Printable View
:silly: For those with facebook accounts,check this out www.facebook.com/canadaintherough Keith Beaseley has taken David Suzuki to task with a rock-solid rebuttal of Suzuki's publicized campaign to end what he calls B.C.Grizzly Bear trophy hunts. As usual,he espouses BS and bafflegab,but,for Suzuki,this anti-hunting thing,even for him,is new territory. His credibility WRT Anthropological Global Warming has proven to be completely bankrupt,so,he's taking a new "kick at the cat".
After watching this I just have to say that Keith Beasley is a great spokesman for all hunters. As usual, he states that this is his opinion and if very careful to use facts and logic. Definitely a class act.
He did a great job.
If you are going to answer misinformation(alleged about Suzuki), don't come back with your own misinformation... That fellow clearly stated that suzuki is against all hunting, be it bears or rabbits or whatever or even eating beef from the store. Well I've seen a show of his where he hunted a seal in the north with a native and his daughter... One of his daughters is a fisherman and married to a native. I've seen a show where he talked about and showed a pasture beef farm. And he is an avid fisherman and is not a vegetarian. So unless he's changed his positions in the last few months, those statements are untrue regardless of your opinion on grizzly hunting.
Ypur observations serve only to illustrate his ability to say whatever side of the fence he happens to fall from. As you've pointed out,quite succinctly,he tries to do both (hunts with FN people,then,condemns others). He can't choose both. There's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. Either one is or isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by intothedeep
I am not a David Suzuki fan but have to agree with you ITD. I think generally Keith did an average job based on his misinformation and would hope that he comes forward and correct himself. Most of this information we already know as hunters and fisherman but he needs to get accurate information on Suzuki before he speaks.
No, he's against trophy hunting for grizzles and probably in general(not sure), but not food hunting/fishing/farming... But my point isn't about Suzuki, it's about that fellow. If you want to criticize someone for getting their facts wrong fine I no have no problem with that, but don't in the same speech basically get your facts wrong and say Suzuki is some anti meat activist, because I know for 100% he isn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Just a few days ago his daughter posted on FB shrimp they caught in BC... Lol
When I hear the name David Suzuki, I just roll my eyes. Tired of listening to Mr. Doom And Gloom spout off about his latest cause. I thought Beasley did a decent job of replying to his call to end the grizzly hunt. Whether Suzuki is actually anti hunting, I don't know.
I am curious whom Suzuki classifies trophy hunters per his blog:Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
In the most recent study, PhD student and lead author Kyle Artelle and his colleagues analyzed a large government data set containing details on the deaths of thousands of bears killed by trophy hunters, as well as animal control officers, poachers and vehicle and train collisions.
Considering under BC law:
Retrieval of wildlife killed
35 (1) In this section, "dwelling place" does not include a temporary or seasonal camp.
(2) A person commits an offence if the person hunts wildlife and kills or injures that wildlife and fails to make every reasonable effort to
(a) retrieve the wildlife, and if it is alive to kill it and include it in his or her bag limit, and
(b) remove the edible portions of the carcass of game to the person's normal dwelling place or to a meatcutter or the owner or
operator of a cold storage plant, unless exempted by regulation.
So like Ontario, in BC it is against the law to take part of an animal as a trophy and let the edible portions of the carcass (the meat) to rot. So, I ask again whom does Suzuki class as trophy hunters? Would it be the guys who in addition to taking the meat have a memento of their hunting adventure (such as a bear skin rug or a head mount)?
In this blog ( http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/pan...ar-management/), Suzuki furthers blurs the lines by calling to end all Grizzly Bear hunting trophy hunting, leaving the implication that every bear harvested under BC regulations are left to rot after the hunters have claimed whatever trophy Suzuki is referring to (again under BC law is illegal). This is done intentionally to inflame people who are ignorant (lacking knowledge) of hunting practices to view hunting in a bad light. Furthermore, hunting is the only thing he calls for stopping in this blog. He doesn't comment on other factors he mentions such as animal control officers, poachers, and vehicle and train collisions. This is strictly aimed to stop the legal grizzly bear hunt by trying to call it trophy hunting.
