If your a Hunter, don't be a Stoner

[bizaro86]

I don't hunt and never will.

But how is killing an animal for its fur different than killing its for its meat.

By analogy, humans could replace furs with plant and synthetic based substitutes. (Cotton, polyester, etc)

Humans could also replace meat with plant and synthetic substitutes. (tofu, lentils, etc).

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by Muta

There is no glory in shooting an animal for sport. There just isn't. Justify it all you want, but you're ending a life just to satisfy your own desires. Like I said, let Mother Nature sort it out, let her institute her own form of population control.

Taking the head of an animal just so you can put it on your wall is indeed barbaric, and no amount of reasons or excuses will justify it.

We each have our own background/beliefs I guess - but hey, thanks for telling me how I should be, will take note.

I hunt for both the meat/horn, and if I shoot something worthy of hanging on a wall, I will do as I please I guess until our government quits allowing us "ending a life just to satisfy our own desires", I will continue to do what I am legally able to do.

As for the mother nature spew - yeah, I'd love to believe in that. I'd also love to believe in she is currently cutting me a cheque for the damage deer/geese do yearly to our cash crops.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

We each have our own background/beliefs I guess - but hey, thanks for telling me how I should be, will take note.

I hunt for both the meat/horn, and if I shoot something worthy of hanging on a wall, I will do as I please I guess until our government quits allowing us "ending a life just to satisfy our own desires", I will continue to do what I am legally able to do.

As for the mother nature spew - yeah, I'd love to believe in that. I'd also love to believe in she is currently cutting me a cheque for the damage deer/geese do yearly to our cash crops.

Well, it is truly unfortunate that only through legal means would you stop trophy hunting. You'd think the moral act of killing a living creature would have prevented it first, but I see that doesn't cross your mind.

As for Mother Nature, she knows best. She'll take care of you too, one day.

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, it is truly unfortunate that only through legal means would you stop trophy hunting. You'd think the moral act of killing a living creature would have prevented it first, but I see that doesn't cross your mind.

As for Mother Nature, she knows best. She'll take care of you too, one day.

Think its best we just end this here...

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by byronkentgraham

Releasing limited tags is specifically designed to control population. A perfect example is last year on CFB Suffield they released 500 elk tags to reduce the population. They wanted to reduce the population because they were becoming a nuisance and if their population wasn't controlled they would eventually eat themselves short of food.

Whether the number of grizzly tags is designed to maintain or to slowly increase population I'm not sure. That doesn't change the fact that they release tags to keep grizzlies at a manageable level. Managing grizzlies isn't just about grizzlies. It has effects on other predators such as wolves who are competing for much of the same prey.

Yes, Elk tags in that particular area is a good example of using tags for population control. Yes, as dustyandaflames said, it is often used for deer as well in that way. It also functions as has been mentioned, however, to allow very limited hunting of animals that aren't officially "endangered", but can't afford to be overhunted, such as grizzly bears. They are not hunting grizzly bears to protect the food supply for wolves. They are actually part of the solution in regulating prey species such as deer and elk, which we have already agreed have overpopulation issues. In the interest of providing something other than the classic "Is too! Is Not!", I provide the link below.

http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/wildli...ars/learnmore/

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I don't hunt and never will.

But how is killing an animal for its fur different than killing its for its meat.

By analogy, humans could replace furs with plant and synthetic based substitutes. (Cotton, polyester, etc)

Humans could also replace meat with plant and synthetic substitutes. (tofu, lentils, etc).

I think the argument would be that if you're going to hunt an animal, you should do both. Keep the meat, keep the fur, ensure as little of the animal 'goes to waste' as possible. I'm sure that's been done before...

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

I know its gotta be pretty fulfilling to sit in your ivory tower and look down upon us barbarians - but there is a need for hunting, whether it be "trophy hunting" or "hunting" (still don't see the difference personally, as you are committing the same "act").

You've made a case for culling elk. Try making a case for the 'need' to trophy hunt. Bloodlust?

