Grizzly bears.

[fishertwo]

Our new off topic govt is up to it's old tricks. Before they were KICKED out of power in 1999. They had commisioned several biologists to study the grizzly bear population in British Columbia .It took almost a year to complete and when they turned in the results to the experts they were told they were wrong and they buried the study. It was obvious that the little old ladies and the bleeding heart liberals in Vancouver know a lot more then the biologists, because they said the grizzy bear was in dire straights and going to be extinct in two weeks if they didn't do something. Well something was done, As soon as we got the off topic out, the liberals got hold of the study and realized there were more then enough grizzlies in the province. Even still the hunting was some what curtailed, and now there are more grizzlies in BC then there has been in 100 years. spoke to several of the biologists while they were doing the study and some afterward. I am not a guide outfitter or a hunter anymore.Talk to anyone that spends any time in the bush, and you will get the truth.

[flamingfingers]

Being discussed in another thread:
NO reason it can't have its own thread away from the generalized thread its been touched on in.

[Queen K]

What heck did Grizzlys do exactly before they had a huge price tag on their hides and heads called a "tag"?

[flamingfingers]

*removed*

[Queen K]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/al ... li=AAggFp5

Speaking of stupid hunters aka shooting things that should not be shot: here's a story about a grizzly with a radio-collar on it's neck. Who shoots an animal being tracked? Is $13,000 enough for a bear that wasn't supposed to be shot?

And according to this story, Grizz are endangered in Alberta.

Thought there are lots of Grizzly out there

[seewood]

Shooting a Grizzly with a high powered rifle in order to put it's head on a wall and hide in front of a fireplace is repugnant in my opinion.
If you are going to shoot an animal, you are either going to eat it or it's going to eat you.

And yes I hunted deer, moose and elk for many years. Nummy critters...

[Rwede]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-man-fined-dollar13000-for-killing-grizzly/ar-AAskOYo?li=AAggFp5

Speaking of stupid hunters aka shooting things that should not be shot: here's a story about a grizzly with a radio-collar on it's neck. Who shoots an animal being tracked? Is $13,000 enough for a bear that wasn't supposed to be shot?

And according to this story, Grizz are endangered in Alberta.

Thought there are lots of Grizzly out there

How do you know a hunter shot it? Doesn't say he was in any of the articles on it.

The guy may have been a rancher protecting his livestock.

Maybe he was a hiker who shot the bear because it was attacking him.

Maybe he was just a joy rider out in the bush that shot it for the hell of it.

Your assumptions display your bias, ma'am.

[Queen K]

Motkoski was charged in June 2016 after Fish and Wildlife officers were notified by fRI Research that a collar put on grizzly bear No. 141 in Jasper National Park had stopped working near Edson, about 200 kilometres west of Edmonton.

It was determined the three-year-old male grizzly, which weighed about 250 pounds, had been shot and killed.

Motkoski told researchers he shot the bear, but the Crown prosecutor withdrew the charge of hunting wildlife in a closed season and providing a false or misleading statement.

A spokesperson for the province said the charges were withdrawn because some of the evidence did not suggest a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

Another man, John Peter Grant of Fort McMurray, pleaded guilty on Feb. 2 to unlawful possession of wildlife related to the death of the same bear and was fined a total of $6,000

Oh ummm, Rwede, the article states, ...ah heck, I bolded it. He shot the bear and another man was in possession of parts from the same bear.

Did you get mad and skim?

And when did I become a "ma'am"? I'm only 53, not 83, please don't rush these things. Last time someone called me ma'am it was in Tennessee where that sort of thing is common.

[Queen K]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-man-fined-dollar13000-for-killing-grizzly/ar-AAskOYo?li=AAggFp5

Speaking of stupid hunters aka shooting things that should not be shot: here's a story about a grizzly with a radio-collar on it's neck. Who shoots an animal being tracked? Is $13,000 enough for a bear that wasn't supposed to be shot?

And according to this story, Grizz are endangered in Alberta.

Thought there are lots of Grizzly out there

How do you know a hunter shot it? Doesn't say he was in any of the articles on it.

The guy may have been a rancher protecting his livestock.

Maybe he was a hiker who shot the bear because it was attacking him.

Maybe he was just a joy rider out in the bush that shot it for the hell of it.

