OMG: Hunting Polar Bears for "Sport" (crimes, atrocities, examples)

[Heiwos]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

The number allowed to be taken is calculated based on how many can be taken without harming the population.

If I believed that, I'd be broke & homeless from believing all the other obvious crap I'm supposed to believe.

500 could die in a year anyways from old age, disease, injury, etc.

Hunters don't cherry-pick the unhealthy ones.

The Natives have been hunting them for thousands of years.

They haven't been making $$$ from Mexican trophy hunters for thousands of years. Safe to say they're taking more bears than they use to.

They're not going extinct. Polar bears, contrary to the fear-mongering articles posted earlier in this thread, will not go extinct because of global warming. They will (and already are) adapting, moving South and breeding with grizzly bears too. They're not dumb animals and won't go extinct if global warming occurrs. They've survived many warm periods...

They've survived everything nature's thrown at them. But now they need to survive trophy hunting. I doubt they will. 2% taken annually (higher when limited to Canada) is ridiculously high. Money will be the root of their extinction, in Canada at least.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Heiwos

They've survived everything nature's thrown at them. But now they need to survive trophy hunting. I doubt they will. 2% taken annually (higher when limited to Canada) is ridiculously high. Money will be the root of their extinction, in Canada at least.

Here's the deal: The Intuits would be hunting them anyway. If you stopped these particular hunts, you are not going to stop the Polar Bears from being hunted.

Then, I don't know where you keep coming up with the "Mexican" trophy hunter thing - but honestly, now you are being racist.

You also have to recognize that in order to stop this hunting, you are going to have to convince the Canadian Parliament that it should be stopped. At this time - I am unable to find any such proposal (to stop the hunt).

Frankly - I applaud the Intuits for their ingenuity - they accomplish what they need for food and pelts - and make some much needed money as well.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Heiwos

If I believed that, I'd be broke & homeless from believing all the other obvious crap I'm supposed to believe.


Hunters don't cherry-pick the unhealthy ones.


They haven't been making $$$ from Mexican trophy hunters for thousands of years. Safe to say they're taking more bears than they use to.


They've survived everything nature's thrown at them. But now they need to survive trophy hunting. I doubt they will. 2% taken annually (higher when limited to Canada) is ridiculously high. Money will be the root of their extinction, in Canada at least.

Perhaps you should learn something about wildlife management before saying I'm lying.

The Natives have hunted the bears themselves for thousands of years, and they don't get any more tags than the number set by the wildlife biologists. That they're selling the tags doesn't entitle them to any extras. No more will be hunted than what the wildlife biologists have said is a safe number to take. Polar bear hunting is extremely regulated and they will not be hunted to extinction.

[KRAMERCAT]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

That should not be a problem for some hunters. In fact, several have hunted African lyons with a spear. A rifle is just another tool, much like a spear, an arrow, or a car. All can be used to kill, including the tools used by abortionists.

I might have some respect for these fake 'macho' hunters if they tried to prove their manhood by going against a polar bear with a bowie knife, but to slaughter them with high powered rifles at a safe distance? - hell, even Sarah Palin could do that.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

Polar bears cannot "adapt." They need the ice sheets to survive.

Then they are doomed regardless because the ice sheets have not always been there & will not always be there.

The fact is you are simply wrong. They adapted to one of the harshest climates on earth. To think they cant adapt to a more moderate climate is to deny evolution. They may not be definitively polar bears anymore but they will still contribute to the gene pool.

The global temperature is changing because of us. It's idiotic to just blindly declare otherwise--against overwhelming evidence from scientists, worldwide--simply because you prefer to live in denial.

I dont think I said it wasn't because of us. I'm undecided as is science on the cause, but there is no question, global climate changes, glaciers come & glaciers go. Its been a hell of alot hotter & a whole lot colder. I imagine polar bears have been losing habitat for about the last 10,000 years or so.

You can "support" the wanton destruction of other beings if you wish, and you can arrogantly live in ignorance and its subsequent denial, as well, about the anthropogenic causes of global climate change.

Thanks but I dont need your permision to think for myself. What you keep calling wanton is really very regulated. Or maybe you mean those Chinese dumplings.

[Heiwos]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

They arent at the bottom of the food chain either.

Bacteria? What'd you have in mind? Bees maybe. We should save all the threatened creatures, big or small.

Tell me the better way? Regulated sport hunting is directly responsible for most of the wildlife comebacks in the US. By useing the money raised thru hunting & fishing licenses along with funds collected from Pitman Robertson we have made huge strides in restoring once dwindling populations of wildlife from coast to coast.

Better way: Long prison sentences for killing bears. If necessary, forcefully relocate all tribes away from the bears. Sport hunting is just one way. If sport hunters killed just 10 bears annually, paying $millions for the privilege that all went back to conservation for the bears, then I might support it. Killing 2% of the global population, that 2% just in Canada? No freakin way is that helping.

How much money do you & others like you contribute directly to conservation?

I support my taxes being raised as much as necessary to save these threatened species, even if that meant I had to work extra hours per week. I don't support unnecessary war, so that frees up $2 trillion right there. I don't support Mars or Moon missions, so that's another half $trillion. That's better than most people. I don't believe that trophy hunters are a doing a better job saving the bears.

Whats an exceptable kill ratio for you? I bet zero.

With a global population of only 25,000? Of course it's zero. I'm not against hunting for meat per se, just against hunting of threatened species.

You dont care if the rate is sustainable & Canada doesn't care what you think. Sucks to be you.

