G Bear poll

[Foxton Gundogs]

New poll on Grizzly hunting in BC, this effects you as non resident hunters and if we loose it Albert's chance of ever getting a season will be sharply diminished. HIT IT Please.

http://www.cheknews.ca/

[Norwest Alta]

I think that the words "trophy hunting " makes this poll bs. Typical of pollsters trying to skew the results. Hell lots of hunters are even against trophy hunting.

[wwbirds]

Just saying trophy hunting brings the visual of taking a small part of the animal like antlers or horns and leaving the rest to rot. It is like taking a poll asking if hunters should be able to shoot and waste the animal. Most trophy hunters utilize the meat of animals in addition to the hide antlers or horns.
This survey is already slanted to obtain the results they want with 65% against and 35% in favor of continuing the hunt

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I think that the words "trophy hunting " makes this poll bs. Typical of pollsters trying to skew the results. Hell lots of hunters are even against trophy hunting.

Leading questions bring the expected results.

Grizz

[Salavee]

In all fairness, if Grizzly hunting isn't trophy hunting, what is it ?

It can't be called a cull hunt or a management hunt, otherwise the females would be targeted, would they not ? Whatever they want to call it, we need one... soon.

[AB2506]

At the time of this posting, Yes to grizzly bear hunting is behind 55-45. If we ever want grizzly bear hunting in Alberta, we have to help save it in BC.

http://www.cheknews.ca/chek-point-po...ed-b-c-294942/

[SLH]

Didnt realize us hunters had exclusive rights to areas. Sounds like someone is dealing a lie.

The Commercial Bear Viewing Association says the bear viewing industry is worth $13 million a year right now but could grow significantly if it were allowed to expand into areas reserved for trophy hunting.

[Foxton Gundogs]

Originally Posted by Salavee

In all fairness, if Grizzly hunting isn't trophy hunting, what is it ?

It can't be called a cull hunt or a management hunt, otherwise the females would be targeted, would they not ? Whatever they want to call it, we need one... soon.

I have been in on the shooting of quite a number of G-Bears and the meat is no different than black bear meat. If you shoot them on salmon streams during the spawn, neither is palatable, but inland the meat is great and makes awesome sausage. Trophy Hunting is a catch phrase to "tug at the heart strings" Trophy hunting and Grizzly hunting are not synonymous nor are they interchangeable.

Thanks for your support guys.

[Luckybrand]

Everyone should do the poll just to support fellow hunters, when I voted there were over 5000 voters and it was only 55% in favour of hunting still. That can easily lead to the next headline "Nearly 1/2 of the voters say no to Grizzly hunting" Sure its misleading but thats what the next headline will read if we do not all vote!

[Alephnaught]

Originally Posted by Norwest Alta

I think that the words "trophy hunting " makes this poll bs. Typical of pollsters trying to skew the results. Hell lots of hunters are even against trophy hunting.

I've never hunted bears, nor do I have plans to. That being said, I know many do and I support them. (Looks like the poll is either already closed or the segment of the page the vote link is on doesn't show up behind my firewall at work, but otherwise I'd have cast a vote in favour.)

What I do have an issue with is some hunters looking down their noses at a method of hunting. Is it an ethical harvest? Did the harvest occur legally? Is part of the animal maintained for use according to the appropriate regulations, even if that part happens not to be meat for consumption? This should be sufficient. How is harvesting a coyote, fox, wolf or cougar for its hide - but leaving the carcass to be recycled back into the ecosystem - any different than harvesting a bear for its hide, if we're equating 'hide' and 'trophy'? The hunting regulations themselves embrace this - with bears, as with cougars, the tag is affixed to the skin not the carcass. That is, even the regulations recognize the intent of this harvest. And, fundamentally, if the purpose of the tag system is to actively recruit hunters into the conservation cycle through harvest, why does it matter whether the meat of these species is consumed?

The reverse argument could be made for ungulates - why is it permissible that their skins routinely be discarded? If the unreasonable mentality regarding *this* being an acceptable purpose for harvest but *that* is not, why is this permitted?

To me, I see where parallels can be drawn between this and Fudds looking down their noses at the AR-15 guys. One one hand, you have a bunch of ascot-wearing effete snobs sitting in judgement based on various criteria they've conjured up, and on the other you have, well, us - everybody else, aka 'the great unwashed.'

