uneducated city folk want, while knowing it’s wrong….just to appease them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TyTy

If i got the chance to hunt a grizzly i could compromise and eat it with no squables if that is what gives us social license to bring that hunt back.

Is there any one here that wouldn’t?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by high horse Hal

I for one would certainly be willing to bring all edible portions home if it meant getting the Griz hunt back

---

I’m sure we all would be more than willing to pack out the edible portions if that’s what it took to bring back the grizzly hunt.
As for eating it, that’s the hunters choice …. some grizzlies will be palatable and some will make you puke.
The reason I started this thread is to get hunters thinking that there are other reasons to have a licensed grizzly hunt.
In the last 3 or 4 decades provincial grizzly populations have tripled.
Our ungulates have crashed.
There should not be an Apex predator that is untouchable if wildlife management is taking place for other species.
The “I eat grizzly” line isn’t gonna cut it.
Politician’s aren’t gonna buy that BS.
We need to be looking at the grizzly hunt as a hunt that fits into the wildlife management big picture.
Eating them and saving the hide are an extra bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearvalley

I’m sure we all would be more than willing to pack out the edible portions if that’s what it took to bring back the grizzly hunt.
As for eating it, that’s the hunters choice …. some grizzlies will be palatable and some will make you puke.
The reason I started this thread is to get hunters thinking that there are other reasons to have a licensed grizzly hunt.
In the last 3 or 4 decades provincial grizzly populations have tripled.
Our ungulates have crashed.
There should not be an Apex predator that is untouchable if wildlife management is taking place for other species.
The “I eat grizzly” line isn’t gonna cut it.
Politician’s aren’t gonna buy that BS.
We need to be looking at the grizzly hunt as a hunt that fits into the wildlife management big picture.
Eating them and saving the hide are an extra bonus.

---

Your comment about an untouchable Apex predator rings true. This is a big mistake from a wildlife management perspective. I have already seen five grizzlies (two today) this year to only 3 Black bears. This seems wrong. I have seen 10 times as many grizzlies over the last couple of hunting seasons than 4-point mule deer. There is something wrong. I live in Golden which is right in the heart of grizzly county so seeing grizzlies is definitely a possibility, but the ratio is out of balance. I’m not saying that there is more grizzlies than black bears, but I think grizzlies are now habituating areas where they did not when there was a grizzly hunt. There are 5-6 year bears that have never had a reason to fear man. This is dangerous. Human-grizzly conflict will be unavoidable as grizzlies loose their fear of man. Politicians have taken away our ability to defend ourselves against an apex predator. The grizzly hunt was more than just a trophy hunt. It was a management tool. The people that made this an emotional/political issue did not think past their own uneducated, inexperienced perspective to see what the consequences would be.
We need to have the grizzly hunt brought back. If that is packing out the edibles then let’s get on with it.

They only have a commercial value for viewing and poachers, far as I am concerned they are no different than a worthless ground hog and make for good target practice. So they may as well open up a season for the tourist hunters and bring some money into the province, if they don't lots of grizz will just rot in the bush.

I'd like to see the griz hunt return in BC, I enjoyed it once and would again... primarily though, I'd do it for the benefit of ungulates..

Its unfortunate that the majority of Canadian are more emotional than practical about wildlife. Unfortunately, we are forced to capitulate to them because they are the majority. Thinking there is a choice here is incorrect, there is no way our position is PC enough for the minority to overcome the emotional wildlife sentiment. So management of the “optics” of the situation is one of the best ways to help ourselves. Hunters shooting grizzlies to manage the population isn’t going to help our case with these people at all. The perception of trophy hunting is negative, and unfortunately we can’t change that easily. So no requirement to remove edible portions of the meat just hurts our cause.

Along the coastal regions grizzlies seem to be expanding their range. I have been told many indigenous communities are shooting twice as many “problem bears” as they were before the hunt was closed. Also that some northern bands would be bringing people in to hunt them if they could get export permits. So perhaps there is a better case or way forward there.

Unfortunately i think that the OP position is misguided and damaging. Not entirely wrong, but potentially damaging. It would be interesting to hear what other positions for a grizz hunt we could take.

Why hunt bears? Makes really good sausage and smoked hams.One thing I adamantly oppose is regulations based on emotion or political correctness to get votes

Bear hunting is a great way to provide organic meat protein.
There is the additional wildlife benefit factor aswell.
Often overlooked monetary stimulus benefits.
Bear hunting can be combined with countless other outdoor activities.