I said "for now". People seem to believe that if any number of bears are left, no problem. Unfortunately nature doesn't work that way. At some number of bears, a tipping point will be reached at which mating drops off due to greater distances between the bears. Kill one male within 10 miles of a female, the next closest male may be 20 miles away and out of scent range. Will they find each other in time? There are only an estimated 25,000 polar bears in the world, scattered across hundreds of thousands of square miles. If many scientists say they're nearing a tipping point, excuse me if I believe them over pro-trophy-hunters and Inuits who stand to make $$$.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by MovingForward

What does abortion have to do with polar bears?

Never mind. It's that simplistic mindset again: If anyone argues against any kind of violence whatsoever, those in favor of that violence--but against abortion--will pull the abortion thing out of their bag of tricks. Looney logic.

I have seen very little actual "logic" at all in this discussion. Lots of opinions being passed off as logic. Lol, A couple posters have sugested that the hunter go one on one hand to hand with the Polar bear, or utilize a spear, knife etc. Now, honestly, we all know what the outcome of that fight would be. Granted, primitive man DID hunt large animals this way, but very seldom did they do so individually. They ALWAYS hunted as a group. Anyone who has experienced the strength of a wild animal (even " timid lil' Bambi") can attest as to WHY one would wish to utilize a firearm against a large predator. Some brave souls have done these hunts with a bow. Fred Bear comes to mind. He faced down just about every dangerous animal on Earth with a bow. Nobody could doubt the guys cahones'.. Don't hold your breath as to someone being in a big hurry to tackle an ice bear one on one with just an edged weapon. Thats not brave, thats just plain STUPID. I have had to take out feral dogs before, and they are nowhere near the size of a Polar bear, but irregardless I used a gun. Didn't feel one bit guilty about it either. Some of these "arguments just make no sense. So if someone wants to hunt Polar bear, they have the desire for whatever reason, (it's a choice to do so or not basically) they may do so. Maybe they have something to prove, maybe not. I remember a story about Make a Wish foundation and a young lad with terminal cancer. he wanted to go on an Alaskan hunt as his dying wish. They turned him away and hunting groups ended up picking up the ball and the youngster realized his dream before he died. I can't find it in me to call this kid some of the names you have slung around so freely in describing "sport hunting". But many folks with a mindset similar to the one you have espoused in your posts did. I foud it rather disgusting actually. So, if one has a dream, and can live it they should be able to do so. If'n we mind our own business, we won't be mindin' everyone elses.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Heiwos

If I believed that, I'd be broke & homeless from believing all the other obvious crap I'm supposed to believe.

No, you would be expressing comprehension of how game management saves animal populations.

Hunters don't cherry-pick the unhealthy ones.

Nope, but they dont kill off the young either like most predators. Game management can & would dictate which individuals could be taken at which times.

They haven't been making $$$ from Mexican trophy hunters for thousands of years. Safe to say they're taking more bears than they use to.

Why's it safe to say that? Because its how your mind works. Heck maybe they do it because the money from a hunt provides for more people than the resources from one bear.

They've survived everything nature's thrown at them. But now they need to survive trophy hunting. I doubt they will. 2% taken annually (higher when limited to Canada) is ridiculously high. Money will be the root of their extinction, in Canada at least.

Blah blah blah 2% is not ridiculously high. But I think you might be.

[North Beach Person]

Some real silliness from the antis-along the line of trophy hunting will destroy the resource, etc.

A real life US example, or rather more than one:
The state of MD restarted black bear hunting a few years ago, the population had increased and car/bear collisions were becoming more prevalent as were crop damage complaints. The MD DNR sets a target harvest each year, hunters are picked by lottery, the bears have to be checked in when harvested. When the number nears the target the hunt is stopped, that day. Doesn't matter if guys are still out hunting, it stops. Each year there are more bears. Second example, the migratory goose season was closed for several years during the 1990's due to over harvesting (limit was 5 a day then) and several bad reproduction years. It reopened at 1 goose/day for 20 days and now has expanded to 2/day for 45 days. The population has expanded enough now that the golf courses, business parks, and parks are complaining about goose poop and special resident goose seasons have been implemented. Have no doubt Heiwos that if the population drops the season would be closed faster than you can breathe. And I would agree with that decision.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

I might have some respect for these fake 'macho' hunters if they tried to prove their manhood by going against a polar bear with a bowie knife, but to slaughter them with high powered rifles at a safe distance? - hell, even Sarah Palin could do that.

Even you could that that, I imagine. The problem is that you would have to do it in Canada, not Alaska. It's illegal to hunt polar bears in Alaska, even for Palin.

But lest see if you can comprehend the following:

1. By mortally (or not) injuring a bear with a spear, a knife, arrow, and such would cause a long and painful death to the animal. For example, a wound could infest, or could cause internal bleeding and take days if not weeks to kill it. By using a powerful weapon such as a high-power rifle of the correct caliber, the bear is killed almost instantly. This is a very efficient way to kill a bear, and the Canadian Fish & Game has set rules on the proper gun used for such hunts. Knives, spears, a stick, or kung-fu chops are illegal.

2. What matters to you more: what is used to kill, or the act of killing? I assume that what bothers you is "the killing," not what is used to kill. After all, if one is to kill, at least the most efficient method to end the suffering should be used. A high-power rifle that meets the Canadian hunting laws specifications is just an efficient tool for the task, and has the potential for avoiding pain to the animal.