Hunter Talks Back

Thursday, March 19, 2009 03:49 AM

Dear Editor,

Banning Bear Hunts Not Conservation

Somehow the preservationists have yet again usurped the title of "conservationist" from those who are true conservationists - hunters. Conservation is the label given to those who believe in sustainable use of resources. Hunters, through paying fees for licenses and tags and membership in conservation groups, fund wildlife conservation efforts and game management. CORE, the province's hunter safety program, is not called "Conservation Outdoor Recreation Education" for no reason.

Conservationists believe that humans are part of nature, and not outside it. Preservationist philosophy pushes the view that humans are not part of nature, and as a conservationist, I firmly disagree with that outlook. It is the conservationist hunters and the Wildlife Branch that use science as a means of determining the numbers of grizzly and black bears in this province. The preservationists merely use alarmist rhetoric and false science.

What funds do preservationist groups spend to ensure a sustainable population of wildlife? None - their monies are spent on lobby campaigns to persuade opportunistic politicians that hunting is bad. These people are not interested in conservation, managing wildlife, or sustainable grizzly and black bear populations; they are interested in banning hunting.

Some preservationist camp people whether aboriginal or not claim that they see bear carcasses left in the bush with the head and paws removed. Anyone who sees a black bear carcass in that condition should call the report a poacher and polluter program, because it is the law to remove black bear meat when the animal is harvested. Trophy hunting of grizzly bears helps to keep the aggressive animals in check - if you see the life of an individual person as more valuable than that of any animal, then hunting large predators is very important.

Conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited, Spruce City Wildlife, and the BC Wildlife Federation spend a great deal of effort and volunteer time funding habitat and other programs to ensure that there are sustainable populations of all wildlife for all of us to enjoy. Hunters pay for these programs, hunters pay for enforcement of the Wildlife Act, hunters pay to make sure these animals are out there. Hunting is an important part of the eco-system; hunting trims the aggressive animals and keeps populations in check. If you really want to keep a species viable, the best way is to support it through vigorous game management, including hunting. It is in the hunter's interest to have game available year after year.

Perhaps Premier Campbell should talk to the experts in our provincial Wildlife Branch to understand better how the bear population are managed before making hasty decisions about banning or otherwise limiting bear hunting for reason that have nothing to do with game management and everything to do with politics. If he really wants to keep a sustainable population of these magnificent animals in British Columbia, he should learn from the conservation camp, not the preservationist one.

Sheldon Clare

Conservationist

Hunter Safety Examiner #7007

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, March 19, 2009 03:49 AM in Views by 250 Views

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Eagleone on March 19 2009 8:14 AM

Hunting has its place, and so does conservation. The problem is not everyone follows the rules and hunts ethically, and the public have a right to frown on that. Those wild animals in the bush are every much mine as they are a hunters, and we should both have a common interest against poachers or those who harvest unethically.

I think it would be great if we had significantly higher penalties for poaching, so that we don't have to have more rules to address those people's behavior which causes a casualty to all hunters.

I'm sure some posters will quickly follow up with an attack to defend their right to poach. Those comments IMO will be irrelevant to the debate other then as an example of the kind of people we are dealing with.

BC is a big place and we have room for all sorts of land use decisions. Personally I think we need more of a buffer between private land and where a person can hunt.

Posted by: gus on March 19 2009 8:16 AM

"If you really want to keep a species viable, the best way is to support it through vigorous game management, including hunting."

And who decides on the numbers and values in the management regime? The letter deals with what people do. There is nothing scientific in the above letter. What are teh conservation officers saying? What is the ministry responsible to ensure the "viability" of wildlife saying?

We are told about the fibre content loss of the MPB outbreak. We are not told about the effect on wildlife. Has there been a change in the capacity to support wildlife of the forests as a result? If there is a negative effect, should we be allowing nature to take care of itself, or should we be going on a tree cutting spree and a hunting spree, both to be followed by decades of considerable falldown in harvesting and possibly putting the survival of some species at risk?

Stop talking about conservation versus preservation versus trophy hunters who may not even care. Talk about the science and the effect on the ground through some changing habitat facts and what we should and should not do with respect to human management of wildlife.