Yes, unfortunately, we do live in a democracy and politicians are pandering to the 'Disneyland' view that has taken hold. Telling people I'm a hunter AT ALL comes has the potential of conflict. And hunting charismatic species such as bear - any bear - is a step further.

I would say the meat question is ONE way to address it but even if you make use of the hide it is an example of use. Unfortunately, there are still many who view meat as the only 'use' part of a hunt they support since, like many things, use of fur itself has been questioned even from the time I was a kid. And while I am open to making use of a hide for a rug, I'm afraid I would be in the extreme minority in the urban people I know.

Of course, I would eat bear and have had pretty good sausage from black bear. Convincing people that bear is good to eat is a matter of taste. Since lots of people are fine with not knowing 'how the sausage is made', food will always be one of the best ways to convince people. Most people are good with eating anything as long as they can be shown it is ethical and sustainable - even if they don't want to look too deeply into how it really was procured.

Telling people you shoot animals without making use of it equates to the majority as 'killing for fun'. So talking about using them as 'target practice' even as a joke you will not be gaining any supporters.

People are not good with indirection. By that I mean telling them that killing a bear will help the deer population - while it may be true - requires them to accept a two-step premise. It requires a greater effort in argument and in messaging. Think about that oft-repeated story about how the wolves help Yellowstone Park. That simple premise is actually a complex idea rendered down to one line. It has taken hold because the majority don't like killing charismatic species to begin with and so were able to put in the effort to understand the arguments about the ecology and the supposed affects allowing wolves to thrive in the park had on it.

Now try to do the same thing with bears in BC but at the disadvantage that people generally don't like the image of killing one of the symbol species of BC. I would argue, unless bears start directly impacting people in their Teslas in the cities and become huge pests (like Canada geese), or active threats, you won't see the majority changing their view of bears needing protection.

I’d love to see it return as well. It was one of my favourite hunts. And we packed the meat out from all but the very first one that I was involved with but only because we didn’t know the meat was edible at the time(before the www.).

One weak argument is that we want to manage the grizzly bear numbers to help with our struggling ungulate populations. Previously, the grizzly bear hunt was managed at levels where hunting had no effect on the grizzly bear populations. That’s why the hunt was defendable. If we are only killing enough grizzly bears in BC so that we don’t impact the bear population then we are certainly not going to be killing enough bears to have any measurable impact on ungulate numbers.

If you want to help the struggling ungulate populations then the hunt would have to be managed at levels to reduce the grizzly populations. And that means killing quite a few sows. Do you think that would fly at the moment since we haven’t even had any kind of hunt for several years?
I certainly don’t think so.

My two cents.

SSS

I need to hunt bears because my dam freezer is out of pepperonies, smokies, and garlic coil. This is the exact reason I hunt birds and ungulates! I hunt to put good food in the freezer. I choose to do this myself with wild game. I do suppourt local farmers as well. I rarely buy red meat from a grocery store. If I wsa a vegetarian, I would get as many greens as I could from the wild too! Mother nature provides for you, but she doesnt put it in your fridge/freezer, you gotta go do that yourself! moosin

Looks like some are doing some thinking.
Seems most agree the hunt should come back with rules that the hide and meat is retained and used.

Now the kicker is that this province is headed to co-management of wildlife.
Any politician or government staffer will tell you that.

First Nations will be the driver if the grizzly hunt re-opens.
Some First Nations will not want the hunt back due to ties to the bear viewing industry and others will want the hunt because grizzlies are impacting ungulate numbers that are hunted for food and are becoming a threat to safety.
No one is going to reinstate the grizzly bear hunt because licensed hunters want to “eat grizz”.

I believe, we need to regroup our thinking and get this right.
Here’s my points:
- an Apex predator such as the grizzly bear cannot be left “ untouchable” if wildlife management for other species is to take place.
-we need to get inventory numbers of what’s wanted on the landscape and manage “all” species to the best of our ability so that those species remain in sustainable numbers.
-if/when a grizzly hunt re-opens it should be managed with population unit numbers in mind and if a sow or two get shot…so be it….to only target boars is a sure fired way to increase grizzly numbers.
-pack out the hide…pack out the meat ….whatever it takes but that said maybe some local level input on utilization should come into play here. With co-management being the new key word….we might be better off to listen to what the new “other half” of the management team has to say on what we should and shouldn’t have to do.

Here’s something most of you don’t know ….Grizzly bears are still getting CI’d in BC.
They are still getting tanned and done up by taxidermists.
Only thing is licensed hunters are shut out.

