|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Add that to:
"Introduction In June 2010, the Government of Alberta officially declared grizzly bears a threatened species under Alberta’s Wildlife Act." "2011 Management Activities Mortality Eighteen grizzly bear deaths were recorded by Sustainable Resource Development in 2011, including 15 human-caused mortalities(Table1).Illegal killing (including cases where grizzly bears were mistaken for blackbears) was the primary cause of death, accounting for 47 percent of all human-caused mortalities." http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wil......2012.pdf and you get magicalaurie going Again from http://www.apgs.com/Alaska_Grizzly_Bear_Hunting.shtml : "Current regulations require that we must salvage the meat on grizzlies like we would on a moose which is unusual. I have a proposal in front of the Board of Game in March to eliminate part of or all of the requirement. I expect it to pass in some fashion." Grizzlies have a low rate of reproduction- you can really knock a devastating hole in the population quickly. Seems people have difficulty learning and remembering that lesson. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Bears around here generally avoid humans as long as they hear or see you coming.
I explained this to my girl friend once before we went on a hike near Mount Ranier. While we were walking on a forest path she thought she heard a bear growl. I heard something, too, but wasn't sure what it was. Didn't think it was a bear,though. So I started singing. Denise grabbed my arm and said, "Quiet! He'll hear us!" I told her that was the idea and that she should sing along. She wouldn't, though, and was nearly frozen with fright. We came to a break in the forest to a place where we could see an access road. I told Denise, "There's your bear." It was a concrete mixer truck. She hates when I tell this story. Bob |
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Hey, I wanna see a bear, no luck yet.
The Alaska grizzly baiting seems to go back to 2005. I'm surprised I haven't heard (found out ) about it 'til now, far as I recall- probably a lot of interest in keeping it that way, I suspect. See, these folks have tunnel vision, bigtime, like to a mind-boggling degree, really. Or they want us to think they do, maybe. "But in Alaska, there are 30,000 brown and grizzly bears, which are classed as the same species. The state fish and game department said about 1,900 were harvested in 2007." http://www.vancouversun.com/news/controv......ory.html https://www.thedodo.com/trophy-hunting-o......786.html |
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
Quote:
On May 27, 2014, magicalaurie wrote: I don't think it was any big secret. In the US there are always public hearings regarding the years upcoming hunts and proposed changes to the hunt. For the most part I believe the wildlife biologists have a pretty good handle on what is going on with populations in their areas. You're not going to find many, if any, wildlife biologists, people for the most part that have dedicated their lives to the study and conservation of animals that have some sort of interest in seeing populations wiped out. Just the opposite really. |
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Yeah, Marlin, it's not them I'm worried about, really.
http://wyofile.com/ee_daily/wyo-governor......izzlies/ "The better approach is to determine whether grizzlies overall are thriving, said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, Ore. "On that issue, Greenwald said, 'I would say overall that grizzly bears are nowhere near recovery.'" |
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
The fact that they are even talking about delisting them is good news, not bad. Delisting an animal from the endangered species list doesn't mean people can all of the sudden go running around killing them willy nilly. It doesn't mean they will be hunted at all. It means they are coming back in a big way. That's good.
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Once more: https://www.thedodo.com/trophy-hunting-o......786.html
"The grizzlies would still be protected from hunting in the Park itself, however it accounts for under a fifth of the 9 million acres the bears inhabit in and around Yellowstone -- and it would be legal to shoot them the moment they step over the Park boundary. " |
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
That's good. It'll be a good day when they come off that list. And they will come off the list, it's just a matter of time. Because the North American conservation model is a massive success and if it were a worldwide model animals everywhere would be much better off.
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
I'm not sure you're reading the links, Marlin. The overall grizzly population and even specific local populations are far from secure. They certainly are threatened and further shortsighted legislation will only endanger them further. People know this, so what's going on here?
"The total kills commonly exceeded limits set by the provincial bear-management policy. The limits were surpassed at least once during the decade in half the 50 defined populations that are open to hunting, the study found." “This hunt is highly contentious and is strongly opposed by First Nations, enviromentalists and … by 80 per cent of British Columbians,” http://www.timescolonist.com/study-sugge......1.687059 http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_an......ars.html |
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
Yeah I'm reading the reports blaming hunters for "overkilling" grizz in BC eyc. I also see that hunters have been taking about 300 grizzlies a year, and another 300-400 are being killed by wildlife officials due to human safety concerns, and another 100 or so are killed as a result of motor vehicle and railway mortalities. When you have almost 17,000 human/bear encounters (grizzly and black bear combined)on an annual basis, and as many grizzly bears being killed out of concern for human safety than by hunters, something is way out of whack. People who live in bear country and claim to be concerned about the welfare of bears better get to work on co-existing with bears and reducing unwanted human contact if they want to see them thrive. I don't take seriously people who try to discredit wildlife officials whose sole purpose is to monitor and manage wildlife populations simply based on an anti hunting agenda. They tend to do more harm than good.
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
It's a look at the big picture, Marlin, as you claim to support, and the big picture indicates hunting is obviously a threat to the grizzly population. You wanna leave it out? It's the most direct and the main reason for it is nothing more than to kill a grizzly for a trophy, try as you might to paint it differently. The bears are threatened. They are not secure. That's what the reports say, and it's true. We should make room for trophy hunting, despite that fact, you think? You don't think allowing a trophy hunt into the mix is overkill? I don't think you've got a leg to stand on, really.
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/mtn/ours-b......zly.aspx http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/......ory.html |
|||||||||
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
I just wonder why anyone would want to shoot a bear as a trophy. Sad, really.