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I think the argument would be that if you're going to hunt an animal, you should do both. Keep the meat, keep the fur, ensure as little of the animal 'goes to waste' as possible. I'm sure that's been done before...

If that was the arguement at hand, yeah, I can see people's issues with simply killing for horns and leaving the rest behind (which is the case in some instances). However, I will say that 99.9% of people that hunt in our area are hunting for horns - but the meat does get utilized as well. I am confident in this. I will not sit here and say that is the case for every hunter worldwide - but I don't see the issue with hunting for a "big" animal all the while utilizing the rest of the animal for food.

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You've made a case for culling elk. Try making a case for the 'need' to trophy hunt. Bloodlust?

I didn't even make a case for culling elk - but I will. All I said is that they are overpopulated in one area - and with no know predators in that area, the best form of population control is through hunting.

Why do I need to make a damn case for trophy hunting? Law says I am able to do it - you make the case as to why I can't. As I have said previously, I utilize the meat as well, so if I happen to take down a nice animal, why can't I enjoy that as well? I have shot animals that "don't make the wall" - does that make me a better person now? I fail to see how it is morally different in my instance - I kill an animal, use it's meat and horns - I am a bad person. I kill an animal, use it's meat and throw away it's horns - I am a good person?

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Try making a case for the 'need' to trophy hunt. Bloodlust?

When you go fishing, if it's going well you usually try to fish as long as you can and keep the bigger fish. Trophy fishing. If you let a previously caught fish go in order to keep a bigger fish and the original fish dies, what is that considered?

If you're hunting and you have a chance to shoot a normal sized deer and a massive (trophy) deer, you're going to go for the bigger one.

Some are going to argue that leaving the carcas to rot is wrong because you should use all the meat. I've had bear meat a few times, I've enjoyed it 0 times. It isn't the law to use all of the meat and he didn't. He was bear hunting to get the hide, not the meat. I'm sure he goes hunting for other things and uses the meat and not the hide.

Years ago, I caught a trophy fish that is on my wall. I didn't eat the fish. 0% of that fish was utilized. That fish died a horrible horrible death just so I could put it on my wall. That day I had caught many other fish and threw them back because I was trophy fishing. I didn't need to keep fishing, I had caught many fish already, I just wanted a trophy.

People don't 'need' to trophy hunt because people don't need trophies. People don't need to play hockey, teams don't need to win championships, people don't need a big house or a fancy car. They want them.

Stoner wanted a trophy, it was within his right to get one. He followed the rules, he paid his dues and got his torphy because he wanted it.

If it makes you feel better, he probably tried a few times to get a trophy and failed.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

This thread should really be in the OT area...nothing hockey related here

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Wow, that's a huge leap.

Care to explain how maintaining a sustianable hunting season has anything to do with objections to pipeline routing?

Read the article. The natives are trying to protect the environment while the BC gov't can care less about whether hunters are shooting bears where they want on crown land and even on reserved land. Just as long as money is going into the system, it's like who cares, right? I'm just making the same analogy to the Alberta pipelines wanting to go through BC. Just as long as the BC gov't gets their share, eff the environment. Who really cares about what the natives say anyway?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

I didn't even make a case for culling elk - but I will. All I said is that they are overpopulated in one area - and with no know predators in that area, the best form of population control is through hunting.

Why do I need to make a damn case for trophy hunting? Law says I am able to do it - you make the case as to why I can't. As I have said previously, I utilize the meat as well, so if I happen to take down a nice animal, why can't I enjoy that as well? I have shot animals that "don't make the wall" - does that make me a better person now? I fail to see how it is morally different in my instance - I kill an animal, use it's meat and horns - I am a bad person. I kill an animal, use it's meat and throw away it's horns - I am a good person?

Your words, thought I'd give you the opportunity to back them up.

there is a need for hunting, whether it be "trophy hunting" or "hunting"

Didn't expect the great white hunter to turn tail.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Your words, thought I'd give you the opportunity to back them up.