Maybe under “co-management” we will be able to hunt G bears again ….but it won’t be by the whim & will of the emotion based public or by telling the world we eat “blueberry smoked grizz”.

And yes….some grizzlies are edible…others….

After a week in region 7 we saw almost as many grizzlies as black bears including a sow with 3 cubs. They are doing well and the 2 tags that used to be allocated would not make a dent in the population..

The tahltan have a bounty on grizzlies, good for them going against the government when they know the government is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricDyck

The tahltan have a bounty on grizzlies, good for them going against the government when they know the government is wrong.

---

Exactly … and the Tahltan have asked for the return of the hunt as they are fully aware that grizzlies are not going to be managed under their current bounty program.
Last year, I believe the target they set was for 100 grizzlies and they got 9.
The village of Iskut was under lock down on Halloween night due to a grizzly breaking into occupied houses.
It was dispatched later that night.
The Tahltan’s know that they lack the funds to target bears throughout their territory due to the remoteness and aircraft needed for transportation to be getting bears that are needing removal.
They also recognize that licensed hunters are a management tool.
CITES permits are still issued for grizzly bears in Canada …. we just need to work on getting the hunt re-opened to all licensed hunters.

How has the class action over the provincial grizzly bear hunt gone.
Was it Don Donaldson that implemented the ban ... Not by conservation , but by public opinion.
I can say this .. The grizzly is definitely not a “Threatened “ species in this province.
I am one who wants to see the hunt reinstated ... In my opinion it’s not a conservation issue
Anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneramhunter

I have to disagree with some of your comments.

Firstly there were thousands more grizzlies from California to Alaska and ungulates were doing just fine so all the blame cannot fall onto grizzlies.

Secondly optics of the hunt was a major factor that ended the grizzly hunt. Around the world its seen strictly as a trophy hunt and nothing more. Taking the hide and skull and leaving the meat has left a image that's not favorable. Alaska has seen the writing on the wall and there is discussions going on re: have hunters take the meat out. Now what you do with the meat when you get home is entirely your decision. This is not a capitulation.

To Ignore what others around the world have to say about grizzly trophy hunting is not the answer. As you Know in B.C. you are required to take all edible parts of the black bears. to suggest that black bears also should be the hunters choice whether to pack it out is a non starter and in my opinion going to increase friction. The age old comment " well im leaving the meat so that other animals can benefit from the carcass is not going to appease those opposed. As a hunter for over 50 years i don't support that comment myself.

---

You're animating a fantasy.
Please explain to us why there were such large numbers of wildlife during the European colonization of North America.
To help you, be sure to include the Spanish Conquistador's introduction of diseases (1500's) that collapsed the Native human population and the resulting repercussions for wildlife.

Yes, Grizzly Bears are not always deserving of the whole blame for current ungulate population declines.
However, Bears, and Wolves, are heavily responsible for maintaining low ungulate populations in many areas.
Despite there being multiple causes for ungulate population crashes, the answer to restoring these animals can be as simple as predator removal.
If you continue to disagree, please educate us on why the principals of Trophic Cascade and Predator Pits are wrong and not occurring in B.C.


You don't seem to know what "capitulation" means.
What you described is the exact definition of capitulating.

The grizzly lawsuit has been “certified” and now can move forward with all affected outfitters as a class action lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearvalley

The grizzly lawsuit has been “certified” and now can move forward with all affected outfitters as a class action lawsuit.

---

This is good to hear .

I'll eat a grizzly for sure the hide and skull are bonuses

What happens to a bear (grizzly or black) when it dies or is killed in the wild without human intervention? Is it "wasted"?

Personally, I believe it should be required to leave the meat of a spring bear in the bush. Maybe be allowed to take a hind quarter. Other preds will eat that easy meal rather than risk taking a calf. Look up "diversionary feeding for predators and calf survival". Physiologically I think you could sell that aspect easier to non-hunters because you're "forcing" hunters to do something good for the wildlife population overall. Hunters have to give up something. The Pacific Wild and their ilk have been hammering against the "but I eat it" lament for years and that reasoning has been sunk and even has the opposite effect now. Nobody "has to hunt" to feed themselves and especially the glamour specifies.

You have to sell it as good for wildlife and it helps with the optics if hunters have to give up something (the meat) and more "natural' as in they die in the bush and the meat becomes the Great Circle of Life. Disney and The Lion King can help us with that. People listen to Disney way more than us or science.

