Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: capt. apathy on May 11, 2006, 12:01:07 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738644/
Wild find: Half grizzly, half polar bear
Hunter bags what expert 'never thought would happen' in wild
Hunter Jim Martell, left, and others pose with the bear he shot on Banks Island in Canada's Northwest Territory. DNA tests later showed the bear had a polar bear for a mother and a grizzly bear for a father.
(http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060511/060511_%20hybridbear_hmed_7a.hmedium.jpg)
-
A hunter paid $50,000 to kill polar bears? I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?
-
Hey, a bear!
....
Let's kill it.
Morons
-
And there is one less bear in the world.
I'm going to have a drink in celebration.
Now only if we can get started on the sharks...
-
****ing idiots.
-
I gotta agree, wtf good could possibly come from killing such a unique creature?
I'm all for hunting, shooting etc, but if it aint on a range or a battlefield, or menacing society somehow, eat what you shoot, or let it walk away intact.
Now, if he had of taken that thing down with a knife or his bare hands, I would be impressed, but any moron can drop anything with a high powered rifle.
-
handsomehunkes
too bad the bear didnt get a bite of them first.
id love to see if they still had that grin on their faces if they met the bear face to face without their bang bangs.
-
Now, if he had of taken that thing down with a knife or his bare hands, I would be impressed, but any moron can drop anything with a high powered rifle.
And any moron can have access to an Internet Message Board. That still doesn't mean you know your bellybutton from a hole in the ground.
You people are forgetting that this creature is a mixture of two of the most aggressive CARNIVORES known to man.
-
no bear kills for fun lasersailor
if that makes it the most aggressive one then we are ok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You people are forgetting that this creature is a mixture of two of the most aggressive CARNIVORES known to man.
This is just about the most MORONIC statement I've read on this BBS.
-
Don't approve of hunting?
(I suspect they had no idea it was a rare hybrid when the shot was taken. They were probably hunting polar bears and this one looks like a polar bear. Not that really has any bearing on the right/wrong of hunting.)
Let me guess... you guys complaing are wearing leather shoes and belts and are probably eating meat sometime today?
-
Under other circumstances, I could be opposed to hunting polar bears. But since global warming is melting their habitat, pruning the population is probably the humane thing to do.
Two remarkable points here are that they may have un-naturally snuffed out a genetic variation that could have lead to a more adapted wild bear species (i.e., a polar bear that eats salmon when seals are rare), and that the usually conservative pro-hunting crowd may now claim global warming as an excuse to hunt.
-
Toad, I have no issues with hunting for food. I have issues with hunting for the pure joy of killing and for trophy purposes.
-
Do you know for certain that Martell did not take the meat for food?
Btw, I hunt pheasant primarily because I enjoy the challenges it presents; the food value is just an added bonus. I could, obviously, buy bland chicken at the supermarket to fill the larder.
So am I some terrible thrill-killing monster?
-
He paid $50,000 to shoot bears for food?
I not 100% sure...but I'm willing to bet on it. You?
-
If he used the meat, was he not hunting for food?
You seem to want to judge his intent. If he intended to hunt and kill for the enjoyment of the hunt is he somehow less in your eyes? Even if he eats the resulting food from the hunt?
Why do people fish for Halibut? A good sized Halibut provides more fish flesh than that average family normally consumes in two or three years. Are these Halibut fishermen evil as well?
-
Toad, I think killing animals for fun is wrong. It is my opinion. This guy paid $50,000 to go kill polar bears for fun. If he ate the meat he probably did so merely for the experience. I highly doubt he is a regular consumer of polar bears.
-
Obviously Curval has missed the Colbert Report's Threatdown....
Bears #1
-
Originally posted by Curval
Toad, I think killing animals for fun is wrong. It is my opinion. This guy paid $50,000 to go kill polar bears for fun. If he ate the meat he probably did so merely for the experience. I highly doubt he is a regular consumer of polar bears.
I doubt any non-Native North American is a regular consumer of polar bear meat.
Polar bear hunting is highly regulated and limited.
So is it wrong for me to take the Labs and go pheasant hunting? We go because it's fun; as I said, I could buy bland chicken at the market and subsist.
-
Toad asked; Why do people fish for Halibut?
For the Halibut?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Btw, I hunt pheasant primarily because I enjoy the challenges it presents; the food value is just an added bonus. I could, obviously, buy bland chicken at the supermarket to fill the larder.
You're probabbly better off eating that wild pheasant then eating the chiken from the supermarket which was raised in captivity and stuffed with all sorts of proteins and hormones during its entire life.
:aok
-
Sure... but doesn't the fact that I enjoy the hunt make me Dr. Evil?
-
Polar bear hunting is regulated by how many $$ you want to spend to kill one. This bear was killed as a "trophy"...read the articles.
They are a species headed for trouble. We don't need to be killing them for "sport". They are dying quickly enough on thier own thanks.
I have had a few experiences with these bears. They are the top predator in thier environment (except for us humans).
As far as "the two most aggressive Carnivores"..well.......I beg to differ. I have never had a problem with a Grizzly, and have seen more of them than you could possibly fathom. (bears by nature are omnivores btw)
Your basic black bear can be much more aggressive and unpredictable in my experience. My experience with Grizzlies tends to lead me to believe that in general, they would rather get away from you.
I have had a couple of run-ins with polar bears (close calls), but they were entirely my own fault.
Polar bears, well..you are really just food to them, they don't seem to make much of a distinction between seal and "long pig". If it moves it must be food. Not really aggression, more like a smorgasbord.
Just as a point of interest, the most aggressive critter I have ever seen has to be the wolverine. These things are true "land sharks", and have a nice even temper (all mean and nasty, all the time).
So, there ya have it..RTR's picks for most aggressive Critters. Wolverines and Black bears.
Now, lets leave the Polar bears AND the Grizzlies alone. They have it tough enough as is.
cheers,
RTR
-
Norway has had a complete ban on polar bear hunting. USA, Greenland and Russia allow hunting by the indigenous people.
Funny that only Canada issues recreational licenses if they are truly endangered, don't you think?
IIRC, they're listed as "protected" and recreational licenses are limited. Something like 10% of all licenses issued in Canada go to recreational applicants.
Would I personally hunt one? Nope. Doesn't really appeal to me.
But I do kill pheasant with the Labs and we have fun doing it.
(http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/dr.evil_one_miliion_dollars.jpg)
I guess I'm not evil enough to hire assassins to kill ALL my food for me though.
-
Toad, nothing wrong with hunting for the meat. Problem is, there's not much usable on a Polar Bear.
Due to thier diet, (lots of seal blubber etc.) they have pretty high levels of vitamin A in them. In fact there can be toxic levels of vitamin A in polar bear liver.
And, there are alot of us up here who want them protected as well.
just FYI.
cheers,
RTR
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
no bear kills for fun lasersailor
if that makes it the most aggressive one then we are ok
I'll bet the one who killed "Grizzly Man" had some fun. That guy was a complete whacko.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So is it wrong for me to take the Labs and go pheasant hunting? We go because it's fun; as I said, I could buy bland chicken at the market and subsist.
Is that what this is all about Toad? Are you worried that I think you are an animal because you enjoy killing them? Fear not. I don't.
(Besides...you wear cool tweed clothes and show the proper "respect" for the birds you kill ;) )
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You people are forgetting that this creature is a mixture of two of the most aggressive CARNIVORES known to man.
They are unpredictable, definately NOT the most aggressive, besides, they are OMNIVORES...Originally posted by lasersailor184
...know your bellybutton from a hole in the ground...
-
Last time I went bird hunting my buddy, I'll call him Richard, shot me in the face.
He said it was a mistake, but... I'm not quite so sure.
-
Good grief, Curval, you act as tho this guy paid his way into killing an endangered species.
Dont like hunting, fine. Dont like guns, fine
But good grief, let it go. Don't get your pink shorts in a bunch :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sure... but doesn't the fact that I enjoy the hunt make me Dr. Evil?
Only to pheasants..:)
-
Originally posted by LePaul
But good grief, let it go. Don't get your pink shorts in a bunch :)
You act like he's losing his mind or something. He's stating an opinion. That's about it. (psst: it's sorta what we do around here....)
So why don't you untangle your pink shorts about it?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Is that what this is all about Toad? Are you worried that I think you are an animal because you enjoy killing them? Fear not. I don't.
(Besides...you wear cool tweed clothes and show the proper "respect" for the birds you kill ;) )
Well for one, I don't own tweed. I do respect the sport however.
Which is not the same as respecting those that condemn killing animals with their mouths full of animal flesh.
And trust me on this one... I don't worry much about what anyone on a bbs thinks of me. It's what I think of the guy in the mirror that counts the most.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And any moron can have access to an Internet Message Board. That still doesn't mean you know your bellybutton from a hole in the ground.
.
Thats quite evident, after all, you post here.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You people are forgetting that this creature is a mixture of two of the most aggressive CARNIVORES known to man.
...and we are number one!
BTW: how many aggressive Polar bears have you had to defend yourself from?:rolleyes:
-
You act like he's losing his mind or something.
This is what he wrote:
I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?
Sounds 'nutty' to me... Sure he's exaggerating, but equating the dumb bear with a human life is 'nutty'.
-
"Sure he's exaggerating, but equating..."
Which would you have it? Because they're not the same thing.
-
Put the dope down..
He is exaggerating in that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed. Granted that's an assumption on my part. However, his statement also implies that the value of the bear and the human are some how equal.
-
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill? (2x)
When out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun
In case of accidents he always took his mom
He's the all American bullet-headed saxon mother's son.
All the children sing
Hey Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill? (2x)
Deep in the jungle where the mighty tiger lies
Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise
So Captain Marvel zapped him right between the eyes
All the children sing
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill? (2x)
The children asked him if to kill was not a sin
But when he looked so fierce, his mummy butted in
If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him
All the children sing
Hey, Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill? (8x) (fade out)
-
Put the dope down?
That's rich...
"Granted that's an assumption on my part. However, his statement also implies..."
Your assumption.... implies something to you?
That's probably supposed to mean something to you. Don't expect it to mean anything to me.
-
However, his statement also implies that the value of the bear and the human are some how equal.
A distinction which boils down to creationism vs darwinism.
Creationists believe man was created in god's image and has a soul.
Evolutionists believe man is a species of primate.
A creationist as such has no moral problem killing any non-human because man was given dominion over the earth.
An evolutionist may have problems killing creatures nearly as far up the food chain and evolutionary tree as we are.
Where do you draw the line? Monkey meat? Dogs? Bear?
As a rule, herbivores have eyes on the sides of their heads, because they are prey, and must watch for predators.
Predators have eyes facing front, to hunt for prey.
As a general rule, I try not to eat anything with eyes on the front of its head.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Your assumption.... implies something to you?
The 'assumption' refers to the thought by the party of the second part that the party of the first part would not pay for murder.
The 'implication' is the meaning gleaned by the party of the second part that the party of the first part held human and other animal life equal in value.
Independant yet somewhat related thoughts about two seperate subjects.
Note: It is possible to be independant of one's brother, yet somewhat related.
-
Originally posted by RTR
Polar bears, well..you are really just food to them, they don't seem to make much of a distinction between seal and "long pig". If it moves it must be food. Not really aggression, more like a smorgasbord.
cheers,
RTR
I guess we see things differently. But anything that views me as food and works towards that end I consider to be aggressive towards me. If it wants to eat me, that makes me its prey. As a predator, it is aggressive towards its prey. Tell me again how a polar bear is not aggressive towards humans, and yet it views humans as food.
"Hey dude, chill, that polar bear isn't aggressive, he's trying to bite your bellybutton in half because he wants to eat you". Sure thing.:huh
-
so when was the last time a polar bear acually ate or killed a person.
its kind of like wolves. wolves can be very nice creatures and there has been 1 or maybe to sites of deaths from wolves ever. i am not a hunter nore ever want to a hunter. personally i think publix or kroger makes pretty good food. now if the bear was trying to attack then men sure they had a rigth to defend themselves. and i think in the futer bears are going to become endangered so really i dont c the point in killing a poler bear for no reason at all.
-
Originally posted by ujustdied
so when was the last time a polar bear acually ate or killed a person.
Maybe 10 years ago, a couple of kids broke into the St Louis Zoo to pet the big fuzzy white bears.
They destroyed the bears and I wondered why they had to do that. There was not any sinister motive for the bears killing the children, the fault layed with the kids' stupidity. The bears were just being bears.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The 'assumption' refers to the thought by the party of the second part that the party of the first part would not pay for murder.
The 'implication' is the meaning gleaned by the party of the second part that the party of the first part held human and other animal life equal in value.
Independant yet somewhat related thoughts about two seperate subjects.
Note: It is possible to be independant of one's brother, yet somewhat related.
Lol. ;)
Is it really possible to seperate the two parts? The "implication" was colored by his "assumption." The "asumption" based in large part on the "implication."
I think that if you remove either one of these things, then the argument crumbles like a house of cards. For (real) example:
We've both been here long enough to know that Curval is far from "nutty."
But "nutty" was the case that Bruno was trying to make when he employed the words "assumption" and "implication."
Something doesn't give. Could it be that Curval is really nutty?
Really?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I'll bet the one who killed "Grizzly Man" had some fun. That guy was a complete whacko.
I dont think i have heard that story, but i bet the guy that got killed did something to piss off the bear or one of her cubs. Perhaps he stored food close to him that was not properly secured. I doubt the beer (hehe) killed him just to be an a-hole ;)
-
Nilsen,
there is a documentary called "Grizzly Man" which cronicles the life of a man who lived among Grizzlys in Alaska for like a decade or maybe better. He made the rounds of late nite TV talk shows, and thought he knew the bears better than anyone else. (He probably did)
Eventually he lost it and went off the deep end. There are places in the documentary where he wails profanely on about how bad human beings are, then only a few seconds later he records a second take where he is reserved and thoughtful talking of the beauty of the nature that surrounds him. An obvious case of some sort of mental disorder, as lay diagnosed by yours truely.
He ends up being devoured along with his girlfriend, the audio of whole scene being recorded by his camera.
-
oh yes..
I have heard it afterall. A norwegian guy that is quite famous for his expeditions in alaska and canada with dogs was on a "talk show" here. I only caught half the show but he said something about this guy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lol. ;)
Is it really possible to seperate the two parts?
Yeah, it was relatively easy.
We've both been here long enough to know that Curval is far from "nutty."
But "nutty" was the case that Bruno was trying to make when he employed the words "assumption" and "implication."
Bruno said "Sounds 'nutty' to me..." refering to an idea, not a person.
One can say a nutty thing every once in a while without being nutty. Take you for example... uh on second thought, ;)
-
Very funny. :D
... and on that note - I'm off to bed. Cheers!
-
"Granted that's an assumption on my part. However, his statement also implies..."
Your assumption.... implies something to you?
That's probably supposed to mean something to you. Don't expect it to mean anything to me.
Play the clown all you want but I will help you once more.
Read this first:
He is exaggerating in that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed. Granted that's an assumption on my part.
My assumption is that he was only exaggerating that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed.
There is no assumption to later part:
However, his statement also implies that the value of the bear and the human are some how equal.
There's a clear implication that in:
I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?
That he is equating the same value to the hunter as the bear.
Put the dope down?
That's rich...
It's more then 'rich' it appears accurate seeing how you are struggling to make sense of three sentences.
-
1) He is exaggerating in that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed. Granted that's an assumption on my part.
2) My assumption is that he was only exaggerating that he wouldn't actually pay to have the guy killed.
3) There is no assumption to later part:
4) However, his statement also implies that the value of the bear and the human are some how equal.
5) There's a clear implication that in:
6) "I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?"
7) That he is equating the same value to the hunter as the bear.
Jesious...
-
Bruno said "Sounds 'nutty' to me..." refering to an idea, not a person.
Well Nash has trouble going from point A to B.
Nash said:
You act like he's losing his mind or something.
My reply was:
Sounds 'nutty' to me... Sure he's exaggerating, but equating the dumb bear with a human life is 'nutty'.
So what is 'nutty'? Curval? No, this statement:
I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?
-
Yeah, Curval is going to pay money to shoot somebody.
Perhaps you are missing something here?
-
Toad, I'm surprised you don't see a difference between your hunting of Game birds and the guys hunting of Polar Bears.
To my own personal, unqualified, opinion hunting is fine if it is :-
1. Humane (an efficient and decisive kill)
2. Not risking the animals population
3. Not gratuitous (usually involving some skill and making use of the kill after).
Hunting pheasant:-
1. A shotgun is perfectly efficient bringing down a bird.
2. There's more pheasant than we need
3. Shooting a flying bird takes considerable skill and if you don't eat the pheasant yourself they probably go to freinds etc.
Meets all three ....
Hunting a Polar Bear:-
1. High power rifle is no garuantee of bringing down a large bear.
2. They are endangered and melting ice is putting them further at risk.
3. Being guided to the bear and shooting a slow moving ground animal from a distance with a scope requires little skill and the reward is purely egotistical.
Fails on all three......
Going back to pheasant. If you winged em with a catapult, piled them in a heap in the field, wiped their blod on your face to celebrate your manlihood and went home to eat your store chicken after then yes you would be Dr Evil ..... somehow I don't see that.
-
Originally posted by Curval
A hunter paid $50,000 to kill polar bears? I'll pay the same to shoot him...how about them apples?
typical illogical liberal. it's ok to kill a fellow human for doing what we humans have naturally done since God put us on the earth. the thing is that what you want to do do that hunter is also something we have done to each other since the beginning but I would place my bet on the hunter not a pink or lavander short wearing scooter riding accountant. :D
-
lol...it IS natural for humans to hunt in order to eat. It is totally unnatural to do so for the pure thrill of killing. That is something that separates us (humans) from the "animals".
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol...it IS natural for humans to hunt in order to eat. It is totally unnatural to do so for the pure thrill of killing. That is something that separates us (humans) from the "animals".
There are animals that kill for reasons other than sustainance.
House cats kill mice and then bring the "trophy" back to the house and present it to you. It is unnessesary to kill the mouse, but the cat gets something out of it. The fulfillment of the hunting instinct perhaps.
Fulfillment of any primordial instinct can be pleasureable, perhaps something akin to the pleasure we get from recreational sex: an act unnesessary to the preservation of the species, but pleasurable none the less.
-
Originally posted by ujustdied
so when was the last time a polar bear acually ate or killed a person.
Ever hear the phrase, "Dead men tell no tales" ?
-
sharks are the best
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There are animals that kill for reasons other than sustainance.
House cats kill mice and then bring the "trophy" back to the house and present it to you. It is unnessesary to kill the mouse, but the cat gets something out of it. The fulfillment of the hunting instinct perhaps.
Fulfillment of any primordial instinct can be pleasureable, perhaps something akin to the pleasure we get from recreational sex: an act unnesessary to the preservation of the species, but pleasurable none the less.
So let me get this straight...you are likening the pleasure of sex to the killing of animals?
"Dr. Freud...calling Dr. Freud!!!!"
Basically then you would support the indiscrimminate killing of wildlife? Poachers should be rewarded, not punnished? Afterall...they are just killing dumb animals and not superior beings like us humans (who, by the way, liken the pleasure of sex to killing things).
Gotcha.
-
http://www.grizzlymanmovie.com/grizzly.html
-
Originally posted by Curval
So let me get this straight...you are likening the pleasure of sex to the killing of animals?
"Dr. Freud...calling Dr. Freud!!!!"
Basically then you would support the indiscrimminate killing of wildlife? Poachers should be rewarded, not punnished? Afterall...they are just killing dumb animals and not superior beings like us humans (who, by the way, liken the pleasure of sex to killing things).
Gotcha.
It is a well reasoned argument that the pleasure that a hunter gets may very well be fulfillment of the ancient drive to get food, and that drive has been encoded in us since we first became a human species. As sex drives vary among individuals, so might the hunting drive.
That the ingrained drive to hunt can be screwed up in some individuals, as can be the sex drive, that doesn't detract from the base instincts that could drive both behaviors.
If you step back and think about it, you would notice that both behaviors stem from fullfillment of ancient behaviors. One to eat and one to procreate. Both drives are extremely important to the survival of any species.
While I believe that the above argument has some merit, it has nothing to do with my opposition or encouragement of illegal hunting, or whether or not I believe in the justification of human dominance over nature. Where you made that leap is within your psyche, not mine.
If you look at an earlier post of mine in this thread, you will note that I believe that the destruction of Polar Bears in the St Louis Zoo was unwarranted, even though they had devoured idiotic children who broke into the zoo and entered the Polar Bear exhibit.
This may give you some clue as to the relative importance with which I view the human / animal relationship.
-
The licensing fees that the Hunter pays, where does that money go?
sharks are the best
I read where some Norwegians prefer to kill whales over shark...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The licensing fees that the Hunter pays, where does that money go?
In Oregon, the vast majority of the money spent on wetland rehab, wildlife management, winter feeding programs, fish hatcheries, and a host of other fish and wildlife departmant programs comes from licence, tag, and stamp fees.
-
Sparks,
First of all, I think the statement is that it's wrong to kill animals
"for the pure thrill of killing".
Whether or not the animal population can support the harvest never enters into the above idea. So point 2 doesn't apply to the discussion.
As for "efficient and decisive kill" either the shotgun or rifle is capable of doing that. Just as they can be incapable of doing that when one misses or the shot is poorly placed. So that makes point 1 non-applicable.
There's very little in hunting that doesn't involve some degree of skill (see point 1) and there are "wanton waste" laws that penalize failure to use the kill as food.
I'm afraid, in Curval's view, I must be Dr. Evil. While I do not hunt solely for the "thrill of killing", the kill is an integral part of hunting.
Now if I'm misunderstanding Curval and he is standing with Ortega Y Gasset who said:
"The true hunter does not hunt to kill; the hunter kills to have hunted".
that would be different.
I'll just point out that Ortega Y Gasset's statement would apply to the fellow that shot the polargrizz as well as it would to a pheasant hunter.
-
It's obvious from the contents of some of these threads which posters have spent most of their lives fighting for survival in the "concrete jungle."
Some of you people really are totally divorced from the realities of the natural world and basic human instincts, aren't you?
You've never stalked prey with a weapon in your hand, nor felt the hair on the back of your neck stand on end and all five senses shift into overdrive when that prey is sighted. The pounding heart, shortness of breath, tunnel vision...total fixation on that prey and its movements.
Basic instinct...which some of us are privileged to experience and enjoy. Yes, enjoy. While you, you poor city-slobs, have those instincts buried under heavy layers of "civilization" and "environmental ethics."
As I have said in earlier threads, trying to apply emotional human morality to the amoral natural world is simple minded.
Environmental ethics have been the bane of people and wildlife in many areas of the world, often being counter-productive to their desired goals. The $50,000 that guy spent on his polar-bear hunt pumped badly needed revenue into one of the most economically depressed areas in the Northern Hemisphere. These hunts are extremely rare and pose no real threat to the population.
Environmental ethics makes it impossible for Native American tribes of the far North to exploit the natural resources of the areas they and their ancestors have occupied for nearly 40,000 years for their own economic benefit. They have become economic captives of their beautiful environments. As surely as they try to obtain permission to drill for oil or other resources in their areas, some well-fed, white, pasty-faced, flushed with money, environmentalist from the lower-48 starts some witless campaign to prevent them from doing so.
Environmentalists command about as much respect among these people as the anti-war movement did during the 1960's.
-
NRA-ILA
Since 1937, hunters have contributed over 4 billion dollars through the Pittman-Robertson Act for the benefit of all wildlife species. These dollars have been used to purchase millions of acres of public lands.
Through over 10,000 clubs and organizations such as NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Quail Unlimited, sportsmen contribute an additional $300 million each year to wildlife conservation activities.
Hunters and fishermen fund nearly 75% of the annual income for all 50 state conservation agencies. Through license fees and excise taxes on arms and gear, sportsmen contribute $200 million per year for wildlife conservation. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
Wonder how much the oh-so-correct folks that dine on domestic duck ala orange contribute to the survival of wildlife?
That's about half a billion a year for sportsmen... wonder how much the "killing animals is wrong" crowd contributes?
-
It amazes me that you non hunters think that shooting a polar bear with a rifle is easy. FIrst off you have 60-100 pounds of gear and clothing on to keep you warm. It's cold out, the wind is blowing upwards of 30-40 mph( on normal artic days) you've probably been walking most of the day and now your guide says to shoot that bear, and you're expected to make a humane, killing shot. Yep, sounds easy to me.
You guys should also read the article. He didn't intentionally shoot a hybrid bear. His guide told him to shoot that Polar Bear. They realized when they recovered the animal that it was different and did the right thing by turning it over to the authorities.
I don't buy into the "but they're endangered" crap because they aren't. They are officially Protected, which means that without monitoring, they could become endangered. The locals kill far more Polar bears every year that all sport hunting combined. The difference is that sport hunting generates revenue ($50,000 per animal) that is used to ensure the species is around for as long as naturally possible. Most of the usable parts of the animals taken are donated to local tribes so that nothing gets wasted.
Folks, do a little research before you go spouting off about things you don't understand. The typical Sport (trophy) hunter has done more to conserve and protect the animals than you folks that come here whining about someone shooting a defenseless animal. The taxes on guns, ammo, liscenses, permits, clothing etc, go right back into preserving the land and creatures for future generations to enjoy.
that is all
:aok
-
Wow, Toad, Shukins, you guys are fast!
-
Originally posted by tce2506
It amazes me that you non hunters think that shooting a polar bear with a rifle is easy. FIrst off you have 60-100 pounds of gear and clothing on to keep you warm. It's cold out, the wind is blowing upwards of 30-40 mph( on normal artic days) you've probably been walking most of the day and now your guide says to shoot that bear, and you're expected to make a humane, killing shot. Yep, sounds easy to me.
You guys should also read the article. He didn't intentionally shoot a hybrid bear. His guide told him to shoot that Polar Bear. They realized when they recovered the animal that it was different and did the right thing by turning it over to the authorities.
I don't buy into the "but they're endangered" crap because they aren't. They are officially Protected, which means that without monitoring, they could become endangered. The locals kill far more Polar bears every year that all sport hunting combined. The difference is that sport hunting generates revenue ($50,000 per animal) that is used to ensure the species is around for as long as naturally possible. Most of the usable parts of the animals taken are donated to local tribes so that nothing gets wasted.
Folks, do a little research before you go spouting off about things you don't understand. The typical Sport (trophy) hunter has done more to conserve and protect the animals than you folks that come here whining about someone shooting a defenseless animal. The taxes on guns, ammo, liscenses, permits, clothing etc, go right back into preserving the land and creatures for future generations to enjoy.
that is all
:aok
YES, do a little research before you post, please.
Though i have never shot a bear, other animals can give you the same idea.
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
Though i have never shot a bear, other animals can give you the same idea.
HUh??
-
Originally posted by Toad
NRA-ILA
Wonder how much the oh-so-correct folks that dine on domestic duck ala orange contribute to the survival of wildlife?
That's about half a billion a year for sportsmen... wonder how much the "killing animals is wrong" crowd contributes?
Oh PLEASE!!!
Don't try and tell me that hunters willingly fork out taxes when they buy ammo or pay license fees. They HAVE TO if they want to get their hunting jollies. It is law.
I'll tell you what I contribute, or more precisely "how" I contribute...I don't punch holes in wildlife for fun.
-
Originally posted by tce2506
It amazes me that you non hunters think that shooting a polar bear with a rifle is easy. FIrst off you have 60-100 pounds of gear and clothing on to keep you warm. It's cold out, the wind is blowing upwards of 30-40 mph( on normal artic days) you've probably been walking most of the day and now your guide says to shoot that bear, and you're expected to make a humane, killing shot. Yep, sounds easy to me.
I don't give a flying poop whether it is easy or not.
You guys should also read the article. He didn't intentionally shoot a hybrid bear. His guide told him to shoot that Polar Bear. They realized when they recovered the animal that it was different and did the right thing by turning it over to the authorities.
I never said the guy intentionally shot a hybrid.
I don't buy into the "but they're endangered" crap because they aren't. They are officially Protected, which means that without monitoring, they could become endangered. The locals kill far more Polar bears every year that all sport hunting combined. The difference is that sport hunting generates revenue ($50,000 per animal) that is used to ensure the species is around for as long as naturally possible. Most of the usable parts of the animals taken are donated to local tribes so that nothing gets wasted.
Who are the animals being protected from? The natives? So the good old sport hunter is really the hero? Goodness me.
Folks, do a little research before you go spouting off about things you don't understand. The typical Sport (trophy) hunter has done more to conserve and protect the animals than you folks that come here whining about someone shooting a defenseless animal. The taxes on guns, ammo, liscenses, permits, clothing etc, go right back into preserving the land and creatures for future generations to enjoy.
See my reply to Toad.
that is all
-
That's great Curval, and I respect your choice to "not poke holes in animals", but the fact remains that without sportsmen who hunt, many species that are thriving today, would not be around in healthy numbers. The whitetailed deer and Wild Turkey are prime examples. I mention healthy numbers because without hunting, overpopulation would lead to disease and starvation. I personally don't mind paying taxes on my hunting supplies as long as the money goes back into wildlife programs. When it goes to repave roads, or pay for welfare, then you'll hear me howling. Try not to take every post on here as a personal jab, as they aren't all directed solely at you( at least mine wasn't). :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is a well reasoned argument that the pleasure that a hunter gets may very well be fulfillment of the ancient drive to get food, and that drive has been encoded in us since we first became a human species. As sex drives vary among individuals, so might the hunting drive.
That the ingrained drive to hunt can be screwed up in some individuals, as can be the sex drive, that doesn't detract from the base instincts that could drive both behaviors.
If you step back and think about it, you would notice that both behaviors stem from fullfillment of ancient behaviors. One to eat and one to procreate. Both drives are extremely important to the survival of any species.
While I believe that the above argument has some merit, it has nothing to do with my opposition or encouragement of illegal hunting, or whether or not I believe in the justification of human dominance over nature. Where you made that leap is within your psyche, not mine.
If you look at an earlier post of mine in this thread, you will note that I believe that the destruction of Polar Bears in the St Louis Zoo was unwarranted, even though they had devoured idiotic children who broke into the zoo and entered the Polar Bear exhibit.
This may give you some clue as to the relative importance with which I view the human / animal relationship.
In your first paragraph you forget that this Polar bear was not killed for food it was killed for trophy. No one would argue killing to sustain life is wrong. Killing to get a trophy kill is unconscionable.
As far as getting a belly full of food and sex, I agree they are the two most powerful drives we have and in that order. When an animal has enough food it will not kill for food. Why should we? Killing for trophy game is some pathological ego driven phenomena; Probably an over compensation for feelings of inadequacy..."See what a big man I am...look at what I killed!"
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/Images/polar_bear_alt_350.jpg)
Sometimes reading the responses on this BBS makes me feel alien to this world. I have never known the urge to kill animals like this. Never. I look at these creatures with wonder and awe and have done so since before I could speak. The Inuit in Canada's north have been sustaining life on whaling and other big game for thousands of years. I have no problem with them hunting as they do. These people are extremely skilled at using every thing from their kills. Nothing goes to waste. It's not for pride...It's not for money...they kill to survive. That's the difference.
-
hybrids tend to be sterile.
thats why you'll never get laid driving a prius.
seriously, though pizzly wouldn't have had cubs.
-
The thing about killing small population sized animals (like any apex predator) is that (1) you may be killing animals that have certain traits for future survival, and (2) it takes the population much longer to recover from hunting losses.
So what if this hybrid bear was better suited for swimming long distances and could handle warmer weather? If it could have passed those traits on, maybe the polar bear population could better deal with global warming. This is just an example, the actual hybrid bear that was shot may not have been able to reproduce for all we know.
Polar bears do hunt humans. Special training for kids, along with people on 'polar bear patrol', are standard practices for villages and towns in the Far North. But then again, bull sharks in Florida, along with Tiger sharks in Hawaii routinely attack people.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
In your first paragraph you forget that this Polar bear was not killed for food it was killed for trophy.
No, he didn't forget. He was talking about the emotional pleasure of hunting and how it could be argued that the pleasure of hunting is the fullfilment of an ancient human drive, necessary for human survival.
-
Hunting is a rather personal sport. There are folks who do not want to hunt and that is perfectly fine. They are welcome to survive on the efforts of others who can provide meat fish and fowl for them to consume along with the other foods they do not provide for themselves. This is one of the benefits of an urbanized and non agrarian society. One does not have to be directly involved in providing the food that gets on the table.
Hunting for food is also one of the reasons to hunt. There are others as well. Game animal management is one of them. The appearance of large numbers of people taking over the habitat are a major concern for maintaining a stable population of the animals that inhabit the geographic area. The actual balkance that nature maintains, is disturbed by the loss of habitat. Some kind of management is required to maintain a stable and viable population of animals.
A hunter is actually fulfilling their part in nature as a balance in maintaining populations. The carefully scheduled harvest of excess animals maintains a healthy population in any area. In some cases this management has actually allowed more animals than ever before to live in larger areas of the country. The white tailed deer is a good example. The fee's that the hunter pays, quite willingly, is to maintain and support the habitat for animals and their population. Those are quite often ONLY supported by the hunters as the non hunter simply ignores that which is outside of the city.
Some folks are so removed from the natural cycle of predator and prey that the only way they can think of it is to consider participation in that natural cycle as being somehow "not natural" and something to be ridiculed.
A non hunter is not ridiculed for not hunting, that's their choice. It should also be fairly obvious that they should extend the same curtesy to hunters, often it isn't. It becomes something to be held up as a matter of scorn that someone does something that the nonhunter does not understand. That lack of understanding is sad in that it becomes a point for the non hunter to claim somehow they are superior in their understanding of nature even though they do not participate in it.
Curve, you "support" animals by not poking holes in them. That's fine but do not think that just by not hunting that you actually have done something to help them because you haven't. You've just ignored them and left them on their own, without support or assistance in a more populous globe. A managed population is a healthier one when the numbers are kept at a level supportable by the eco system they inhabit. Ignoring them allows them to breed to starvation or to become a problem impacting the human population or both.
I suspect that the polar bear hunt is one based on a population survey that found a small reduction in the bear population would be benificial to the over all population. The bear is at the top of the food chain and other species of animals are affected by the bear population. By scheduling a hunt, especially a high priced hunt they accomplished 2 things. They kept the population in that area to a viable level and they actually made money to help support other game management operations that will have a beneficial impact on the overal animal population there. Definately a win win situation.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
No, he didn't forget. He was talking about the emotional pleasure of hunting and how it could be argued that the pleasure of hunting is the fullfilment of an ancient human drive, necessary for human survival.
I would agree with that NUKE only if the kill is for food. To go out needing food and finally make a kill must be intensely satisfying. To kill for trophy is not normal and not reflected in natural world. It's a human thing. The pleasure is not the fullfillment of an ancient human drive but rather in service of some need of that individual ego...to me its an over compensation for feelings of inadequacy. (posibly something else closely related to this but whatever the reason, it's ill conceived)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I guess we see things differently. But anything that views me as food and works towards that end I consider to be aggressive towards me. If it wants to eat me, that makes me its prey. As a predator, it is aggressive towards its prey. Tell me again how a polar bear is not aggressive towards humans, and yet it views humans as food.