Posted by: Shellshadow on March 19 2009 8:40 AM

The whole problem is Man trying to be God or/and Mother nature. It is not up to a mere human to decide what is best for the animals or the planet. Look what we have done to everything else we have tried to control. I do not feel sorry for hunters in general because most of them do not eat the meat from the animal they kill. Most american hunters have little or no respect for anything in Canada. Little men with big guns! And I will respond to the crap that will follow my post. I do not give a damn what you hunters think of my feelings on the matter! :}~

Posted by: metalman on March 19 2009 9:37 AM

Shellshadow says: "most of them do not eat the meat from the animal they kill"
How on earth could you possibly know that, Shellshadow?
It is common knowledge that most hunters do eat the meat from the animal they kill, whether or not they take the trophy. Is it not the law to harvest the edible portions from the carcass? You do us law abiding hunters a disservice by alluding otherwise. If you were referring to the foreign hunters that come here to bag a trophy, then I believe you are doing a disservice to our guides and outfitters. I believe that most professional big gaame guides harvest the meat from the animals their clients take, and even if they leave some behind, it is not wasted, nature cleans up dead meat, many creatures large and small benefit from a carcass. Is that wrong in your book too?
Mr. Clare speaks for the majority of us,
in my humble opinion.
metalman.

Posted by: Eagleone on March 19 2009 9:49 AM

Poaching is out of control in the Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge area... especially bad is the big goat kills, near misses and wandering wounded... I've seen it and its ugly. They're easy to shot, and maybe a thrill, but not so easy to collect.

If one goes further north into the south Yukon you can search for weeks in the most spectacular wilderness scenery anywhere and not see a single animal of any kind... where only a decade ago it had some of the best wildlife viewing places anywhere.

Posted by: beesknees on March 19 2009 10:00 AM

"...If you really want to keep a species viable, the best way is to support it through vigorous game management, including hunting. It is in the hunter's interest to have game available year after year...."

I think this is incorrect thinking on your part, and here is why. I'm sure everybody here has heard about "survival of the fittest" and how that benefits overall herd health and fitness. When you see two males fighting for the opportunity to mate with the females, it is generally the strongest male whose genes are passed on. Over the period of centuries, a species evolves to become as fit and healthy as this process permits.

Of course there are natural predators and climatic events which can change/interrupt the fitness of a species, but it is two-legged man who has really screwed with natural selection. When a natural predator goes after prey, generally it's after the young unprotected newborn, or the old suffering animal. The fittest members of a species are left, because predators do not want to risk loosing their own lives in a fight for food.

So when man goes hunting, and in the recent years, most of the hunting is done for sport (trophy hunt) because any meat we need can very easily be purchased at the local supermarket, they are challenged to shoot the most impressive of the species, generally the animal that should be left to contribute it's best to the rest of the herd. Natural selection is interrupted, with drastic consequences. No longer is is the best of the best doing the mating, because it's been taken out of that process. Now it's whatever weak or unfit animal that is left.

I'm in favour of banning all hunting that is done for sport.

Posted by: Shellshadow on March 19 2009 10:07 AM

Thank you beesknees you perfectly said what I intended to say.

Posted by: Jim13135 on March 19 2009 10:50 AM

beesknees hasn't got any idea how genetics works obviously as the 'most impressive of the species' as he/she calls it would have already been spreading it's genetics around long before becoming a 'trophy grade' animal. That's just another anti hunting mis-representation of facts being flogged around yet again. It's the fictional disappearing 'trophy grade' animal.

As for purchasing meat at the supermarket go ahead an fly at it. I choose to hunt and kill my own, free of anti-biotics and growth hormones [and god only knows what else]while at the same time contributing to conservation of our outdoor resources through the purchase of licences and tags.

Posted by: kevin1006 on March 19 2009 11:02 AM

The facts are obvious: Humans are killing the planet Earth and hunting is just one facet of this abuse. It's not 1880 any longer despite what many in this province seem to think, with the attitude that we humans could never have a negative effect because there are sooo many trees, so many Moose, so many fish, etc., and despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary this hillbilly class sticks to this false mythology.

An above poster said in correctly: Years ago everything was in greater abundance, the fish, the Moose, the TREES, than they are now. Why? Start facing the truth that we humans have become a cancer on our world, eating it alive just as lung cancer eats lungs. In the end the cancer wins... but loses. Humans are the cancer, winning the war we seem intent on waging against our world but will end up losing very, very badly when we discover we've eaten - for the sake of money worship - the very support system for our own lives.

It's not just about Bears, it's about our selfish, greedy attitude we hold toward everything.

Ban this hunting and more. Allow the animals to come back. Slam poachers into prison where they belong.

I say this as a former hunter myself, having killed hundreds of animals in my past life. Evolve or we will destroy our world.

Posted by: kevin1006 on March 19 2009 11:08 AM

jim13135...