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
"The California Grizzly Bear once roamed the shores and hills of California, as the true 'monarch of the mountains.' The grizzly, a largely vegetarian omnivore, is believed to have once numbered 10,000 within the state. The arrival of European explorers and the population explosion generated by the California Gold Rush marked the beginning of the end for this massive animal. Forced from coastal areas and lowlands to inland areas in search of food and safety, the bear became the target of hunters who killed the bear for sport, to assist ranchers and farmers, or for simple bragging rights."
Http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/give/bene61/bene61story5.html http://www.sequoiaparksfoundation.org/ta......al-park/ |
|||||||||
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
Historically, it is much the same as the British Raj, with choleric colonels shootin' tigers from Howdahs. But in 2014...
|
|||||||||
Marlin1894 Special user 559 Posts |
Quote:
On May 28, 2014, magicalaurie wrote: What reports? Not the Ministry of Natural Resources reports out of BC. Those reports show 47 of 56 population zones the population is not "threatened". In the 9 zones where they are classified as threatened there is no hunting. There is also no hunting in 6 additional zones where populations are borderline. Areas that are hunted may be closed based on population estimates and areas that have been previously been closed may re-open as populations rebound. Quotas are also adjusted annually based on info gathered from the previous years harvest based on sex, age, etc. As regards "trophy hunting", in my opinion regardless if a person holds out for a trophy or not I feel hunters should eat, or at the very least, donate to someone who will eat all edible meat from a kill. It's required for most species anyway, but even if not required by law I personally feel that's what should be done. Taking a trophy animal doesn't preclude using the meat. I've eaten bear meat and I don't really like it, which is why I don't imagine I'll ever hunt bear. But if I killed one I'd eat it. Any meateater who could question the ethics of eating wild game hunted in accordance with law, but buys factory farmed meat from a store clearly hasn't examined their own culpability in that process and the horrid conditions, and miserable lives, endured by those animals. Hunters are just an easy target (pun intended)for people who don't want to examine the way we raise our food and bring it to market. I think it's very easy to make the argument that it is vastly more ethical to enter an animals environment, where they are living mostly as God (if that is your belief), or nature, intended and removing one than walking into a grocery store and picking up a package of meat. If I could manage it I would eat nothing but wild game that I killed, dressed, and processed myself. And frankly I would 1000 times better about that I do about the fact that I consume store bought meat. So no, I don't support the killing of wild game without using all edible meat from the animal. You know, it's fine to say I have no leg to stand on and all that, that's simply your opinion. I understand your stance on the matter, I also understand that there is really no use in further discussion because you couldn't care any less about mine. |
|||||||||
tomsk192 Inner circle 3894 Posts |
Marlin, I'm very glad to hear your approach, vis a vis eating the kill. It's a position that I respect. Personally, if I was in any doubt as to the sustainability of the stock, I'd shoot something else. I'm not saying you see it differently, just saying.
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
Marlin, I said if you see room for a trophy hunt, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. A trophy hunt's purpose is to kill bears. Those guys don't wanna eat the meat and they're not interested in salvaging it. I suppose other wild carnivores would eat it, though, or it would return to the earth, nourishing it. So it turns out meat wasting is not really the point. Life wasting is. And my point is killing bears just to kill them is obviously overkill for a species that IS still endangered. Open up the hunting more all the time and they might very well end up gone before "the people" realize what's happening- just like the California grizzly. I think politicians have already got them on that track and are looking to lengthen it- the overall grizzly population is threatened, indeed. Now, you say, that at least you would eat the meat, even though you don't like it. You also say for that reason, you'll probably never hunt bear. I appreciate that. I'm not closed- minded. I'm a meat eater on occasion. I'm saying if people nearly wiped them out not too long ago, and if they really want to keep grizzlies around, what are they killing them for and why do they want to kill more? It's not an unreasonable question and I'd appreciate it, if, for a change, you'd give me a little credit for being something other than an idiot.
|
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
From: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/news/20......agement/ , emphasis my own:
"The peer-reviewed report analyzes whether the B.C. Grizzly Bear Strategy is sustaining bear habitat, preventing overkilling of bears by humans, maintaining the abundance and diversity of bears and increasing public and scientific knowledge of grizzly bears. The strategy has guided grizzly bear management in the province since it was adopted in 1995. The study includes a report card, which found that although progress has been made in developing more accurate population estimates (grade: C), increasing scientific knowledge about grizzly bears (grade: B) and improving public awareness of the species (grade: C), little has been done to implement the conservation strategy to protect grizzly bear habitat (grade: D-) or prevent overkilling of bears, including in the province's controversial trophy hunt (grade: D). 'Grizzly bears have suffered from political indifference and inaction for too long,' Moola said. 'B.C. is one of the last places on earth where grizzlies feed, breed and roam across our forests and mountains, but we're abandoning this biological inheritance with management practices that don't work and, worse, threaten the health of the species.' The government was given a D grade for its inability to maintain the abundance and diversity of grizzly bears. Although about 15,000 grizzly reside in British Columbia, research shows that abundance and diversity — including genetic diversity — appear to have declined since the strategy began. No recovery plans have been implemented for B.C.'s nine threatened sub-populations, two of which scientists have deemed extinct: the Garibaldi-Pitt and North Cascade grizzlies, which once inhabited the Lower Mainland's forests and mountains.... The foundation's report follows findings by the federal government's Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) that the majority of grizzly bear habitat in the province is "at risk" and that the species should be legally listed and protected under federal endangered species legislation." |
|||||||||
magicalaurie Inner circle Ontario, Canada 2962 Posts |
I want to thank you for this thread, John- you've got me back to my grizzly bear studying and I've found a lot of good information. Please do excuse the triple post, if you will.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/po......and-game |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
You are welcome. I'd also like to thank marlin for giving some interesting perspective to the discussion. I am deeply sympathetic to both Laurie's and marlin's positions.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Bear attack--good luck saves cyclist (8 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |