Hunting ban on bears to be lifted

[bilko]

I read the following in the Metro newspaper on November 17th 2005. The Metro is a free newspaper distributed daily on the London Underground. I could not find a link so i'll type it all out.

Grizzly bears could become fair game for hunters after George Bush took the first step to remove them from the endangered species list. The number of Grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park, North West USA, has almost trebled since since protection was introduced 30 years ago. "The population has now recovered ", interior secretary Gale Norton said. "These bears are now no longer endangered". If the order is revoked it will be permissable to hunt bears outside National parks. Groups opposed to the move say it is premature as the species' long term survival is not assured. Grizzly bears have become notorious for their infrequent, but often ferociouse attacks on people.

Now i don't know about you but when i first read this i was appaled. For two reasons mainly; firstly, just because a species is no longer on the brink of extinction i do not see this as a reason for opening up the flood gates for anyone with a flourecent orange hivi and a rifle to shoot it.
Second of all, i have very little knowledge about the grizzly bear but from what i understand it is basically humans who are at fault in some if not most attacks. People do not take the proper precautions when camping on the BEARS territory and the bear is just doing what comes naturally without the god given gift of choice but instinct alone.

I would be very interested to hear your views on this before i write a retort to Metro ( as an individual ) in response to their ill founded slurr on these magnificent animals.
Bilko

 

[tomtom]

i do not see this as a reason for opening up the flood gates for anyone with a flourecent orange hivi and a rifle to shoot it.

I havent read the article, bu tare you sure this is the case.. it seems unlikely to me, in the us hunting is very populare and what is shot, when, and by whome is normaly carefully monitored, for exhample bision are shot to control their numbers, but the permits are very hard to come each permit allows one bison to be shot and the permits (of which there are a limited number) are raffeled at the beginning of the season. Are you sure there wont be similar restrictions in place is/when bear hunting is allowed?

remember that the metro may only represent a part truth.

This post in no way means that i condone the hunting of bears or that i would take part in such an activity.

 

[bilko]

Tomtom
I see what you are saying mate and yes one has to be wary of believing everything one reads in the tabloids. In truth the article was probably meant to be inflamatry as this is a subject of no real concern to people traveling on the 08:15 to Charing Cross to get to the office. However the facts although possibly distorted are still meaningfull in that the Grizzly bear is or will be taken off the endangered species list.

I understand that rules are in place as to what one can hunt and when but clearly unless new legislation has come into force those rules are being brocken. Or why would the Grizzly bear be on the endangered species list in the first place?.
Unless of course some dramatic change in climate or other natural disaster had besset the bear population. And if so then has that danger now passed?.
Thanks Tomtom

 

[Carcajou Garou]

The lifting of this ban does not mean wholesale extermination of the grizzly, it is more of a culling in numbers so the grizzlies do have a better environment with less pressure on the available food sources, in Ontario we have just the opposite where the spring bear hunt has been closed and for years bear population has risen with no checks and balances except what will come as nature equalizes itself at some time in the future. Attacks, both deadly and severe injuries have been increasing causing the bushcrafting population to stay away, but also the bears within their own interaction have become much more intolerant toward each other as range and quality food sources are in greater demand, bears are moving into cities foraging as they establish new areas. Unless you come from another planet you do have the right to be in the bush as much as the other animals (you are a child of this planet) it is in the careful stewardship of those resources that we must be mindfull and look at the whole of the ecosystem balance that we must think. It is of no use to totaly protect a species to the detriment of many others and then later having an unforseen factor come out and wipe out the initial species that we are trying to protect, have to think a lot more about the whole not just the one. I hope that i didn't confuse my point of view to much. I ponder such interaction a lot as a lady was killed by a bears this summer because of the very things I have been trying to show, many bears later on were killed just to get the one that had commited the death but did they get the right one? People now feel safer???? I thinknot at least the thinking ones. CG :yo:

 

[Kane]

If the population has recovered to the point where it can sustain hunting then fair enough.

Kane

 

[bilko]

Thanks Carcajou Garou
Yep you're right of course. It's easy to ambassader the right of other mammals against the might of the human race. One must be carefull not to get caught up in rhetoric hence my request for experience in these matters.
I hold my hands up Yes i am clueness in such matters and driven through passion and wellfare,. I have succumbed to the stereo type that is hollywood.
Maybe i should head the advice of Abraham Lincoln although i still believe there are interesting issues left in this topic.

 

[Abbe Osram]

Here in Sweden the population of bears is growing too starting to make problems. We have to control bears not only because of the danger they are to us but as a balancing factor in the woods. Bears are able to take out nearly 80 percent of all yearly moose calves. The bear’s behavior changes to the negative if they are too much and for that it is good to reduce their numbers. That has do be done in a scientific way, as all hunting should be done. No serious hunter is interested in over hunting and destroying nature. Off course there are some wired and irresponsible hunters out there but I believe the majority is clear about the value of a balanced nature.

There is a danger of a romantic Disney type of animal love, which doesn’t exist in the real world, these people try to make politics wanting to steer up opinions to serve their political agenda. If we would not hunt and kill the fox, the fox will kill most of the deer and birds population etc, growing in number and the result will be that they will develop terrible diseases themselves. Holding the population down they stay healthy and other animals get a chance too to survive in the woods and multiply. If you really care about nature and animals you will end up shooting some of them to created balance in the wild. I want to make clear that I am for a way of hunting where bears are counted and a certain amount is given free for hunting. Female bears with cups should not be killed etc etc.
Cheers
Abbe

 

[Kane]

Well put Abbe.

Kane

 

[Goose]

Just deleted the long winded post I was writing as Abbe has put it a lot better(and a lot more concise) than I ever could have!

 

[Marts]

If you want to know more about the story Bilko was originally talking about you could start

HERE

 

[RovingArcher]

The bears have always been shot, but primarily by ranchers protecting their cattle and sheep. As far as opening hunting on an unlimited bases, that is very unlikely.

In the past, when animals were hunted into extinction, not just for food, but because they were considered pests by the land owners, townspeople, government, etc, a group of hunters, together with animal biologists, developed a way of continuing to allow hunting on a limited basis, so that the herds could be re-established to their former numbers. That is when bowhunting for big game actually got it's start in this country. It was used as a tool to allow hunting in areas where populations were down, because it placed less pressure on the animals and fewer were killed.

Through all of this, there was an uproar by the non hunting public, saying that bears, wolves and deer were nothing but pests and they should be eliminated. In the end, it took those that hunted them, to love them enough to save them. Since then, hunting has been well organized and regulated, with the animals welfare coming before mans dimwitted wants. There are also severe penalties for poaching, up to and including confiscation of all items used to kill, transport and store the meat and other parts of the animals. For the subsistence poacher, this is a bad thing, but it does help to thwart those that poach for profit.

What angers me is Bush putting oil ahead of a whole species of carabou by wanting to start drilling and running pipe in their birthing area. This is a time when anti-hunters and hunters should get together, even though separated by philosophies, to fight for the rights of animals.

 

[bilko]

Abbe, excellent reply as always. You have indeed put me right. Fickle moi? , Lets just say it helps to be in full posesion of the facts to start with. I'm not all fuzzy about all wildlife though as i was distinctly for fox hunting and went to several meets and the march. Still, that's old news now.