If your a Hunter, don't be a Stoner

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Yes it's legal to kill animals under certain conditions...

However, if the only reason you kill something is because you think it's fun I think that activity is objectionable. It doesn't mean you are a lame person.

And I don't include people that hunt for food, or nuicance animal control.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Sounds more like the BC gov't doesn't know what it's doing in regards to environmental issues. They seem to contradict everything you see on the news about the pipeline that Alberta wants to put through. I guess if enough money is put up, no environmental concern is as big as the brief case that holds the greens.

Wow, that's a huge leap.

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

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

For the people so passionately against what Stoner did (which was entirely legal), what are your views on fishing?

How do you view the people who catch a big fish and get it mounted? Do you have any of your own?

And the most important question... if I have a fish mounted, do I too have a small penis? This particular question greatly concerns me.

I haven't read any comments suggesting that what Stoner did is illegal. I see fishing the same way. Fishing for a trophy is wrong, in my opinion.

As for your "most important question", you are dealing with an issue of correlation without causation. Just because you have a fish mounted and have a small penis, it doesn't mean that you have a small penis because you have a fish mounted. Changing your fishing habits won't help you in that area, I'm afraid.

[bucksmasher]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Just so everyone knows, you don't eat bear meat. Bears are hunted for the "rug", You shoot it, skin it and pack up. Stoner did what everyone else does who bear hunts, he did nothing wrong from a hunting stand point, nor from a wildlife conservation stand point.

The hunting debate is something entirely different.

Except in BC you cannot leave a game animal carcass in the bush, it all has to be packed out or you are up ####e creek. BC fish and game will hang your butt in a big way for violations. Its different here in AB, you can leave carcass in the bush.

edit: fur bearers may be exempt but I'm not sure if bears qualify and too lazy to look it up.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Just because you have a fish mounted and have a small penis, it doesn't mean that you have a small penis because you have a fish mounted. Changing your fishing habits won't help you in that area, I'm afraid.

Well in that case, let the trophy fishing continue!

[byronkentgraham]

Hunting is the most humane and cheapest way to control wildlife populations. If bear numbers are left unchecked they will either start to move into populated areas due to the abundance of food or disease will end up wiping out a good portion of their population.

I have a feeling lots of people here have only ever seen wildlife in Banff or on TV. If you dont understand why hunting laws are the way they are you shouldn't talk.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by byronkentgraham

Hunting is the most humane and cheapest way to control wildlife populations. If bear numbers are left unchecked they will either start to move into populated areas due to the abundance of food or disease will end up wiping out a good portion of their population.

I have a feeling lots of people here have only ever seen wildlife in Banff or on TV. If you dont understand why hunting laws are the way they are you shouldn't talk.

Grizzly Bear numbers aren't even remotely close to needing controlling as you suggest. You should likely head your own advice.

[byronkentgraham]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Grizzly Bear numbers aren't even remotely close to needing controlling as you suggest. You should likely head your own advice.

If grizzly bear numbers were dwindling don't you think they would stop selling tags? The tag numbers are controlled so there is not a huge spike in numbers. If the number spikes they will eat themselves out of food and their prey numbers will drastically drop.

It's not like hunters are just shooting whatever they can. These guys are trophy hunters. They're going after big males. Big males will usually be older. Culling these off will give the younger smaller males a chance to repopulate, and leave extra food for the cubs.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by byronkentgraham

If grizzly bear numbers were dwindling don't you think they would stop selling tags? The tag numbers are controlled so there is not a huge spike in numbers. If the number spikes they will eat themselves out of food and their prey numbers will drastically drop.

It's not like hunters are just shooting whatever they can. These guys are trophy hunters. They're going after big males. Big males will usually be older. Culling these off will give the younger smaller males a chance to repopulate, and leave extra food for the cubs.

Fact, Grizzly bears are far closer to being endangered then they are to needing any sort of population control.

[byronkentgraham]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Fact, Grizzly bears are far closer to being endangered then they are to needing any sort of population control.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

A fact is:
Hunting of grizzly bears is permitted in British Columbia for the purpose of wildlife management. A limited number of tags are sold through a lottery system each year.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by byronkentgraham

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

A fact is:
Hunting of grizzly bears is permitted in British Columbia for the purpose of wildlife management. A limited number of tags are sold through a lottery system each year.

No, it's actually a fact, mathematically possible to work out, not just an opinion.

Your fact is also true, however the two issues are mutually exclusive and both can be true. The grizzly bear population in BC is not remotely close to needing controlling, regardless of whether tags are given out.

[byronkentgraham]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

No, it's actually a fact, mathematically possible to work out, not just an opinion.

The population at which they need to start releasing hunting tags I an opinion. If it was a fact this discussion wouldn't be happening.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by byronkentgraham

The population at which they need to start releasing hunting tags I an opinion. If it was a fact this discussion wouldn't be happening.

You are assuming the fact that tags are released to mean that they need to be released. The fact that they actually release a limited number actually indicates they are trying to control the number of bears that get killed, the exact opposite of trying to control the bears population. It's actually an acknowledgement that the population can't be over hunted because its fragile.

[Muta]

So that makes it right to take the life - er, head and paw - of a bear? It's still barbaric, no matter how you spin it. You're taking a life for nothing other than... taking a life as an act of glory.

Why not let Mother Nature sort out the bear population? Or is this really just an excuse to use weapons and kill?

[byronkentgraham]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

You are assuming the fact that tags are released to mean that they need to be released. The fact that they actually release a limited number actually indicates they are trying to control the number of bears that get killed, the exact opposite of trying to control the bears population. It's actually an acknowledgement that the population can't be over hunted because its fragile.

The fact that its a limited draw means exactly that they are trying to control the population. If numbers were short enough that hunting would endanger the population in the long run they would eliminate hunting them all together, like they have with hawks, eagles, whooping cranes, soon trapping wolverines(if it hasn't been passed through already) and numerous other animals.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by byronkentgraham

The fact that its a limited draw means exactly that they are trying to control the population. If numbers were short enough that hunting would endanger the population in the long run they would eliminate hunting them all together, like they have with hawks, eagles, whooping cranes, soon trapping wolverines(if it hasn't been passed through already) and numerous other animals.

No it doesn't actually. If they were trying to control the population, there would not be limited hunting tags at all. Permits given out through lottery in limited number are done when the population of said animal is not low enough to ban hunting entirely, but it is acknowledged that over hunting could actually damage the populations ability to survive.

Animals that require population control don't have limited number of permits assigned, hunting of these animals is simply allowed.

Thus, why grizzly bears are closer to being endangered than needing population control.

[byronkentgraham]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

No it doesn't actually. If they were trying to control the population, there would not be limited hunting tags at all. Permits given out through lottery in limited number are done when the population of said animal is not low enough to ban hunting entirely, but it is acknowledged that over hunting could actually damage the populations ability to survive.

Animals that require population control don't have limited number of permits assigned, hunting of these animals is simply allowed.

Thus, why grizzly bears are closer to being endangered than needing population control.

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.

[dustyanddaflames]

I know this isn't specifically about bears - but coming from a hunter, there are a lot of instances where hunting is very much needed. I agree with Byron - the CFB Suffield is so over populated with elk, that they have started to move out as far as 60 miles to the north. Not only is this not an area for an elk to survive, they can cause a lot of dollars worth of damage in a short period of time.

Last year our winter was so rough on the deer population, we had over 200 deer in our feed stacks daily - climbing on our cattle's feed and basically ruining thousands of dollars worth of hay.

And what do you want us to do with it? We can't hunt them off our land, yet they are dying all over the place from starvation. Typically, you would have a hard time getting within 100-200 yards of a deer, yet last year, we were pushing deer with the tractor tires to get to the feed stacks. If I had to guess - we had over 50 deer die within a 500 yard radius. I even seen a pack of coyotes eating a deer which was still alive - so I have a hard time buying this "hunting is barbaric" bs. Yeah it isn't for everyone, but I can vouch, it could be worse. You think watching an animal get shot is hard - sit there and watch a live animal being eaten by it's predators. As a hunter, I had a hard time watching this, and had to run to the house and get the gun and do something.

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").

[Muta]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

"hunting is barbaric" bs. Yeah it isn't for everyone, but I can vouch, it could be worse. You think watching an animal get shot is hard - sit there and watch a live animal being eaten by it's predators. As a hunter, I had a hard time watching this, and had to run to the house and get the gun and do something.

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").

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.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by bucksmasher

Except in BC you cannot leave a game animal carcass in the bush, it all has to be packed out or you are up ####e creek. BC fish and game will hang your butt in a big way for violations. Its different here in AB, you can leave carcass in the bush.

edit: fur bearers may be exempt but I'm not sure if bears qualify and too lazy to look it up.

You don't have to pack the carcass out, did you read the article? Bear are not hunted for their gamey, wormy, awful tasting meat, that is why you can lave the carcass behind. Again bear hunting is not for the meat, it is for the skin. In fact you HAVE to leave parts behind including the gull bladder. This is not about what Stoner did, as he did exactly what most do who get drawn for Grizzly.

As for wildlife management, I'm sure they have plenty of research to back up their numbers as to how tags are allocated, this is in BC. In AB tags are just handed out to who has the most money.

In regards to the Suffield elk, I've seen elk right off of Hi Way 1 just east of Redcliff, the middle of the prairie.