I just listened to a biologist on a radio show talk about the very negative effect hunters are having on the gene pool of many animals. Humans, being as greedy and selfish as we are, always want to take the best and biggest, unlike the wolves for instance that take the weak and sick. This has caused great harm in the gene pool of all game animals. This has been studied all over this planet of ours and it has biologists worried sick that we humans are destroying the genetic viability of many animals. These are the facts as shown by hard data.

Do some reading.... you're wrong.

Posted by: seamutt on March 19 2009 1:02 PM

kevin1006 says (The facts are obvious: Humans are killing the planet Earth). Well I think earth will be here long after we are gone, and Kevin whats your delay in returning to ( planet earth, mother earth what ever ), I just get a kick out of that phrase.
Here is a question, if all hunting is banned then who going to pay for conservation? Are you willing for an increase in taxes? Also read the article over again as I don't think you understood what Clare was saying.

Posted by: apester on March 19 2009 1:04 PM

Kevin1006 wrote:"I just listened to a biologist on a radio show talk about the very negative effect hunters are having on the gene pool of many animals. Humans, being as greedy and selfish as we are, always want to take the best and biggest, unlike the wolves for instance that take the weak and sick. This has caused great harm in the gene pool of all game animals. This has been studied all over this planet of ours and it has biologists worried sick that we humans are destroying the genetic viability of many animals. These are the facts as shown by hard data.

Do some reading.... you're wrong."

It is you Kevin that is wrong. If you were to spend sometime in the wild you would see that wolves donot just kill the weak. They also kill for fun. I and many others have seen that the wolves will kill and then just walk away. They do this to hone thier skills and as practice for the young in the pack. Not all hunters take the biggest and best animals. Many will shoot the first legal animals they see as they are hunting for food not trophy. I see that only the most ignorant of us feel that all hunters are trophy hunters and then chime in to prove it. People love to bash what they don't know and show ignorance while doing it. I know very little about homosexuality and don't wish to participate in it but you don't see me running my mouth about it. Here's a little advice for everyone if you know nothing of the topic shut up and keep your opinions to your self until you know more about the topic thus way you won't look like such an idiot when you do open your mouth.

Posted by: Loki on March 19 2009 1:41 PM

predators do not choose to leave the fit so they will have food in the future.
Predators catch the young and the infirm because they are easier to catch than vibrant, vigorous and fit members of the herd.

I do not believe that a ban of hunting would be effective. There would be instances of certain species rapidly increasing in population because other natural population controls would not increase at the same rate or at the same time.

I suggest that instead of a flat out ban, improve current legislation for numbers and times to hunt based on better understanding of the eco system, but eliminate firearms for hunting.

I am not against guns, I have a few myself nd have grown up with them. I just think it would do a few things for game populations. It would level the playing field a lot, it would dramatically reduce the numbers of hunters because basically most people today are too lazy to do any real work and when the going gets tough, the urbanites go home. If they had to actually hunt, you know, spend time in field, study their intended prey, stalk in close enough for a kill shot with a bow and arrow, then drag it out of the bush, they many if not most would just not like it any more. Road hunting, the act of driving around until one can see an animal 300 yards away through a scope with a high powered rifle, is so not hunting. Make it real and only the real will participate.

If a butcher sees a bullet hole instead of and arrow or spear wound they would have to report that.

Posted by: bluecriminal on March 19 2009 1:53 PM

Trophy hunting in Africa has shown to be pretty much essential for the species survival. Through Conservation and and wildlife management hunting was shown in Africa to be extremely positive for the animals and local economies.

Here's a link with talk about the success of conservation in Africa.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189864

People need to understand that hunters are only taking from a harvestable surplus in the fall. In the summer time, life flourishes. There is an abundance of food, water and shelter. This is true for both prey and predators. In the winter this isn't the case. Shelter, food and water all become much harder to come across when it's needed most. If the land doesn't have enough of these necessities for animals, they won't survive the harsh winters we get. Guess which ones are most likely to die first? The weak and the sick. The faster, stronger animals survive the winter.

References to 1880 are totally irrelevant now. Market hunting was VERY bad for animals, everyone knows this. Outlawing market hunting and the introduction of wildlife conservation in the earlier 1900s has had an extremely positive effect on wildlife numbers. Conservation officers use hunting as a tool to manage animal populations and help preserve balance in nature. Banning hunting cuts the funding wildlife conservation has available to them to take care of wild life and make sure it's enjoyable for future generations.

Posted by: beesknees on March 19 2009 2:16 PM

I see my comments haven't been highly regarded by some of the forum readers. To those that agree with my thoughts, I'm happy to see there are reasonable thinkers that follow opinion250, like myself. To those that disagree, some vehemently, I will add some facts to this discussion, just generally about hunting, not specifically against bear hunting. Permit me to stray of the subject:

- Hunting wrongfully deprives animals of something that is valuable to them--their lives.

- Hunting causes suffering, especially for marine mammals. There is no "humane" method of killing any but the smallest marine mammals, and a harpooned whale typically suffers an agonizing and miserable death, sometimes prolonged over several hours. A high proportion of land mammals and ducks are injured rather than being killed instantly; these "cripples" may suffer for days before either recovering or dying.

- Great apes, elephants, whales, and dolphins are special animals. They are highly intelligent; many species have developed elaborate social systems; they exhibit altruistic behavior towards each other and apparently suffer grief at the death of group members; members of some species including the great apes, whales, and some dolphins are sociable towards humans.

- Hunting is a threat to biodiversity. It threatens the existence of target species, many of which are already rare, threatened, or endangered. Sport hunting also degrades the gene pool of ungulate species because the most valued targets, dominant males, are the individuals most fit to pass on the best genes.

- Hunting is not necessary for the fulfillment of important human interests; these interests can be satisfied by other means that do not require killing. Hunting is not economically necessary nor even particularly useful. There are substitutes for all marine and most land mammal products.

One last item, its a link to a site which is an interesting read, well written by a respected individual who has studied the effects of hunting a species of bear.

http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/persecution_effects.php

Thanks for your interest in my comment.

Posted by: Loki on March 19 2009 2:39 PM

beesknees:
Do you eat meat?
or
Are you vegan?

If you would like to see some suffering, go to a slaughterhouse that feeds OUR local markets. Many are not even dead when they begin skinning. At least hunters respect their game enough to attempt an immediate kill.

Do you eat chicken?
Go to a poultry farm where the animals live their entire short lives in a 2x2 cage.
Most small game and game birds are dispatched from a shotgun blast before they hit the ground.

Do you eat fish?
Commercial vessels begin processing right out the nets while the fish are still moving, read that as not dead.

So how is your steroid and antibiotic infused steak?

I can no longer eat beef. No red meat, just beef. I believe it is because of all the toxins used to enhance the production of these meat animals. I am beginning to realize the same thing about the milk, but that is another debate, maybe for free4all.

Posted by: bluecriminal on March 19 2009 3:28 PM

beesknees,

Killing endangered species does not sound like conservation to me. This sounds like poaching. This should not be confused with proper wildlife conservation.

The whole point of wildlife conservation is to preserve sustainable populations of wildlife. I enjoy wildlife. I enjoy hunting. With proper management there will be no problems doing either of these for a long time.

While you may feel that hunters rob these animals of their lives, most people that eat meat would consume the same amount of meat bought commercially. This is process can be quite awful. I feel that hunting rather than farming, offers animals a true free range life. They aren't subjected to torture, and in most cases are killed in a much more humane way than the way factory farms. The meat that comes from these animals is also much leaner and healthier. For those that want to see some of the harsh treatment some animals receive, you can see it at earthlings.com. The movie is obviously bias, but shows some of the inhumane treatment factory farmed animals receive. I feel hunting a much more ethical alternative to factory farming.

Posted by: Shellshadow on March 19 2009 3:34 PM

YES Loki, that is exactly the point! Humans are horible beings who treat animals with less regard than a piece of turd. Some even believe that animals do not feel pain (ROFLMAO). There are good hunters and there are BAD HUNTERS. 5 men with guns againts one bear is a SLAUGHTER! I eat bear, deer, elk, beaver and moose meat. Whatever meat I can get from a killer hunter who only wants the thrill of the kill and nothing more. Discusting human beings. Some hunters actually hunt in order to feed their families. Most hunters are in it for the sport and the drunk. I dated a hunting guide so please refrain from giving me the song and dance that most of the meat is not wasted. Yes it feeds other wildlife but that life was killed for nothing more than a mans need to feel the excitement of the KILL. Trophy hunters are the lowest humans of all.