I'd rather not leave fall bears in the bush because it just fattens up preds for winter survival and the calves are mostly safe from bears by then anyway. But in light of the above, that won't fly. I'd present that as the "Compromise".

Some good points in your post Ambush and what you’ve said is what we all need to be saying.
A bear left where it lived out it’s life is not wasted.
How many calf elk, moose, caribou or deer fawns would a bear carcass compensate for?
Im not advocating that we leave bears …it should be hunters choice and taking “all” edible portions home shouldn’t be a barrier.
Hard fact is …. not all bears are edible and I’ve seen a few with the hides off.
It doesn’t make sense to haul a bear out of the bush that’s unfit for human consumption just to feed the scavengers at the local landfill.
Like I said in my OP ….politicians are questioning the “hunters hunt bears to eat”.
We need to do our homework and change our narrative.
Another comment made by that same NDP Minister was pertaining to the wolf reduction/caribou recoveries.
“we’re doing wolf control as quietly as we can …. I remember what you told me years ago about shoot, shovel & shut up”.

​There is hope.

We also have to accept that this is mostly independent of what the specific group known as Hunters wants or says. We have a role in publicity and outreach, but the decision to hunt or not grizzlies (and ultimately all large preds) will be with individual Native Bands. Those that want it will have it, those that don't will make that call too. Their reasons will not be debated. Co-management is probably better understood in terms of escaping scrutiny of urban voters. Just a big shrug and say "The Knowledge Keepers said so". Off the hook.

When or whether that eventually translates to a resident hunt remains to be seen. Some of the bands that will allow a hunt certainly don't need the money bad enough to be selling a $100 grizzly tag to a resident. You better be prepared to pay many times that amount. Or the need and desire to substantially reduce the bears numbers must be apparent to them. I can foresee Bands having their own LEH for resident hunters as they manage "their" resource.

I used to get very angry about the salmon fishery, nets and abuse and with the obvious handing over the control to Band Coalitions. But now I just think, could they do any worse then the DFO and Ottawa's bungling woke beauroucrats. I'm starting to look more at provincial wildlife management the same way. Worst case scenario is total chaos and I won't have rules to follow either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearvalley

Looks like some are doing some thinking.
Seems most agree the hunt should come back with rules that the hide and meat is retained and used.

Now the kicker is that this province is headed to co-management of wildlife.
Any politician or government staffer will tell you that.

First Nations will be the driver if the grizzly hunt re-opens.
Some First Nations will not want the hunt back due to ties to the bear viewing industry and others will want the hunt because grizzlies are impacting ungulate numbers that are hunted for food and are becoming a threat to safety.
No one is going to reinstate the grizzly bear hunt because licensed hunters want to “eat grizz”.

I believe, we need to regroup our thinking and get this right.
Here’s my points:
- an Apex predator such as the grizzly bear cannot be left “ untouchable” if wildlife management for other species is to take place.
-we need to get inventory numbers of what’s wanted on the landscape and manage “all” species to the best of our ability so that those species remain in sustainable numbers.
-if/when a grizzly hunt re-opens it should be managed with population unit numbers in mind and if a sow or two get shot…so be it….to only target boars is a sure fired way to increase grizzly numbers.
-pack out the hide…pack out the meat ….whatever it takes but that said maybe some local level input on utilization should come into play here. With co-management being the new key word….we might be better off to listen to what the new “other half” of the management team has to say on what we should and shouldn’t have to do.

Here’s something most of you don’t know ….Grizzly bears are still getting CI’d in BC.
They are still getting tanned and done up by taxidermists.
Only thing is licensed hunters are shut out.

Maybe under “co-management” we will be able to hunt G bears again ….but it won’t be by the whim & will of the emotion based public or by telling the world we eat “blueberry smoked grizz”.

And yes….some grizzlies are edible…others….

---

I concur............

How often do you find a 'shot and left' bear? I've seen moose and deer on several occasions, but never a bear.

Reporting is the problem, IF we did like the FNs and quit telling them how many we kill they would have nothing to bitch about. They would know we were hunting, and the odd one would see a dead animal but they couldn't stand up there and say killing 500 bears a year is wrong, evil, twisted and should be stopped because it's inhumane. Like the wolf cull/shooting from choppers, if they ask just look at them and grin quit telling govt as they release the info under freedom of information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ambush

What happens to a bear (grizzly or black) when it dies or is killed in the wild without human intervention? Is it "wasted"?