I find it quite hypocritical that Suzuki is calling on Grizzly Bear "trophy" hunting to be stopped but can willfully wallow in the terror and pain he causes to fish when he dips his hooks in the water. Last time I checked, fish have nerves and can feel pain. I guess it is ok to hook an animal in the mouth (or perhaps somewhere else depending on where you hooked it), have it fight until it exhausts itself, bring it out of the water where it can't breath to remove said hook and then let it go on it's merry way after you have handled it but bringing in money by issuing hunting tags on a species which can be hunted only in certain parts of the province and using that money to help protect the species from people out there who would kill every last grizzly bear if they could is wrong.
What a load.
Dyth
Good for Beaseley: Nicely done.
I"m not a big Suzuki fan.
We discuss many things on this forum, but its nice to have someone articulate willing to stand in front of a camera and voice it.
If you don't push back you will get steamrolled.
X2 on thisQuote:
Originally Posted by delmer
When I think of this fellow the term paid shill comes to mind
Please see the post below,ITD. At your next social gathering,please discuss these views with your friend. I'd be very interested to hear what he has to say further to his blog.Quote:
Originally Posted by intothedeep
Excellent post,Dyth. I think the same way,but,you articlate these points much better than I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
I don't actually know him on a one and one basis to call him, lol. My mothers partner knows him well and they have dinner with his son in the Yukon... I've met him a few times though.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I did get a chance to read what his opposition to the hunt was though and it's mostly based on population numbers, he says they are low and reproduction is slow. There is some anti trophy hunting sentiment too, but it's not the main point.
But this fellow wasn't that accurate in his facts on Suzuki either basically making him out to a PETA type against all hunting and even farming beef, so I find that strange considering he wants to stick to the facts... The article on the GB hunt actually mentiined food hunting...
DING DING DING !!!! Excellent post. The hypocrisy of anybody who feels that yanking a fish out of the water by driving a huge hook through it's head or worse softer tissue and then holding up to photograph it while it suffocates is lost on these idiots who claim high moral ground. His wonderful eco enlightened daughter yanks living creatures out of their necessary environment and lets them suffocate by the hundreds on the deck of the boat. Not unlike the seal hypocrisy. If seals were repulsive to look at and gave off a foul odor people wouldn't care less what happened to them. It's against the law to waste game meat. Full stop. End of Suzuki's idiotic argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
I don't know. I think Keith did a pretty good job representing hunters. He may get taken to task for his renewable resource comment about oil but other than that pretty well done and straight forward.
Ya, your right...as long as he is left leaning, CBC doling, 4 home owner in BC (one island he shares with an oil company), and fly around in jets, while espousing the evils of tar sand oil..... I guess it is OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by intothedeep
Former neighbors of mine retired and moved out to Vancouver Island. I have heard from them that a certain environmentalist has been observed taking salmon out of season. Game laws that are in effect are ignored and he wants new ones enacted to outlaw legal hunting activity. The hypocrisy is abundant in this guy.
Does anyone know what Keith Beasley's credentials are besides the magazine and TV show?
One of the brothers is an OPP officer, not sure which one though. "Credentials" aren't usually discussed much in that marketing world. Although Tiffany Lakoski has very good ones.....ya know, credentials. :ashamed:
Ok lol
Three of my relatives are OPP officers I should ask if they know him.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
I think they are from Peterborough.
My one relative is out of Kaladar and may know of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
I don't see what credentials have to do with it. He is voicing the concern of many hunters very well.
What do you mean? His education?
Roper credentials are everything in this day and age and we have enough self proclaimed experts on TV. Examples would be Jenny Garth, George Clooney, Bono and many more all are self proclaimed experts that people will unfortunately listen to as if it were gospel. Nothing wrong with speaking your mind on national TV if you can back it up with evidence based on your credentials. I am not a David Suzuki fan but if he went head to head in a debate with Keith based on science he would surely win. I was at a fund raiser last fall for the first annual Long Point Waterfowl's Lake St. Clair program and was fortunate enough to listen to guest speaker Dr. Scott Petrie Ph.D and his work. I have read some papers, articles and seen him on hunting & fishing shows and have always been impressed by his knowledge. This is a man that captivates the audience with knowledge based on experience and his education credentials to back it up. It would be a very interesting debate to see him go head to head with Suzuki .Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
Assuming Suzuki is open to debate , witch he is not.
Your probably right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
I saw Suzuki at a lecture/panel debate function in TO back in 99.
He was a remarkable, engaging and knowledgeable presence. Definitely brought a ton of insight and information (based on current researching or established fact depending on the topic) and I was more impressed than I expected to be.
Fast forward 11 years to when i met him at/after an appearance he did at Carleton University. He was insulting, combative, dismissive, spouting opinion and vitriol.
During that appearance he argued with and insulted 2 Canadian Olympic athletes for their plans to attend the games in China. He argued with folks who questioned his position on global warming, the causes of and the subsequent threat of polar warm-up (when i say argue, i mean argue... he didn't debate, he didn't address the points made or questions asked, he just got really angry and loud).
And he refused to give autographs to a group of 30 Katimavik youth (some of which had traveled from quite far to see him) unless they purchased copies of his books which were for sale on-site.
It was nearly Jekyll & Hyde.
I think Suzuki's days of debate are well behind him. He's ancient and I for one don't expect him to stay abreast of every environmental or societal issue that affects us. At the same time, I also don't think he should be the face of CBC or The Nature of Things in regards to these issues either.
Let him retire and fish and do public speaking engagements in peace, hippies. lol
What you say about Suzuki is true; however, this isn't a science debate about "trophy" bear hunting. This is a scientist's personal opinion about how "trophy" bear hunting is the only thing which should be changed in order to have better bear management. Instead of debating the government's position about the bear hunt being sustainable, he dismisses it outright based on the fact "We've heard it before from government managers for other species driven to near-extinction due to overharvesting, overfishing and overuse - including northern cod off the Newfoundland coast and rapidly disappearing old-growth cedar forests on Vancouver Island" while accusing the BC government of dismissing the Simon Fraser University report. There are so many things involved with a management of a species that hunting is a microscopic element to that. Furthermore, grizzly bear hunters are mandated by law to provide information about the animal taken (including some hide, skull, testes if male and mammory glands/teat if female) as well as hunting this species under specific restrictions (no bait hunting or hunting over a dead animal). All of this can be found in the BC hunting regs: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...egions_1-3.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Furthermore, the BC government estimates the number of grizzly bears in Bc to be 15 000 (the BC government's last estimate was 16, 000 bears but this estimate reflects counting practices rather than bear populations (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...Final_2012.pdf) and Suzuki's foundation stated there was "more than 3,500 (including over 1,200 females) were killed over the last decade, in most cases by trophy hunters". So over the past 10 years 350 bears (on average) were killed each year or 2.3% of the estimated yearly population, not all of them females or any evidence to support they were fertile females.
We know male bears will kill bear cubs if they find them, is Suzuki calling for some kind of strategy to combat infanticide tendencies of male Grizzly Bears? Nope, because it is a ridiculous suggestion as his suggestion to cancel the "trophy" bear hunt.
Beasley isn't even debating the accuracy of the report, he is defending the legal hunting of a species which isn't even considered threatened despite the efforts of Suzuki to make it appear as such.
Dyth
Absolutely well thought out and stated ! :goodstuff: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
David Suzuki reminds of the old over-the-hill senior at "the home" tied to his wheel chair being fed pablum and shaking his cane screaming,ranting and raving about "People these days don't know anything and won't listen to a word I say,goddam kids!"
I agree but as i said earlier in my post credentials are everything when in front of a camera . We may believe or agree with the TV host to an extent but in my personal opinion credentials have waay more chlout to make it legitimate. Unfortunately Suzuki supporters will support him because of his credentials. That is why to go head to head with him(Suzuki) the credentials play a huge factor for at least myself to support a self appointed spokesmen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Beasley is not speaking as a PHD in whatever science. He is speaking as an outdoorsman. That's valid credentials for me. Similar to Bob Izumi speaking about the fishing industry.
Credentials? Since when do "credentials" give anybody the right to espouse complete and utter BS? The trouble with academics is that because someone may have "credentials",even when they know the opinions are patently ridiculous,they still hang on every word as if it came down from the Mount by Moses,himself, and David Suzuki is certainly no Moses.
What?.. The school of hard knocks/experience, instead of those that have spent 6-7-8-9 years obtaining their knowledge at university. To get their PhD's they spend years going over reports and data. I guess you listen to the people in jail, rather than the judge... B. Izumi is paid by sponsors, his view is tainted. Just being an 'outdoors man' does not make you knowledgeable on all the ramifications of any policy. Formal education = credentials and they do count, as they should. I want the most informed people ,making the decisions that affect all of us. Go have your taxes done by the guy in grade 13 who was good at math, ya I thought not.:rolleye:
Suzuki is a bug Phd. Studied fruit flies, doesn't make him an authority on most things he feels qualified to talk about.
More qualified than a grade 12, graduate/fisherman. He is just a spokesman/figurehead , a TV guy, he does the talking his fellow academics , provide the content. Yes he maybe off base on some thing's ,but 98% of the time he has the facts, to prove his colleges point of view.
Kinda like the credentials of our current premier lolQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
not sure on bc laws on grizzly hunting, seen a earlier post saying bc's laws are similar to ours here, but from that show that was on tv last fall, i think it was called the hunt... they were hunting grizzlies on kodiak island, and all they had to do was take the hide and skull, the rest was left behind... left a sour taste in my mouth for grizzly hunting, something i have always wanted to do, but would not go on a hunt like that if taking the meat was not part of it... perhaps this is what suzuki calls trophy hunters...
Credentials don't mean much if you know what you are talking about or if you have friends in high places.
A man goes to Harvard to study English and write novels.
He loved science and math but did not do well in either and his grades were in the bottom percentile in his class.
Early on at college he spent time watching tv, shooting pool and smoking grass (occasionally).lol
Later in life he concentrated on politics and reached the vice-presidency of the US.
After politics, became a self appointed environmental expert, wrote a book and won the Nobel peace prize.
Where were Al Gore's credentials????
The big falsehood in your comment is that Gore never once appointed himself as an environmental expert. He has always been, and claimed to be, an environmental reform advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ont_Excal
The distinction is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
LOl Beat me to it. Ms Wynne, Mr McGuinty prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that pedigrees don't mean a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
Give me real world experience, common sense and intelligence and that person has just as much value (inn this case their opinion) as some person who can wave a piece of paper as though it counts for much.
If "credentials" of that sort really accounted for much.
Common criminals and gutter rats wouldn't fleece high brows of their savings so often.
Organised crime wouldn't be besting the bestest brightest pedigreed minds so often.
And Bin Laden or ISIS wouldn't have given the FBI/CIA and more fits for years.
Always makes me chuckle when anyone thinks a piece of paper means the holder is more knowledgeable, more intelligent, more capable, more qualified, whatever than someone who has real world experience and intelligence. Of coarse that's often a very bad mistake when you underestimate/devalue someone simply because he or she isn't as pedigreed as you/someone else.
When the real world says otherwise......all......the.....time.
Yeah, let's just ignore completely the fact that organized crime relies almost entirely on ivy league educated business experts and legal experts. High School dropouts are not the ones laundering billions, or protecting bosses from the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Or let's ignore that Osama Bin Laden was university educated, earning several degrees, at King Abdulaziz University (Ivy League private, built by mid-1900s BILLIONAIRES for their kids) and is considered to have had a genius level IQ (proposed to have been somewhere between 135-150).
It's also important to realize that the watered-down degrees that've been pumped out of Canadian Universities and public U.S. Colleges over the last 30 years have soured our respect for academia. Most other developed nations haven't let their systems slip to the same level.
SOME degrees definitely speak volumes as to the holders' level of expertise and knowledge.
M you have "no clue".
I know you well enough to know that kids I grew up would take you nine ways to sunday.
For the record M, I don't have my grade 12.....but do have an "IQ" over 160. Am I unqualified on many topics?
A piece of paper doesn't mean everything, if you want to devalue or underestimate someone, simply because....do so at your peril.
The Beasely are obviously smart, knowledgeable, capable, have real world experience.
From a start up garage magazine... and today are.....highly regarded, successful.
What have you done? Whats that piece of paper done...
They may not have "Dr bugs" credentials.....they have an opinion that I'll listen to.
I've done plenty to be proud of. You don't actually know me at all. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Don't know why you feel the need to turn to personal attacks - all the time.
I was simply pointing out that your provided examples, are completely invalid/untrue.
Not claiming that smart folks without degrees don't exist. We've all known plenty.
For the record, an IQ over 160 means you're more intelligent than Stephen Hawking. It would place you in the top 50 (identified) most intelligent people of all time. It's a big claim to make.
Without even trying, you would have fallen into some world bending, significantly impactful role, university educated or not... because actual geniuses cannot help but perform at an extremely high level. You wouldn't work in the world of finance - you would dominate the world of finance. Like Paul Allen, IQ 163.
Its not "personal", but unless I'm mistaken aren't you the one discrediting the Beasleys, simply because?
To devalue someone or their opinion simply because they don't have "credentials"...No body says you have to agree with them, or think they are right and "Dr Suzuki" wrong.
Then when given "real" world examples where those without often...