Posted by: Windigo on March 19 2009 3:59 PM

Most hunters thoroughly enjoy the aspect of the hunt. The outdoors draws them in and once the hunt begins that is all they want to do. The game that is bagged is a healthy meat, very low in fat and high in protein and tastes absolutely wonderful. I love tracking an animal on foot to try to get close to the animal without it knowing I'm there this is a challenge to me.
Being a hunter all my life, as many of you are I have grown to love the outdoors and the hunting experience.
My father taught me four things as a young person learning to hunt #1: Take only what you need to feed yourself and your family. #2: Use every thing you can from the kill, IE: if you don't like the liver find someone who does, by doing this you are showing respect for the spirit of the animal. #3: Treat the woods and all it's creatures with respect. #4: Hunting from any form of vehicle (including four wheelers) is not a fair hunt, it gives to much advantage to the hunter and hunting from your truck like a lot of people do is illegal anyway.
The concerns I have begins with the guys that hunt because they like to kill things, not because they need the meat to sustain themselves and their families. How many people do you know that eat grizzly bear meat or wolf meat, I know of very few, yet these animals are hunted and killed for their fur or as a trophy to hang on the wall. Foreigners pay a guide thousands of dollars for a Grizzly Bear trophy and nothing is done with the meat. I do not like bear meat, so....I don't hunt bear. you will not find in my home guns displayed anywhere where they can be seen. You would not find a trophy head displayed anywhere on my property. In my small mind I view this type of trophy showcasing as inappropriate and it shows a complete lack of respect for the animal that offered up it's life to feed you. I'm not sure why people do this type of thing with their animal heads and skins perhaps it's because it becomes a bragging right ritual of sorts, but I'm not sure, I have never been able to understand the purpose of this ritual.
My father passed away when he was 76 years old, he survived through the thirties and beyond. The meat that fed all us children was wild game. With seven children to raise he had to maintain a lot of successful hunts over the years to feed us all. I do not ever remember him telling stories about how "big and strong he was or how he was the best-est biggest baddest hunter in the world" to any of us as children, in fact he did not talk about it at all. The reason for this is my father did not like to kill, he saw the beauty in the animals and took the time to understand their purpose. He respected their right to live even if he needed the meat to survive and would only kill to feed and sustain his family.
Nature has it's way of culling out the sick any dying, nature does not need our help.

Posted by: seamutt on March 19 2009 5:24 PM

Easy to pick out the warm and fuzzy city folk in this forum. Windigo I think you missed something about hunting.

Posted by: Eagleone on March 19 2009 9:45 PM

Loki that is a fantastic idea. I agree 100% about making hunting only legal if done with a knife, spear, or arrow. Then only real hunters would hunt, and it would cut down big time on the abuse. The death would be more violent for the animal, but that is part of the cost of an ethical hunt. It would also making hunting a sport, rather than a simple slaughter through a scope.

Posted by: caranmacil on March 19 2009 10:30 PM

All vegan/veggie arguments aside, I /we as humans have an animal right to kill and eat other animals, just like all other animal species do. It is morally wrong for anti hunting, animal rights people to push their RELIGION on others, just as it would be for any other religious group to do so. We dont have to justify hunting, it is our right to do so, just as we have ALWAYS done.
As for Eagle one and loki, since when does there hae to be an effort bar for someone to hunt. Thats like saying you have to have a physically demanding job to get paid. I dont have to be rambo with or Dan'l Boone to go hunting. Also, it is NOT easy to get your moose/deer these days. I would not want to hack an animal to a slow death just so you all could be satisfied i was sportsman enough. I will leave that t nature killers. Perhaps I should start eating the animal while it is still alive as well.
For the record, nature is a real bitch when it comes to animal management. You armchair biologists need to get off the internet BS and read a few scientific texts on population ecology. Perhaps some of the anecdotal evidence regarding decreased ungulate populations could be explained by increases in other species (wolves for example).
I do think some posters here would be taken more seriously if they would can the doom and gloom condemnations of their own species. Hunting, whether (even trophy and illegal ) have not brought us to where we are (good or bad). Population growth aNd consumerism have.
I am not reacting to beesknees and others because i am a hunter. I am not a hunter. Never have been. I am reacting to people pushing their religion on others. Thats what this amounts to. It has nothing to do with animal populations or genetic selection for you people. You are ust looking for a back door to forward a animal rights or anti hunting agenda.

Posted by: gus on March 20 2009 1:22 AM

"I am reacting to people pushing their religion on others."

Why? It is part of nature to convince others you are wrong and they are right. It is part of nature that if they cannot do that in a civilized way without guns, they will do it in a civilized way with guns.

It is part of survival of the fittest. if your argument survives, you are the fittest. If theirs survives, they are the fittests.

Without that tension, there is no life, there is no progress.