Your assumptions display your bias, ma'am.

You want me to take back "speaking of stupid hunters" then? Because you've come up with the scenerios which not make him stupid. Okay, I withdraw my comment about him being "stupid" but still, the admitted he shot a radio collared bear. So why isn't the government recognizing any of the above scenerios and going ahead with fines?

[Rwede]

Motkoski was charged in June 2016 after Fish and Wildlife officers were notified by fRI Research that a collar put on grizzly bear No. 141 in Jasper National Park had stopped working near Edson, about 200 kilometres west of Edmonton.

It was determined the three-year-old male grizzly, which weighed about 250 pounds, had been shot and killed.

Motkoski told researchers he shot the bear, but the Crown prosecutor withdrew the charge of hunting wildlife in a closed season and providing a false or misleading statement.

A spokesperson for the province said the charges were withdrawn because some of the evidence did not suggest a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

Another man, John Peter Grant of Fort McMurray, pleaded guilty on Feb. 2 to unlawful possession of wildlife related to the death of the same bear and was fined a total of $6,000

Oh ummm, Rwede, the article states, ...ah heck, I bolded it. He shot the bear and another man was in possession of parts from the same bear.

Did you get mad and skim?

And when did I become a "ma'am"? I'm only 53, not 83, please don't rush these things. Last time someone called me ma'am it was in Tennessee where that sort of thing is common.

He shot the bear.

Nowhere does it say he was a hunter, and nowhere does it say he was hunting.

Nowhere does it say the guy who took the bear parts was a hunter, either. That guy might have been a Chinese medicine man for all we know.

[Queen K]

Okay Rwede, you're right on that score. Nowhere did it say he was hunting. He was just out and about with a gun and a grizzly got in his way. Which happens. And oh boy, did it ever happen.


But here we go with grizzly and habitat loss, which as you and I know, is the single biggest threat to many species in North America.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#209889

I mean it's not hunters taking out old boars, nope, it's land grabs and causing habitat loss.

[Rwede]

And Horgan is busy vilifying grizzly hunters, when in fact grizzly hunters aren't affecting grizzly populations.

There's the problem. Social engineering by guys like Horgan end up harming wildlife by diverting the citizens' attention away from important, critical issues like habitat by making hunters the scapegoat for his social agenda.

I find it repulsive that Horgan is willing to sacrifice wildlife for his own personal gain via votes from urbanites. He's a complete POS.

[dontrump]

BUT to say you can kill a grizzly if you take the meat only is beyond ridiculous as no one hunts bear just for the meat ;; either you have BC resident only licensed hunters do a controlled area herd thin every so many years or you just ban hunting grizzlies BY " everyone "and you know who I mean here when I say everyone! and then deal with it when they become too many;; Alberta has almost none so lets spend some time and money and
relocate a bunch to alberta

[Rwede]

BUT to say you can kill a grizzly if you take the meat only is beyond ridiculous as no one hunts bear just for the meat ;; either you have BC resident only licensed hunters do a controlled area herd thin every so many years or you just ban hunting grizzlies BY " everyone "and you know who I mean here when I say everyone! and then deal with it when they become too many;; Alberta has almost none so lets spend some time and money and
relocate a bunch to alberta

Crazy ideas. Relocated grizzly bears die swiftly when they intrude on another bear's territory.

Stick to the science. Political and social/emotional BS does nothing but harm wildlife.

[Queen K]

BUT to say you can kill a grizzly if you take the meat only is beyond ridiculous as no one hunts bear just for the meat ;; either you have BC resident only licensed hunters do a controlled area herd thin every so many years or you just ban hunting grizzlies BY " everyone "and you know who I mean here when I say everyone! and then deal with it when they become too many;; Alberta has almost none so lets spend some time and money and
relocate a bunch to alberta

Crazy ideas. Relocated grizzly bears die swiftly when they intrude on another bear's territory.

Stick to the science. Political and social/emotional BS does nothing but harm wildlife.

So do you think it would be a good idea to start a thread about what political/social ideas backfired with regards to imposing ideals on to the natural World?

Say, like those yellow pines we talked about earlier, and how they were planted with the best intentions, or grizzly bear conservation and how it's going to affect wild life numbers.