Personally, I believe it should be required to leave the meat of a spring bear in the bush. Maybe be allowed to take a hind quarter. Other preds will eat that easy meal rather than risk taking a calf. Look up "diversionary feeding for predators and calf survival". Physiologically I think you could sell that aspect easier to non-hunters because you're "forcing" hunters to do something good for the wildlife population overall. Hunters have to give up something. The Pacific Wild and their ilk have been hammering against the "but I eat it" lament for years and that reasoning has been sunk and even has the opposite effect now. Nobody "has to hunt" to feed themselves and especially the glamour specifies.

You have to sell it as good for wildlife and it helps with the optics if hunters have to give up something (the meat) and more "natural' as in they die in the bush and the meat becomes the Great Circle of Life. Disney and The Lion King can help us with that. People listen to Disney way more than us or science.

I'd rather not leave fall bears in the bush because it just fattens up preds for winter survival and the calves are mostly safe from bears by then anyway. But in light of the above, that won't fly. I'd present that as the "Compromise".

---

You seriously think that hunters shouldn't be allowed to take home spring bear meat? I couldn't disagree more. If I couldn't eat bear meat I most likely would not hunt them. Bear meat is my family's absolute favorite wild game meat. Why on God's green earth is a hunter like you floating the idea of taking away more hunter rights? (the right to take home spring bear meat)? To appease the Anti's? WTF man? Holy cow.

Hunters should never be advocating for taking away other hunters rights - the government doesn't need any help from us. They're doing a pretty good job kowtowing to whatever the Anti's want already. They want us to eat our own - how you don't realize this is beyond me

Many years ago I was fortunate enough to try some interior Grizz meat that had been feeding on blueberries (not salmon) and it was just as delicious as any black bear I've eaten. We need to bring back the Grizz hunt because they're quickly losing their fear of humans and their numbers are seriously increasing almost everywhere in this province. Its beyond ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harvest the Land

You seriously think that hunters shouldn't be allowed to take home spring bear meat? I couldn't disagree more. If I couldn't eat bear meat I most likely would not hunt them. Bear meat is my family's absolute favorite wild game meat. Why on God's green earth is a hunter like you floating the idea of taking away more hunter rights? (the right to take home spring bear meat)? To appease the Anti's? WTF man? Holy cow.

Hunters should never be advocating for taking away other hunters rights - the government doesn't need any help from us. They're doing a pretty good job kowtowing to whatever the Anti's want already. They want us to eat our own - how you don't realize this is beyond me

Many years ago I was fortunate enough to try some interior Grizz meat that had been feeding on blueberries (not salmon) and it was just as delicious as any black bear I've eaten. We need to bring back the Grizz hunt because they're quickly losing their fear of humans and their numbers are seriously increasing almost everywhere in this province. Its beyond ridiculous

---

I think you are right about that. There are 5and 6 year old grizzlies that have never had a threat of being hunted. This will be a problem very soon. Making decisions to end that hunt on emotion and political pandering means that those that made that decision gave no thought to the repercussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearvalley

Some good points in your post Ambush and what you’ve said is what we all need to be saying.
A bear left where it lived out it’s life is not wasted.
How many calf elk, moose, caribou or deer fawns would a bear carcass compensate for?
Im not advocating that we leave bears …it should be hunters choice and taking “all” edible portions home shouldn’t be a barrier.
Hard fact is …. not all bears are edible and I’ve seen a few with the hides off.
It doesn’t make sense to haul a bear out of the bush that’s unfit for human consumption just to feed the scavengers at the local landfill.
Like I said in my OP ….politicians are questioning the “hunters hunt bears to eat”.
We need to do our homework and change our narrative.
Another comment made by that same NDP Minister was pertaining to the wolf reduction/caribou recoveries.
“we’re doing wolf control as quietly as we can …. I remember what you told me years ago about shoot, shovel & shut up”.

​There is hope.

---

GOOD response Mike ! RJ

By the way any one know why " bearvalley " was banned - i see nothing out the the ordinary ! just wondering ? :confused:RJ

A lot of people throwing around strong opinions, all based on anecdotal evidence. How about we recognize that we don't have a very solid idea of grizzly or ungulate population numbers, we can roughly guess at best. Comparing to the 1800s makes little sense, because the prey numbers were also different as was the landscape.

I see both sides of the argument. There is logic in balancing the harvest of predators and prey. On the slipside, humans/hunters haven't been good at managing predator populations historically. Look at Eastern Canada, where wolves and cougars were hunted to extinction. I personally have no strong opinion one way or another, because I haven't seen enough evidence/information to be for or against it.

I will take a legal predator given the opportunity. Because it makes sense to me.