So, go ahead, preach as loud as you can that there shall be no preaching here tonight. Others will continue to preach that there will be since it is their right.

I wonder if those who preach that their should be no preaching ever realize how stupid they sound when they are preaching that. I mean ... its a real joke, isn't it?

Posted by: gus on March 20 2009 1:26 AM

"I agree 100% about making hunting only legal if done with a knife, spear, or arrow"

Good Lord. Our health system costs would go even higher then.

Posted by: Karen V. Stefanini on March 20 2009 2:53 AM

Thanks to precious Knut, I have become an avid bear fan and have joined many bear protection groups. Trophy hunting gleans the biggest and best specimens from the gene pool and this is not good. Harvest hunting is often done by less than expert marksmen and the bears then suffer panic and pain. These magnificent precious creatures deserve better than this. I have read that hormones are being used in population control for other species and I am hoping it can be used in future for bear harvesting. Hormone harvesting is much better than kill hunts, especially from the bear's perspective. Why can't these hunters form sensible and humane conservation groups and adopt and bottle feed adorable orphaned cubs and then release them back into the wilds? This would be a pleasurable experience for the bears and the former hunters. Check out Buffy's Corner of a 25 year old 7', 700 lb. beloved bottle fed "big kid" black bear who had been declawed and not fit to survive in the wilds and would have been euthanized. He has been an affectionate family member for over 25 years to his adoring human parents. Also, check out the Youtube's "Bart's Legacy" about the 9'6" famous Kodiak bear thespian who was a beloved child to his adoptive human parents for over 23 years. Bears have deep feelings and form lifelong loving bonds and they deserve our respect and protection. I adore bears. We all should, and would if properly educated about them.

Posted by: Karen V. Stefanini on March 20 2009 3:41 AM

I have to add to my previous comment that I am realistic about bears and not just sentimental. I, personally, wouldn't be caught in bear territory outside of a locked vehicle with the motor running. They are unpredictable, ferocious at times and have some very unsavory habits, to put it mildly. The males' killing the of the cubs is heinous, but it is purely instinctive, and they are obviously evolutionary works in progress and hopefully will outgrow this. Although bears are far from perfect, overall I adore them.

Posted by: beesknees on March 20 2009 8:47 AM

People like Jim13135 and others who pontificate about the benefits of hunting/killing animals because the meat is free of any growth hormone or such other product given to domesticated animals slaughtered for human consumption - I have a question for you.

Are you smokers? Are you drinkers? Do you drive a car, or live close to a populated area? First two questions could likely be "no", as your responses might suggest that you have a really clean lifestyle, and those "toxic" substances are not part of it. But I'm guessing if you have internet access, the answer to the third question has to be "yes". So if that's the case, let me shock you: You're getting much more "bad" stuff into your system, thanks to air and water pollution. Much more than any "claimed benefit" received from eating wild game meat will do you.

Quoted article follows:

Air, water pollution and health effects

The air we breathe and the water we drink are essential ingredients for our wellbeing and a healthy life. Unfortunately polluted water and air are common throughout the world.

... air pollution causes 800,000 premature deaths from lung cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases worldwide, in addition to increased incidence of chronic bronchitis, acute respiratory illness, exacerbation of asthma and coronary disease, and impairment of lung function.

The sources for this pollution include, road transport, stationary combustion sources (domestic coal burning, industrial sources, incinerators and waste disposals, fossil fuel power plants) and non-combustion sources (construction, quarrying and mining, cement plan and ceramic industry) and other sources, such as forest and agricultural fires. The main pollutants found in the air we breathe inlcude, particulate matter, PAHs, lead, ground-level ozone, heavy metals, sulphur dioxide, benzene, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxides.

All pollution in water, whether polluted by industry, agriculture or households, returns back, eventually to the environment and will cause damage to human health or the environment.

(end quote)

I would suggest that it would be more prudent for hunters to become proactive in the environmental movement, stop hunting and killing and put your energy to good use make our air and water environment much safer for our future. Hunting benefits no one, become active in the environmental protection community will benefit many.

Thanks for your interest in my comment.

Posted by: seamutt on March 20 2009 11:28 PM

Karen V. Stefanini I take it you live in a big city. Ever seen the results of a grizzly having torn a black bear too pieces, I have. The wild ain't Goldie Locks and the three bears. By the wild I don't mean a walk in Stanley Park, at least in daytime.

Posted by: seamutt on March 20 2009 11:34 PM

Karen V. Stefanini since you like youtube check this site for some reality, grizzly bear vs caribou