If you shoot a firearm and it goes 'bang' and you're doing it safely according to the law, you are my brother and I support you. It doesn't matter that I might never be interested myself in owning what you're shooting, or shooting in the manner in which you're shooting, I support you. By the same token, if you harvest something and you do it ethically according to the law, I call you brother as well for the same reasons.

[Foxton Gundogs]

Here is a direct Link to the poll without having to look for it. It's 50/50 now hit it hard, Thanks VERY much for your support.

http://www.cheknews.ca/chek-point-po...ed-b-c-294942/

[play.soccer]

The poll must have been worded by a retard.


Voted to support hunters, 51% stop the hunting 49% keep hunting.

[Alephnaught]

OK, just voted. And I agree - the wording on that poll is ridiculous.

Loaded question up there with "Have you stopped beating your spouse?"

[elkdump]

Will the Govt ditch the Carbon tax if the masses had a poll that showed the vast majority was against the Carbon tax,,, me don't think so, good luck with that

The Govt do what they wanna do, and screw the public

[hal53]

Originally Posted by elkdump

Will the Govt ditch the Carbon tax if the masses had a poll that showed the vast majority was against the Carbon tax,,, me don't think so, good luck with that

The Govt do what they wanna do, and screw the public

We had a poll n Alberta about the carbon tax...73% were against it...so the Gov't.,....never mind, you're right..

[700-223]

Originally Posted by Alephnaught

I've never hunted bears, nor do I have plans to. That being said, I know many do and I support them. (Looks like the poll is either already closed or the segment of the page the vote link is on doesn't show up behind my firewall at work, but otherwise I'd have cast a vote in favour.)

If you shoot a firearm and it goes 'bang' and you're doing it safely according to the law, you are my brother and I support you. It doesn't matter that I might never be interested myself in owning what you're shooting, or shooting in the manner in which you're shooting, I support you. By the same token, if you harvest something and you do it ethically according to the law, I call you brother as well for the same reasons.

Yup, I'm with you. In fact, I'll go one step further and say that if you're doing whatever safely, legally, and ethically (and I'm going to use a broad definition of ethical and say it's anything that doesn't directly harm others) and make an attempt to mitigate its effects on others, I'm good with it.

Live and let live, right?

Ps we're down 56 to 44%

[Norwest Alta]

Originally Posted by Alephnaught

I've never hunted bears, nor do I have plans to. That being said, I know many do and I support them. (Looks like the poll is either already closed or the segment of the page the vote link is on doesn't show up behind my firewall at work, but otherwise I'd have cast a vote in favour.)

What I do have an issue with is some hunters looking down their noses at a method of hunting. Is it an ethical harvest? Did the harvest occur legally? Is part of the animal maintained for use according to the appropriate regulations, even if that part happens not to be meat for consumption? This should be sufficient. How is harvesting a coyote, fox, wolf or cougar for its hide - but leaving the carcass to be recycled back into the ecosystem - any different than harvesting a bear for its hide, if we're equating 'hide' and 'trophy'? The hunting regulations themselves embrace this - with bears, as with cougars, the tag is affixed to the skin not the carcass. That is, even the regulations recognize the intent of this harvest. And, fundamentally, if the purpose of the tag system is to actively recruit hunters into the conservation cycle through harvest, why does it matter whether the meat of these species is consumed?

The reverse argument could be made for ungulates - why is it permissible that their skins routinely be discarded? If the unreasonable mentality regarding *this* being an acceptable purpose for harvest but *that* is not, why is this permitted?

To me, I see where parallels can be drawn between this and Fudds looking down their noses at the AR-15 guys. One one hand, you have a bunch of ascot-wearing effete snobs sitting in judgement based on various criteria they've conjured up, and on the other you have, well, us - everybody else, aka 'the great unwashed.'

If you shoot a firearm and it goes 'bang' and you're doing it safely according to the law, you are my brother and I support you. It doesn't matter that I might never be interested myself in owning what you're shooting, or shooting in the manner in which you're shooting, I support you. By the same token, if you harvest something and you do it ethically according to the law, I call you brother as well for the same reasons.

Pretty much my thoughts as well. Are you my big bro or little bro? Lol

Just the wording of the poll got me. Why put the world " trophy " in it? Just because it's a grizzly bear doesn't make it a trophy. The person that shoots it decides if it's worth trophy status in his/her owns eyes. IMO

[Twobucks]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

The poll must have been worded by a retard.

Or more likely a non-hunter who hasn't spent much if any time with hunters.

I voted in favour of continued grizz hunt in the poll, but c'mon guys, it's a television news daily poll. Tomorrow's will be about whether you have plans for a garden this year. The day after it'll be about whether the provincial government is doing enough about something. It matters not one bit.

Hunters would do more by actually reaching out to opinion makers and public influencers instead of grouching about nonhunters ignorance amongst ourselves.

Maybe someday we can get it back here, even as a pure lottery.

[super7mag]

Bump keep voting

[Alephnaught]

Had a discussion with a hunter on another site. Disappointingly, he was of the 'if it isn't meathunting, it's trophy hunting' crowd. He went further. Apparently, according to this fellow, coyote & wolf hunting, being done purely for financial reasons, are similarly unacceptable. He would not listen to reason.

This was a fellow hunter.

This sort of attitude is like sitting at your position on the bow and smugly noting that leak at the stern. This is of course justified in your mind, because of the way the guys sitting there approach boating, which is inferior in your view. And you feel gratitude that the leak happened at the other end, where it won't affect you.

[oiler_nation]

Originally Posted by Alephnaught

Had a discussion with a hunter on another site. Disappointingly, he was of the 'if it isn't meathunting, it's trophy hunting' crowd. He went further. Apparently, according to this fellow, coyote & wolf hunting, being done purely for financial reasons, are similarly unacceptable. He would not listen to reason.

This was a fellow hunter.

This sort of attitude is like sitting at your position on the bow and smugly noting that leak at the stern. This is of course justified in your mind, because of the way the guys sitting there approach boating, which is inferior in your view. And you feel gratitude that the leak happened at the other end, where it won't affect you.

While I certainly do not agree with everything your internet opponent said (or at least how you have represented him here), to act like you cannot disagree with the practices of a fellow hunter because he is your "brother" is ridiculous. We as a collective group are judged based on the conduct of the worst of us. It is an unfortunate reality we as hunters need to accept. If a guy buys a tag, he is unquestionably on our team, but if he is doing things that jeopardize the future of the team, we as hunters should damn well criticize him for it. A classic example is the use of the term trophy hunting by fellow hunters. Trophy hunting is a loaded term that brings about an overwhelmingly negative response from the general public and, while a hunter likely uses it to describe his desire to only harvest mature animals (animals he will make use of), this context is lost on the vast majority. Use of the term by our own is bad press for hunting, and contributes to the sentiment that hunters are out there killing for the sake of killing and wasting the animal. I think it is fair to ask why a particular hunter uses a term that contributes to an anti-hunting sentiment.

You used the analogy of a boat. If a guy is cutting holes in the boat, are you suggesting that we should all let it sink because we are brothers?

[Foxton Gundogs]

Here in BC it is illegal to leave eatable portions of Black Bear in the bush. The same should be true for G Bears. I have eaten a lot of bear in my life, both black and Grizzly. You wouldn't consider either taken on the cost at a salmon stream edible, But inland bears are fine table fare be they Grizzly or Blacks.

Thanks to every one for their support.

[Alephnaught]

Originally Posted by oiler_nation

While I certainly do not agree with everything your internet opponent said (or at least how you have represented him here), to act like you cannot disagree with the practices of a fellow hunter because he is your "brother" is ridiculous. We as a collective group are judged based on the conduct of the worst of us. It is an unfortunate reality we as hunters need to accept. If a guy buys a tag, he is unquestionably on our team, but if he is doing things that jeopardize the future of the team, we as hunters should damn well criticize him for it. A classic example is the use of the term trophy hunting by fellow hunters. Trophy hunting is a loaded term that brings about an overwhelmingly negative response from the general public and, while a hunter likely uses it to describe his desire to only harvest mature animals (animals he will make use of), this context is lost on the vast majority. Use of the term by our own is bad press for hunting, and contributes to the sentiment that hunters are out there killing for the sake of killing and wasting the animal. I think it is fair to ask why a particular hunter uses a term that contributes to an anti-hunting sentiment.

You used the analogy of a boat. If a guy is cutting holes in the boat, are you suggesting that we should all let it sink because we are brothers?

You haven't entirely grasped my point. From your post, it sounds like we're agreeing with one another. Let's leave aside the 'brother' thing for the moment, it appears to be confusing things.

My point has been that if you're legally hunting according to the regulations and you ethically harvest an animal, I'm with you. Doesn't matter to me if you use a rifle, a bow, or a spear, I'm with you. If it was an ungulate you harvested for the meat or a bear/cougar and you harvested for the hide, I'm with you. Whether you kept or discarded the ungulate's hide, or kept or discarded the bear/cougar's meat doesn't really matter to me, as the regulations give you the choice in those matters. It doesn't matter whether or not I choose to hunt as you do, or hunt what you do, I'm with you.

What I do take a dim view of is hunters among us who say "I hunt specifically for the meat, so I'm better. That guy over there, he's going out for grizzly and is only in it for the skin. That's hunting for trophies. I find that morally objectionable and so will stand by and offer no aid against the various forces, such as animal rights activists, who would like grizzly hunting done away with." Or worse - far worse - is the type who will take the extra step and saw "I find trophy hunting morally objectionable and so will join forces with the animal rights activists to see this done away with." If you happen to be one of these types, I most definitely am not with you.

I agree with you that it is a mistake to allow us be coloured into a corner with the use of 'trophy hunting' as a term to describe what's done. If the hunt was legal and ethical, that's as far as moral determination needs to go.

Getting back to the boat analogy, what guys like the one I was talking to are missing is that we're all in this together. It doesn't matter what end of the boat you're at, if there's a leak it threatens everyone sitting in the boat. Today's it's grizzly hunts, tomorrow black bear, Monday elk, and on it goes. For anyone who doesn't think it can happen needs only look to Australia, where a full on ban of duck hunting is being vigorously pursued and is already banned in five states/territories. Madness. If you're sitting in the boat and you're neither bailing nor plugging leaks, as far as I'm concerned you should go over the side. And if you're actively putting holes into the hull, you may need a brisk thrashing before you go over the side.

[Headdamage]

I would be ok with it as long as you have to recover and use the meat, this would apply to all big game hunting for me. If I don't want to eat it I don't shoot it, and no I don't eat bear, cat, dog, etc... so I limit my hunting to the deer family. If Grizzly hunting is just for the trophy then I would say no to it.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Headdamage

I would be ok with it as long as you have to recover and use the meat, this would apply to all big game hunting for me. If I don't want to eat it I don't shoot it, and no I don't eat bear, cat, dog, etc... so I limit my hunting to the deer family. If Grizzly hunting is just for the trophy then I would say no to it.

You mean "no" you wouldn't do it?.. or "no", I don't want anyone doing it?...

[Alephnaught]

Originally Posted by hal53

You mean "no" you wouldn't do it?.. or "no", I don't want anyone doing it?...

And this is an important question to ask, as in BC, it sounds like you're compelled to not allow bear meat to become unfit for human consumption. In Alberta, bear and cougar are parenthetically excluded from the 'shall not go to waste' phrase, so it's up to the hunter's discretion.

[Headdamage]

No I would not do it... I'm on the fence with regarding others doing it, haven't made up my mind but push come to shove I would likely say to allow it rather than allow the the anti crowd a wedge to work with.

[Foxton Gundogs]

Currently in B.C. the only predators, exempt from meat retrieval are G Bears, wolves and yotes. Everything else must have all useable portions retrieved to place of residence. After that do what you want with it.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by Alephnaught

And this is an important question to ask, as in BC, it sounds like you're compelled to not allow bear meat to become unfit for human consumption. In Alberta, bear and cougar are parenthetically excluded from the 'shall not go to waste' phrase, so it's up to the hunter's discretion.

You have to retrieve black bear meat from the kill location and bring it to your primary place of residence. After that you can do whatever you want with it.

Lots of it goes right back out into the trees

[Torkdiesel]

As for the grizzly hunt, the whole "T H" term is just another catch phrase the anti's are using to try and close the hunt down just before the season opens.

Bears in BC have a healthy respect for humans in most areas, you don't see them in people's yards and standing on the highways like you do in Alberta, despite them having 10-15 times more bears then we do.