A quote I copied a while back from a blog I think sums it up best for myself.

----
"Humans vent their stress and their frustrations from daily life on innocent wildlife. Hunting is a one-sided game with only one winner—human beings. This is why hunters refer to birds and animals as “game”. When the hunter has hunted down and killed an animal, he has “won” the game. More often than not, the creature is killed for pleasure instead of for food. A certain sadistic pleasure is derived by killing another creature. When a human kills an animal the act fuels his ego: he has mastered the creature by taking its life.

Why else would a trophy hunter spend thousands of dollars, hike through steaming snake- and insect-infested swamps or climb steep cliffs to kill a magnificent member of another species? Why else would he cut off the head of his victim and leave the body to rot? Why else would he take the head to a taxidermist and mount it over his fireplace? He has dominated and killed the “beast”, and therefore hangs its head up for all the world to see that he is the mighty and fearless hunter. It is nothing but fuel for the insecure ego of small men."

-------

That is trophy hunting for you IMO. I can not support that. The last sentence says it all.

I do however support hunting if it is being used legitimately as a food source for locals (moose, deer, ect), or to remove a predatory prone animal. I support the right to have an unlicensed long-gun for both hunting and for protection from wildlife while using the outdoors, as well as for the event of a revolution if ever need be, but I do not support trophy hunting, which is 95% of those who hunt bear.

I know people will pay guide outfitter big dollars to come here and kill our animals for trophies, but I don't support that business model and think the animals have far more value alive then dead... so protected and regulated rather then allocated for ritual slaughter by foreigners.

I disagree with the following statement:

"Those hunters that you are trying to get rid of are the very people who put up money and time towards ensuring that the bear population in this province remains strong."

I hear hunters don't like dirt bikers, but thats too bad for them I guess. We need more dirt bikers and ATV users in the trails and in the back country IMO with an ability to coordinate awareness of any suspicious activity.

ahhahahah...trophy hunters have not "he has mastered the creature by taking its life." Unless of course he has taken the animal down w/ his bare hands - trophy hunters are a disgusting breed of humans!

Hmm ya trophy hunting is not my bag. I can't support it! I riden my ATV in guide areas and have gotten some dirty looks....

Grizzly population are not huge by any means.
Shut it down all together and let em be free.We don't have the right to just blow them away!

"Conducting a poll in the lower mainland on whether to hold a bear hunting season is about the same as doing a poll at a Dairy Queen asking them if they feel Ice cream is harmful to eat."

Lets prove this point.....


Ben, put up a good poll and lets see how people here truly feel about this issue.

I betcha you would be surprised on the results! I wait for the results.

Just another example of human greed and selfishness, the idea that we can take and use up whatever we damn well feel like. Take up every last inch of land, lake and river and then complain there are too many bears... we need to kill a few to bring them in "balance", code for, "we don't have it all yet!"

Anyone that thinks killing a bear with a high powered rifle makes themselves tough and manly is a moron.

You people are hillarious, especially you Eagle. Are you ready to change your ideas about bears that you posted on another story recently, you know the one full of innacuracies that make bears out to be little angels of the forest LOL. That quote above from a PETA manual?
95% of bear hunters are only trophy hunters. Hmmm PETA again. Leaving the body to rot is illegal.
Did you also know that PETA has a comic book out there that is for the purpose of targeting children to have their fathers stop fishing.
Did you know that hunting has been part of humans survival since the first one appeared on the planet.
Do you all eat beef, chicken, pork?
You know where I'm going with this right.
Nuff said there.

Putting up a poll here wouldn't do anything but show that all of you posting above me would shut down bear hunting because you don't agree with it. Crawl back into your closets and come back out when you respect the rights of the rest of us.

Lost faith, we seem to see eye to eye on this issue too. My opinion?
Hunting should only be allowed for sustenance, period. If you decide to keep the pelt or hide, antlers or head as a trophy, then all the power to you, it is your right. BUT! the meat must be taken, and used, no exceptions. If you don't want to eat a garbage bear, then don't shoot one near human habitat. If you wantr a bear rug, you have to eat the bear! IT is really quite simple. I am dead set against trophy only hunting. For the many americans who come up here and spend mucho dinero to hunt in Canada, no sweat! Make sure that the guide's family, friends, and neighbors all share in the bounty of the forest. WASTE NOT, WANT NOT. Hunt for food.
metalman has spoken.

Well Ben going by the responses one can see how the demography of PG is changing. Its turning into a Latte city. Folks its hunters that supply a good chunk of the money for wildlife conservation. This money comes from fees and licenses. I wonder how much money Peta gives for conservation. Eagleone how much cash have you given over. Anyone here have a solution for black bears. They get blown away left right and centre then dumped at the dump. Myself I now moose are more dangerous around here than bears.

I am not a trophy hunter (or any kind of hunter )but i wonder where people get off putting them down. If you eat meat, then shut up about killing animals. You, as a meat eater are killing animals, even if you lack the sand to kill the chickens yourself. If you ever leave meat on your plate then you need not insult the trophy hunter. The beef on your plate was the result of a cow dying. If you dont eat it, it goes to the dump, truly wasted, unlike the remains of a bear which feeds other animals.
There is so much nonsense out there (IN THE CLASSIC SENSE OF THE WORD) when it comes to hunting. For example: 'we dont have the right' to kill other species. Really? Who gives out the rights? Do bears have the right to kill? They do kill by the way. It is just as natural for man to kill as it is for wildlife. We have been hunting for tens of thousands of years. It is only in the last 100 or so that we have invented the animal rights religion. As animals, we are behaving naturally when we hunt. We are behaving , well unnaturally when we refuse to do so, or refuse to eat meat because Walt Disney and some other organizations told us it is wrong.
As for trophy hunting, I wonder who, exactly people are trying to protect. Surely the bear or moose or dear who has been killed does not really care if we eat him or not. If you kill me i will be pissed, naturally, but I wont care if you eat me or leave me for the other creatures to eat. Also, just how much does the hunter have to eat? Can we waste some parts? When do we stray into the evils of trophy hunting?
Lostfaith is 100 percent right on the mark. It is really easy, as BEn suggests, to try to ban something you have no interest in. It doesnt really matter what it might be. Hunters have rights, period.
Also, I think it is time people started to look at where their ideas come from. If hunting, fishing and farming (animals) is wrong, why is it wrong? Who says so? Where in any holy book is hunting (for pleasure or meat) called evil? How is it a bad thing in scientific terms? Non religious people must surely saee us as animals. As animals we are designed and destined ( as evidenced by our evolved abilities) to eat meat, hunted and otherwise. It is natural to be omnivores, our dentition tells us so. It is not natural in any way to be vegens and eat suppliments.
I think that hunters have to stand fast and defend their RIGHTS! Any attempt to justify their sport (for population control, or subsistance only for example) is a step towards capitulation. Hunters have nothing to apologize for.
There are a lot of people ranting in ignorance about hunting and hunters motivations. Anyone that thinks people hunt in order to feel powerful is the real moron. Those who like to condemn trophy hunters or others as 'disgusting breeds of humans ' are making judgements far beyond their right or ability. I doubt you would like to be condemned in such a way for your beliefs. Try talking to hunters or try hunting yourself before you make judgements. If you cant understand why people do something, then dont speculate or just make stuff up (as the blog writer quoted above did). Maybe just turn off the TV and computer and open your mind a little.

Folks ever think how many animals are killed by human intrusion-

These are figures only in the US

100 million birds killed by cats!!!

well over 100 million birds by windows

The National Audubon Society says loss of bird habitat is the greatest threat to bird populations.

In BC alone 17,300 animals are killed in wildlife collisions
of these, 14,000 animal deaths go unreported.

I can come up with lots more folks but I think you get the idea.

Good posts there non PETA people.

We talking about birds or bears?

Grizzly bears are not in huge numbers.
"HOW MANY IS TO MANY?"