"Hey dude, chill, that polar bear isn't aggressive, he's trying to bite your bellybutton in half because he wants to eat you". Sure thing.:huh
ROFL!!
You should have a lil talk with my ex-wife about guns. Yer logic train is tuff to derail.
:aok
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I would agree with that NUKE only if the kill is for food. To go out needing food and finally make a kill must be intensely satisfying. To kill for trophy is not normal and not reflected in natural world.
The behavioral parallel with sex is quite apparent here. I would imagine that the vast majority of us believe it would be "intensly satisfying" to shag Jessica Alba. We would not need to impregnate her in order to have the "intensly satisfying" feeling, although that would be the point from a species survival point of view. From a trophy hunting point of view, few of us, if successful, would have the fortitude to keep quiet about the encounter.
Edit>> sorry, my faux pas. I mentioned a hot babe and did not post a picture.
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2006-04/05/xin_47040305144738612991.jpg)
Mea culpa.
-
If any of you folks have a cat, and have any powers of observation you will have seen first hand just a tiny tip of the ferocity and focus that goes into a 'hunt'.
I am very glad the viscious little beastie that shares my abode weighs only 12 pounds... beacuse if that damned thing weighed 1200 pounds, for SURE i'd be a giant cat **** right about now.
And that cat would not have taken me out because it was 'hungry'.
Any man that thinks that the creatures at the top of the food chain in their local enviornment kill just for food has been hoodwinked.
And, should you ever encounter 1200 pounds of bear; I do hope you've tided up your personal affairs, because if YOUR the one being hunted, I doubt you'll be resurfacing as anything other than a bear ****... 'bang stick' or not.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Oh PLEASE!!!
Don't try and tell me that hunters willingly fork out taxes when they buy ammo or pay license fees. They HAVE TO if they want to get their hunting jollies. It is law.
I'll tell you what I contribute, or more precisely "how" I contribute...I don't punch holes in wildlife for fun.
And you don't do a damn thing to preserve or restore wildlife habitat, most likely.
You must have missed this:
NRA, Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Quail Unlimited, sportsmen contribute an additional $300 million each year to wildlife conservation activities.
Those are VOLUNTARY organizations Curv; people join them because they want to, not because you must be a member to hunt. Because membership in those organizations entitles you to do ONE thing...contribute money directly to habitat and wildlife preservation.
Hunters also support the Fish and Games agencies with funds generated by licenses and fees when the legislatures won't fund them with tax revenue.
Do some research on the origin of the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. That was a tax on hunting equipment supported and passed by...you guessed it... hunters. Prior to the Pittman-Robertson Act, money intended for wildlife conservation often got redirected to fund other local projects such as road repairs.
Yeah, you don't "punch holes in wildlife for fun". No sir... you're a far, far better man than that. You exclusively hire animal assassins to cover themselves in blood 8 a day hours at minimum wage to serve your hunger and feed your family.
And I'm SURE you contribute HUGE amounts to voluntary wildlife organizations to preserve habitat and the wildlife itself.
Bravo!
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
When an animal has enough food it will not kill for food.
[/b]
No, but they will kill for the sake of killing.
Ever had a fox get in your henhouse?
An opossum get in your quail pen?
Lost 55 quail one night when an opossum chewed through the hardware cloth and killed ~25% of the quail in the pen. Only one or two were eaten.
There's a lot of other animals that could serve as similar examples.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
So what if this hybrid bear was better suited for swimming long distances and could handle warmer weather?
Apparently you are unaware that this "unique" hybrid breeding has already occurred in zoos?
BTW, their offspring are also fertile.
It's not like it doesn't already exist or can't be done again.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Any man that thinks that the creatures at the top of the food chain in their local enviornment kill just for food has been hoodwinked.
I just saw a couple weeks ago on PBS a show on the last free running horses in this canyon in Wyoming. (I think it was Wyoming) Anyway, this lady films the life of this horse over 5 years and there is a part in it where this other male comes along and finds a newborn calf (the mother couldn't get it to stand up) and this stallion killed it by picking it up by its teeth and smashing it around till dead.
I have seen footage of whales killing seals. This was explained saying it was a fight for diminishing food stores.
Male lions are famous for killing others cubs. If he does kill the cubs then the mother will come into heat within a couple days when he gets to perpetuate his lineage.
One of the Atlantic sea birds, possibly the Puffin, lays two eggs knowing only food for one will be provided. The bird that gets the food is the louder, more aggressive and stronger of the two. The other is left to die and then tossed out of the nest.
Harsh, but these things have been going on for millions of years.
-
Yup. it's a cruel world. We, alone; keep pets; will kill to protect them, stock zoos, 'worry' about the enviornment, take steps to insure it's preservation... and as Toad sez; it' usually the guys that actually hunt that take a particular intrest in the balance of nature and actully give something more than PC lip service to that end.
So, if some rich yutz pokes a hole in a starving polar bear for 50 grand it's a pretty fair bet that somewhere along the line the species he's culled of one will be reimbursed by the assured survial or several others from the proceeds of that 'hunt'.
Circle of Life stuff, with the 'human' element added. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
...BTW, their offspring are also fertile...
as you may have guessed, that is an interesting surprise for me.