Didn't expect the great white hunter to turn tail.

You asked for a specific thing. He said nothing about elk and then you asked about elk. He didn't "turn tail" your question was flawed. Move on.

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Your words, thought I'd give you the opportunity to back them up.



Didn't expect the great white hunter to turn tail.

Sorry, I don't follow here - if you care to explain, I'd love to elaborate and answer your question. Also - could the mods please move this topic to the proper form, as this isn't much for a hockey discussion anymore

[Timbo]

I hunt, I fish, I do so legally and ethically.
I have a great appreciation for the outdoors and all things living.

With that in the open , all haters please feel free to put me on their ignore list.

Mr. Stoner did nothing legally wrong in so far as the evidence presented.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I can appreciate arguments from people who hunt for food (especially if its their primary source of food) or even for ecosystem management...as these serve a reasonable purpose.

However, trophy hunting, where the only purpose is ego satisfaction, I just can't put into an ethical category.

Killing for shiggles is technically about as unethical as you can get.

I just don't get the logic of "I think that animal is awesome...so I shall kill it"

If you like the outdoors and wildlife, drop the rifle, grab an SLR camera and take a picture of the bear/deer/hobo that proves that you had it in your crosshairs.

If anything, getting an aesthetically pleasing picture is significantly more challenging than blowing something away

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Poe969

When you go fishing, if it's going well you usually try to fish as long as you can and keep the bigger fish. Trophy fishing. If you let a previously caught fish go in order to keep a bigger fish and the original fish dies, what is that considered?

Culling. Illegal.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs-pdfs.html

Never Cull Fish
“Culling” is staying within the catch limit for a species by releasing fish
from a stringer or other holding device when a larger fish is caught. Fish
that have been held on a stringer or in a tub usually die if released because
of stress and because of damage to their gills, fins and scales.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Read the article. The natives are trying to protect the environment while the BC gov't can care less about whether hunters are shooting bears where they want on crown land and even on reserved land. Just as long as money is going into the system, it's like who cares, right? I'm just making the same analogy to the Alberta pipelines wanting to go through BC. Just as long as the BC gov't gets their share, eff the environment. Who really cares about what the natives say anyway?

The Government does care as a tag is by draw only in that area. Hunters use crown land, Quaders use crown land, campers use crown land, anyone who enjoys the outdoors uses crown land. You will find that hunters care as much or more about the environment as the Natives or any of the previously mentioned users. Tourists, looking for photo ops do the most damage to the environment. Regulated hunting does not pose an environmental concern.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

I can appreciate arguments from people who hunt for food (especially if its their primary source of food) or even for ecosystem management...as these serve a reasonable purpose.

However, trophy hunting, where the only purpose is ego satisfaction, I just can't put into an ethical category.

Killing for shiggles is technically about as unethical as you can get.

I just don't get the logic of "I think that animal is awesome...so I shall kill it"

If you like the outdoors and wildlife, drop the rifle, grab an SLR camera and take a picture of the bear/deer/hobo that proves that you had it in your crosshairs.

If anything, getting an aesthetically pleasing picture is significantly more challenging than blowing something away

Same goes with making money. If you make enough money to feed your family and house them in a moderate dwelling, that is enough. If you make more than your family needs and don't donate that money to poor people who are starving to death...that makes you a horrible person. All these people who live in big houses and make millions of dollars just to buy fancy cars and eat fancy foods while others live in poverty is outragous!

See what I did there... Where do you draw the line? People do things for "shiggles" all the time, some people will buy fast cars just to look cool while others are starving in the streets or left homeless due to flooding. This is turning into an ethical battle that is on a slippery slope. Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it wrong or make the person who does it any less of a person.

Saying someone is disgusting because they trophy hunt is like saying someone is disgusting because they make millions of dollars when they could live off of hundreads.

Grizzley bears are legal to hunt, it's not like he was shooting people. Some people need to calm down before this gets out of hand.