Just to prove a point either way it would be good to see how many still support bear hunting in the north.

This is a old argument that never was resolved.

Come on Ben, set up a good poll and lets see what the thinking is in 2008.

I have no problem with hunters taking game for food. I'm not a fan of trophy hunting.

For the record:

I am with the position metalman and NMG take 100%. I never said I opposed legitimate hunting, just the killing for fun or trophy hunting. If you are going to eat it and the population is healthy than I have no problem with hunting. If you feel you have a right to kill any of the animals in my forest with no rules then we have a problem.

I have no interest for PETA. I have never given them a dime and never will, and I feel their agenda is to take advantage of peoples emotions for monetary gain and a hidden agenda. I do not get my moral and ethical beliefs from anything that comes from PETA, comic books, or any other source other than my personal reflection of my values as a human being.

I believe lostfaith has a problem with taking a persons position and then twisting it to fit his own agenda with made up facts and an interpretation of others that completely misses the point most of the time and and arrives at an extreme conclusion with no basis other than to use a persons name as a sounding board for his/her own ignorance completely unrelated to what was being discussed. Its a view point that is useless to me other than how retarded it can get.

I also believe caranmacil's opinion is similar to that of lostfaith in that she/he arrives at conclusions of what another person stands for mostly out of ignorance (on this issue anyways). I have serious disagreements with this person on the rights of a wild animal not to be devastate purely for pleasure by a sick and twisted individual using the most modern and advanced weapons money can buy. I think his/her logic that killing animals is great because it connects us to our past therefore acts of extreme cruelty and needless killing are caramacils right... is the thinking of an emotionally stunted and disturbed individual raised in ignorance.

I think we all belong to nature and we all have a role to play and who is caranmacil to decide what creatures of nature should be allowed to live to play their role and which ones should not? I would tell that idiot to simply eat what he kills and shut up about his murderous rampage rights in our forests.

I also eat meat. I eat steak almost every night and my dog eats what ever I don't. My dads side of the family are all ranchers and a good rancher respects the animals he raises to later be consumed on the dinner table. If a good rancher can and should respect the animals under his control... than why shouldn't joe friggen idiot public that just bought a gun and wants to prove what a man he is by killing every defenseless squirrel, duck, song bird, and bear or other animal he can. One of these days I'll run across that idiot and we will see what a real man he really is when the animal can fight back... I'll enjoy my steak now knowing that you are not kosher with me and my viewpoint and that should the situation (poaching) ever present itself you have been forewarned....

Caranmacil ...
let me complete your sentence. You started with:
"As animals, we are behaving naturally when we hunt"

and plunder, and pillage, and rob, and kill each other, and kill our children, and abandon our elders, and chit all over, and scr** everything in sight ... etc. etc .....

So, we still do all those other things, so why not hunt as well ...... it would be unnatural to do otherwise ..... in fact, the whole social system and taking care of each other and is unnatural .... survival of the fittest is what I say .....

with you all the way ^5 ......

"I have no problem with hunters taking game for food. I'm not a fan of trophy hunting."

The bear is dead in either case ...

Just wish we would smarten up and use some culling practices for the human population instead, then we would not have too many bears since we would not be interfering with their habitat as much ...... ;-)

This is all about making the hunter feel good ... jutification .... hey, I am doing a good thing. You think you are ... then you must be ... we are the king of the castle after all .....

So, take the trophy, leave the rest for the animals .... it will not go to waste just because it is not used for human consumption ..... dust to dust ....

"In BC alone 17,300 animals are killed in wildlife collisions of these, 14,000 animal deaths go unreported.
I can come up with lots more folks but I think you get the idea."

As was said, loss of habitat is the greatest killer. There is an overpopulation of humans who have to inhabit more and more areas of the earth's surface every year. The result is gainng of habitat for humans and loss of habitat for animals.

As a result of loss of habitat, we get animals killed by accident when they hit a fast moving chunk of steel, killed by starvation as a result of lack of food, killed by each other when they have to fight for habitat, killed by people who cull them back to a "sustainable" number based on the wildland left for them, etc. etc.