Tell me M, how many bikers say from Hells Angels graduated from Yale?
Rather than accept the point/illustrating I guess I might ask you why you felt...you could or shoot the "point" down.
you wont
Just another example of your aptitude to lash out, without considering first that you don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
You don't know me. I don't have that piece of paper you seem to hate so much. I am not university educated, was never interested in it. I have no patience for discussion of theory for hours on end, or to spend more than a year of my life perfecting an annotated bibliography for a thesis nobody cares about.
I'm a big proponent of hands-on, self-taught, hard-won success. That doesn't mean i'm silly enough to look down on those who have worked through it.
I didn't insult the Beasleys or their accomplishments. I like what they've done in the industry and applaud their ability to do okay in a tough TV market.
But I'm also not going to knock a guy who gained his knowledge and degree at a time when neither were easy to come by, and then went on to build a 10x more storied and impressive broadcasting career through the school of hard knocks than the Beasleys could ever hope to achieve.
Its not "personal", but unless I'm mistaken aren't you the one discrediting the Beasleys opinion on the matter, simply because?...
To devalue someone or their opinion simply because they don't have "credentials"...No body says you have to agree with them, or think they are right and "Dr Suzuki" wrong. But if there's a "wrong" or disservice here.
Then when given "real" world examples where those without often...
Tell me M, how many bikers say from Hells Angels graduated from Yale? Do you think they know a thing or two about running a business? About organization and many other things?
Rather than accept the point/illustrating I guess I might ask you why you felt...you could or shoot the "point" down.
you won't
There are all kinds of pedigreed people who aren't and there are all kinds of "gutter rats" who do. The greater disservice is discounting the Beasleys, simply because.........
If you want to call it "lashing" out, fine. Im good with that...Next time, when someone makes a "point"..which was what?
That there are all kinds of people with and without. If you don't like "organized" crime for the illustration.
Consider many biker gangs. yeah Bin Laden was highly educated.
Are they all?
I wasn't arguing your point - i agree with it - i simply pointed out that the examples you provided specifically, were false.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Biker gangs aren't controlling anything in organized crime. They are the marionettes of those that control organized crime.
Or use me as an example which is why I went "personal". I don't have a pedigree...Does that make me unqualified or that depending on the subject matter my opinion is any less valuable on many topics? I beg to differ....So would it hold true that the Beasley's aren't?
See my point now?
Oh and on "Biker gangs"...
/beg to differ ;)
Bikers rule by fear and intimidation not smarts. Why are so many in prison? How smart are you if you have to break the law to make money?
If you want to think that G, do so at your peril.
back on topic and hopefully in the future "some" might think/realize that just because someone doesn't have "credentials" it doesn't mean they aren't knowledgeable, or capableor their opinion isn't valuable or as valuable as some "pedigreed" persons even if/when they are talking about the same things..... or....."whatever the case may be"
No, I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Mostly because i'm having a hard time distinguishing what you're trying to say.
First - you keep saying pedigree - do you know what that even means? Because it actually has nothing at all to do with credentials or degrees, which is what has been discussed here.
But i'm assuming you're using it as your own spiteful little pet name for university educations.
Second - if you want to establish the Beasley's credentials, based on their successes hunting/fishing, traveling Canada, experiencing different ecosystems, purchasing a successful TV series. Fine, nobody could argue that. They've done well, and despite the errors in their rebuttal to Suzuki, they should know a lot about hunting specific issues. (for the record, i'm not sure anyone knows if the B-brothers are uni-educated or not)
However, if you established their credentials through that process, you'd also have to acknowledge that Suzuki is also experienced in hunting/fishing, has traveled far more, experienced but also worked scientifically and journalistically more across Canada and around the world in pretty much every ecosystem on the planet, and built his own TV show... not purchased it.
Plus, he earned a degree at a time it actually meant something. And worked in his industry with renown for some time before he shifted his focus to environmental advocacy.
I think that's called deflection M.
And how often has Dr Suzuki been discredited?
/edit
I might also point out before I exit as I've been trying to that once again
check the post history.
I made some comments.Not singling anyone out, but rather more agreeing with someone..and who exactly felt they had something to "prove" and who exactly.seems to have problems with 'other peoples opinions"..
it's there in the post history and is why Ive about given up on this place.
Funny that
;)
fishy steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by fishy steve
No doubt that kind of activity left a sour taste in your mouth. However, isn't Kodiak Island a part of Alaska? They may have different laws about what people can do and this should have no impact on how BC conducts their bear hunt.
