David Suzuki

[fishermccann]

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?

[JBen]

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"

[Oddmott]

See my point now?

No, I don't.

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.

[JBen]

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

[Dythbringer]

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...

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

[Dythbringer]

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.

Hey 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

[yellow dog]

Hey 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.

[fishy steve]

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

http://www.macleans.ca/society/grizz...phy-bear-hunt/

"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."

[Hunter John]

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.

[terrym]

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.