So the idea we are supposed to get is?????

We kill that many because we are driving them out of the woods so we should not kill any more?

or

We kill that many because we are driving them out of the woods so we might as well kill some more so not as many will come out of the woods and get killed in animal-car collissions?

Personally I think we should kill every single animal in the woods to make sure that non can wander out in front of a moving vehicle. ICBC could sponsor the hunt since they would be saving lots of money every year in reduced collision costs.

I don't doubt that you feel that way personally Owl and I'll remind you of that from time to time. I also took note of how you mention that a culling practice of the human population is in order. Typical of your elitist thought pattern IMO.

I don't support that but you might want to read Pat Buchanan's latest piece on the 'way the world ends' - may 2nd. Interesting stats on how the European race is dieing since the 1950's. It talks of a National Policy Institute study that predicts that 1 in 6 Caucasian will be gone in the next 6 decades from population shrinkage equal to the population of France, Britain, Holland, and Germany combined. From 28% of the worlds population in 1950 down to only 9%... where once Europeans out numbered Africans 3-to-1 and Arabs 10-to-1 those stats will have reversed... the stat reversals were similar when compared to the other races of people.

So the question goes if our population really is growing at such a pace and we are concerned about our future... then have we done everything we can to ensure the brown people of this world share our values of peace and sharing... or is it going to be a policy of survival of the fittest (global suicide) as you suggest.

My hope is that if we eliminated the kind of ignorance that generates population wars and instead worked to enable people to be free and prosper they wouldn't all want to come to our country in the future and we can all live in a prosperous country with small population growth problems rather then the cheep labor population time bombs we are establishing today. Unlike Owl I don't think looking at other people as akin to a bear pest problem in need of a cull is the answer.

Thank you for the alternate perspective, i.e. leaving a carcass for natural disposal. That concept has great merit, I lost sight of the big picture in my fervour to condemn the trophy hunter. I have not hunted in over ten years, no need to, I produce my own food. That does not diminish my belief in our right to harvest animals from our forests in order to feed our family. I of all people should be able to remember that nature takes care of dead meat, when I have a carcass to dispose of, it is taken 'out to the back forty' and within a month you are hard pressed to find anything other than maybe hair on the ground where the animal was left.
Always ready to admit I have been wrong (had plenty of practice) this is..........
metalman.

Eagleone posts the following quote above.


"Humans vent their stress and their frustrations from daily life on innocent wildlife. Hunting is a one-sided game with only one winner—human beings. This is why hunters refer to birds and animals as “game”. When the hunter has hunted down and killed an animal, he has “won” the game. More often than not, the creature is killed for pleasure instead of for food. A certain sadistic pleasure is derived by killing another creature. When a human kills an animal the act fuels his ego: he has mastered the creature by taking its life.

Why else would a trophy hunter spend thousands of dollars, hike through steaming snake- and insect-infested swamps or climb steep cliffs to kill a magnificent member of another species? Why else would he cut off the head of his victim and leave the body to rot? Why else would he take the head to a taxidermist and mount it over his fireplace? He has dominated and killed the “beast”, and therefore hangs its head up for all the world to see that he is the mighty and fearless hunter. It is nothing but fuel for the insecure ego of small men."


This quote you posted stinks of PETA and their tactics. Perhaps you should post the address of the site you are quoting from.
Your own beliefs that you have posted on this site about how bears behave is ludicrous and leans towards the same beliefs as PETA, whereas you are letting people believe that bears are little angels and can do no harm until man steps into the picture and makes the bears do bad things to people because the people caused it.

You also wrote..."
I believe lostfaith has a problem with taking a persons position and then twisting it to fit his own agenda with made up facts and an interpretation of others that completely misses the point most of the time and and arrives at an extreme conclusion with no basis other than to use a persons name as a sounding board for his/her own ignorance completely unrelated to what was being discussed. Its a view point that is useless to me other than how retarded it can get."