Dyth
Hey yellow dog,Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
I understand what you are saying about credentials. Does Beasley not have credentials as well? Suzuki is calling for the end of the "trophy" bear hunt. What credentials does he have to ask for that? He has a BA in biology and a PHD in zoologist who worked as a professor genetics at the University of British Columbia from 1963 to 2001. Now if this was a debate about whether bear genetics are diluted due to hunting, I would say Suzuki has credentials up the wazoo. However, this isn't a debate about bear genetics. This is a debate about stopping a hunt for a species of animal which is not threatened in anyway and gaining support for his point of view by mudding the debate by using trophy hunting and not having any other methods to fix the bear populations. The report Suzuki actually refers to at no point calls for the stop of bear hunting in it's conclusion. It gives the research found about over mortality in parts of the province and actually says "However, most of the total overmortalities from 2001–2011 (17 of 18, or 94%) could have been avoided with reduced hunting mortality". Reduced hunting mortality is a far cry from an outright ban as Suzuki is claiming should happen.
In the scientific world, scientists are supposed to change their hypothesis based on facts, not the other way around like Suzuki seems to be doing.
Dyth
I am not really sure what Beasley has for credentials and was hoping someone would now on the forum besides the TV and magazine stuff. I do agree with what you have stated and again I am by no means a Suzuki fan. As stated in an earlier response someone like Dr. Scott Petrie I would support him in a heart beat if he were the spokesman representing hunters based on all his academic credentials and a hunter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
http://www.macleans.ca/society/grizz...phy-bear-hunt/Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
"Eighty-seven per cent of British Columbians oppose the killing of the province’s largest and most iconic animals, according to a recent poll. That even includes some hunters who feel the bears should not be shot for sport. This is a trophy hunt, after all: No part of the animal is eaten. The bears are skinned, their heads removed. The grizzly’s denuded corpse, which looks strangely human when shorn of its coat, is left behind to rot."
Not all provinces require the consumption of bear meat and thats a shame mostly because other than sport there is no need to hunt them and 2nd bear meat is good stuff. I am sure not all hunters who shoot bears in such jurisdictions allow the meat to spoil but for those that do it sure doesnt paint a pretty picture.
I don't think killing a noble beast like a grizzly only for the trophy is the right thing to do. But then you certainly open a can of worms with predator/coyote hunting and even trapping. The carcasses may not be consumed by the hunter but will be by the scavangers as it would be if the grizzly died of natural causes. Nature doesn't let meat go to waste. circle of life and all that. The permits are allocated based on exploitation of a renewable resource and closely monitored by game biologists. I have eaten every bear I have killed. Even if I could afford a Grizzly hunt I don't think I would do it but don't think any less of those who do.
mr. beasely did adress it in the interview that he also dosent agrea with the meat being left behind, and that something needs to be done about that... id be willing to bet that would satisfy most people, to know the meat is not going to waste... i personally have no issue with trophy hunting, so long as the meat is consumed, either by the shooter, or donated to firsts nation etc. that includes high fence hunts etc, yes could open up a can of worms with coyote hunting, but the bulk of coyote hunting takes place around farm land, and rural areas, so its abit of service so to speak... never bin on a grizzly hunt but im willing to bet, your not hunting close to towns...
Well said fishermccann ! My oldest son will be going for his PhD and has to be one of the most humble young men I know with a brilliant mind. His resume as a student includes 2 summers shoveling out of large scale operation chicken barn with a skid steer while the upper floor of the barn is being pressure washed and raining down on him. Many summers of physical labor as a landscaper ,dishwasher in many restaurants and server. He is presently working two restaurant jobs in Toronto just to have enough money to go back to school in the near future to get his PhD. He also writes music for some up and coming Canadian bands and sings back up for bands on the radio. I am proud to say this young man in his short life(24 yrs) has and is experiencing the school of hard knocks/experience with a masters and a PhD in his future. He is like many others in our society that have both the education and the hands on experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
agreadQuote:
Originally Posted by terrym
a grizzly bear hunt was a dream of mine, then shot a larger black bear and didnt care for the meat, now as ive said in previous posts, wouldnt pull the trigger on anything over 200 lbs, so can assume grizzlies are much in the same, the big ole boars that are targeted probably dont carry the greatest meat in the world, so why hunt them... sure they kill moose deer etc, well got news for ya, those species lived together long before we came around and started "managing" populations...