Typical PETA style tactics, attack your critics with nonsense and insults. Attempt to change the focus of the debate when you are cornered.
Remember your story awhile back about how hunters, (that you called POACHERS)were coming onto private property and killing YOUR PET BEARS.
You refer to hunters as poachers and bears as pets in that story. LMAO
PETA PETA PETA PETA.
You may not have anything to do with PETA but you sure do think and act like them.
Until I read something you write that states true facts you will endure the wrath of Lostfaith.
I will not stand by speechless when people write pure BS.

Next we go to old hooty.
Hey Owl.... SMOKE another one.

Posted by: owl on May 7 2008 1:15 AM
Caranmacil ...
let me complete your sentence. You started with:
"As animals, we are behaving naturally when we hunt"

and plunder, and pillage, and rob, and kill each other, and kill our children, and abandon our elders, and chit all over, and scr** everything in sight ... etc. etc .....

So, we still do all those other things, so why not hunt as well ...... it would be unnatural to do otherwise ..... in fact, the whole social system and taking care of each other and is unnatural .... survival of the fittest is what I say .....

with you all the way ^5 ......

What Caranmacil wrote is the absolute truth. What you are adding to his words and some of the other stuff you are posting here appears to be from the mind of a psycho.

Eagleone if you believe what Pat Buchanan writes you have a serious problem dude.

what the hell is peta and "IMO"?
'

http://www.peta.org/

PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.


IMO = In My Opinion.

I do not see why ethical treatment of animals deserves to be slammed and ridiculed.

The words discipline, morals and ethics just don't make it into some people's dictionaries any more.

Pity.

Thank you.

lostfaith ....

"As animals, we are behaving naturally when we hunt"

"What Caranmacil wrote is the absolute truth"

Yes ... so why am I smoking something?

True - We are animals from a biological classifciation point of view.

True - SOME animals hunt. SOME animals forage. NOT ALL animals hunt!!!!

True - we have the ability to hunt animals and we have the ability to husband animals.

True - we have the ability to forage and we have the ability to cultivate.

True - we have the ability to survive on meat alone or vegetation alone.

True - we have the ability to make choices.

True - we have the ability to justify any choice we make by selecting form a variety of belief systems and a variety of historic practices from amny millenia ago.

So, when one argues that hunting is justifiable on the grounds that we are animals and our past has consisted of being primarily hunters and gatherers, then one can also argue that hunting is not the only activity that we and animals do and have done in the past and thus are justifiable.

So, the list becomes much larger than simply hunting.

Carnamacil provide the justification for one activity. I am merely using the same logic to bring forward some of very many activities that one can justify using the same logic.

;-)

Eagleone said:

"If you are going to eat it and the population is healthy than I have no problem with hunting."

Let us say that the human population grows at the rate of 1.5% per year.

Let us assume that in order to support that growth, the animal habitat gets lost at a rate of 0.75% per year.

Let us also assume that animals do not have the resilience that humans have and that an increase in density of animals is not possible. The population will not be healthy and they will either self correct by dying off, or we hunt (cull) to a level that is sustainable on the remaining landbase.

So, by hunting at an appropriate rate, we keep a "healthy" population of animals, without realizing that the "healthy" population is a population that is shrinking.

Eventually we will end up with insufficeint habitat to maintain a large enough genetic pool to allow a healthy growth of the population and they will die off with very few options left for us to intervene ........

but then, why should we care? We do not care if human cultures die off, if hundreds of thousands and millions are killed off through genocide.

Why should we care about lesser animals than we are?

lostfaith, why did you pick that name? Is it because you lost faith in yourself? lost faith in your country, your marriage, your employment future, or the government you work for? Seems to me you are a very negative person who I think is a bit of a gay baiter, so this will be my last response to you.

----------------

The link to the quote I pasted was not something I planned on going back to so I never saved it,... none-the-less I was able to retrace where it was for your education and enjoyment.

http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=684

I also cite the book 'Living with Bears' A practical guide to bear country foreward by Tom Beck (foremost expert on black bears), and written by Linda Masterson. Lostfaith would learn a lot of your ignorance, and so I highly recommend it for people like you.

Also the pet bear issue... there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the wildlife that lives in proximity to your home and identifying with the animal in question. I didn't feed the bear that lived in my ravine nor did I ever try to pet it, but I accepted it as part of nature and enjoyed that on a different level then the need to kill it. It never caused me any problems so why get so worked up to kill it?

On the other hand I knew a guy out Willow River that raised an orphan cub successfully to a year and a half and the mother bear (now grown up) still comes by his place from time to time for a visit with her own cubs in tow. He had troubles when he BBQ'ed for a while and had to make use of its sensitive nose, but it knew its place and after one year sleeping under the porch it found a better place in the hills for the next winter after a summer away from the farm. That bear I would classify as a pet (although still wild and dangerous if not careful), but where he lives its open game on public land. That is how the world works... but killing a rare cinnamon bear, that been a neighbor for 20+ years, for a trophy rug, is an entirely different kind of 'pet' (more protecting a rare species that you like having around as part of your right to a natural forest) IMO.

With all that said... all that I ask for is that if you are a hunter, and you are going to kill an animal for food, then the least you could do is respect the animal you are going to kill (so that I can have respect for your actions)... both in the way that you hunt it (fair game), and the way that you treat its offering after you have killed it. If you want to argue with that, then we have nothing further to argue about (our values conflict on our rights to the forest... so war), and you, its sad to say, have a sadistic evil problem that should disallow you from the right to hunt.

I will add one more thing.

I have far more respect for the person that hunts their own animal in fair play, and is respectful of all the harvest, getting the most utility out of the harvest... than I could ever have for the person that doesn't kill their own harvest, but rather allows the chicken outlet to scold the chickens alive after a life in a industrial chicken farm for fat guys easy consumption in the drive through.

The hunter wins out as the guy with more integrity in that circumstance and that is a circumstance that is played out millions of times every day, so at least you can take that to the bank. Often I am the latter (the one with less integrity than the hunter), and I'll admit that (fast food chicken is tasty)... but I still feel I have far more integrity than anyone that expresses an opinion in favor of trophy hunting.

Also if you want to tie the legitimate hunting to the trophy hunting, then you do so at your own peril for hunting as a whole, as a respected type of 'sport', and in the process you blur the lines between men of honor that have respect, and those that kill because they have a lostfaith little man syndrome.

I think to blur that distinction is by far the worst thing a person like caramacil or lost faith could do to the 'sport' of hunting and the real men that hunt.

Owl, Now I see what you saying. ;-)

Eagleone
Yup a GAY baiter, I got you didn't I?
Keep up the personal attacks there buddy.
To think this all started because you are spreading false information about bears. All you had to do was retract your false info and I would have let it be. You made your own bed.
Another bit of false info you posted..."but killing a rare cinnamon bear, that been a neighbor for 20+ years, for a trophy rug, is an entirely different kind of 'pet' (more protecting a rare species that you like having around as part of your right to a natural forest) IMO."

Cinnamon bears are not a rare species at all. They are a color phase of a normal black bear.
There you go calling a wild animal your neighbor. This bear was killed only for it's hide you say. I assume you took photos of the body that was left there to rot and called the conservation officer service to report it?
I know a lot of people that hunt and many of them get their bear every year. Have you ever eaten bear? Very good eating let me tell you. I have never known anyone that has wasted their kill.
I read through that site you posted your quote from http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=684
Just another version of the PETA idealism, the same anti hunting BS.
I am sure most people see where you are really coming from on this issue as do I.

I figured that using the name I do here on this site, (Lostfaith) was a good way to show how I feel about man in general. However it also shows how I feel about all the stupid people that surround me on this planet. When you moving to another planet Eagle?

Ps. I am intentionally maxing out my bear tags this hunting season. Just for you buddy. Sleep well Eagle.