Letters to the Editor
-
Extinct animal parts worth more to some
"But in long run, without major steps to curb global warming and preserve the polar bears' Arctic homes, 'you're not going to have any sport hunting anyway.'"
People who will spend $30,000 to kill an animal may have more dollars than sense, but they are economically rational and consistent. When the polar bears are all gone, the trophies from "sportsmen's" kills become more valuable. They're just protecting and tending to their investment.
Seriously, as harmful as hunting polar bears is, the main issue is America's total lack of response to climate change. I suspect the hunters are more concerned about not being able to drive their Toyota Tundra pickup than with whether or not any polar bears are around in thirty years. The listing of polar bears will allow the next administration to start making some headway in dealing with the issue to end all issues.
-
polar bear global warming fears overblown?
I read that polar bears already survived a global warming (see BBC News quote below) -- why should we worry about them vis-a-vis global warming now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132220.stm --
"We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period," explained Professor Ingolfsson.
"And what's interesting about that is that the Eeemian - the last interglacial - was much warmer than the Holocene (the present)."
"This is telling us that despite the ongoing warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear. That would be very encouraging."
-
"With some bears already drowning .."
WTF are talking about? Polar bears don't drown. They are some of nature's best swimmers. They are literally designed to swim.
As for the hunting part. Most of you none hunters might not know how it's done. When taking a trophy animal what you do is kill an big old adult male. This is an animal that has the size a hunter wants and yet has had the time to reproduce. The best protectors of the polar bears are probably the Inuit anyway. They have a huge economic incentive to have a healthy bear population that can be exploited for years to come.
-
Well thats loopy...
Normally tribes despise trophy hunters, for very good reasons;they hunt and kill animals for no reason other than to get the hide, and waste food that could be used by tribes as per their subsistence rights. In fact, the amount of acrimony between "sportsmen" (who mostly hunt for shits and giggles) and Indian tribes (who hunt to actually continue living their traditional way) in many American states is palpable if you ever seen one of those "Save the deer; shoot an indian" bumper tag plastered across some hicks truck.
This reminds me of the divide between the two tribes over ANWR; one, whom saw the royalties of the oil development, and the one that relied off the caribou herds for food. Even in Indian country, nothing is cut and dried.
-
Another case of agitating for "cute" animals?
Sorry, the polar bear lobby is loopy. These beasts actually ARE "godless killing machines" ;-). Nah, jokes aside:
Isn't anyone bothered about the incredibly chauvinistic attitude towards Canada's wildlife preservation competency? Around 700 permits/year, a total worldwide culling of >900 animals out of a total population of 20 000 - 25 000 - this sounds like pretty balanced figures to me.
And isn't it a *good* thing that humans (people like you and me, who want food on the table, a new tv now and again and a car that works, etc) can develop traditional lifestyles into incomes that one can live well off?
Isn't there a rather big dose of hypocrisy in regarding a polar bear shot for "traditional subsistence living" (or because they really are one of the few animals that do pose danger to humans) as ok, but when the same polar bear is shot by someone else and generates income for the local community (income that might perhaps be used for newer, less polluting snow scooters...) it is somehow bad?
It seems that "trophy hunting" polar bears would actually be a good thing - except that the people willing to pay big bucks for the pleasure are generally people we don't like, and don't approve of.
And the nasty, nasty little thing that one so often finds in a certain type of "environmental" activism - though I'm sure it is mostly unconscious: Those "wise" and "in harmony with natures" native folks better stay true to their traditional ways and continue being exotic. Actually developing their own communities and economies is not a good thing, unless it is guided by over-paid western activists with a keen sense for the esthetic of nature.
-
Trophy hunters are scum.
I understand hunting an animal for food, but there is no justification for hunting an animal simply for a trophy. Trophy hunting clubs like Safari International should be banned, and the scum who kill animals merely for a trophy should be ostracized. Better yet, throw them in prison as the worthless, destructive creatures that they are.
-
DurianJoe
Thank you. Truth hurts, but trophy hunters are the garbage of the planet. We also need to know how the polar bears are hunted. Is it some version of capture the animal, tie it to a stake and shoot it like so much of bear hunting here in the West. And, yes, hunting bears with radio-collared dogs is the equivalent of what I just described.
And, let's stop the nonsense about hunters being good game managers. In nature, the old, the sick and the weak are killed or die. Hunters ALWAYS go for the cream of the gene pool. Hunters are species destroyers not game managers.
-
Furry sharks
That's what they are.
-
Bear Hunting.
Actually, this is my idea of fun. I wish I were wealthy enough to go on a polar bear hunt. For now I have to settle on a North Carolina black bear.
"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar
-
a new bogey man
All beware the trophy hunter - the bogey man of anti hunting groups. Note that anti-hunter does not equate with environmentalist. Hunters tend to be the staunchest environmentalists. Anti-hunters, on the other hand, rarely have a clue about animal behavior, hunting, or the environment because they don't spend enough time afield.
Nature is one of those things that you just can't book learn. You have to go sleep under trees, track and observe animals, and essentially join nature.
Most trophy hunters are nothing like what the article posits. I know quite a few of them and I hope to someday reach their level. I am still a meat hunter. I fill the freezer, but am not a good enough hunter to fill the freezer with a particular specimen. That is what trophy hunters do. They are so good in the field that they pass by most opportunities until they find the one they want.
As for bragging to your buddies, it is the story of the hunt that matters most. A long unsuccessful bow hunt out weighs a quick rifle hunt. A polar bear hunt is a special thing. Not because of the white rug, but because polar bears hunt people. Bears are also tasty if cooked right.
For example, I have one very good trophy kill. Someone told me they had hit a cow elk with their car. I tracked her for a day and a half before getting into bow range. The accident had left her crippled and bleeding. She wouldn't have lived through the winter. She ended up in my freezer. That is a great trophy.
Contrast that to the guy that thinks bears hunting means shooting a staked out animal. After all, following dogs with radio collars seems almost the same he assumes. He has no clue. Some people hunt with dogs, most don't. The guy has no idea about the amount of time, effort, and training that goes into each of those dogs. He also has no idea how unsuccessful those dogs often are.
The thing that is saddest about the anti-hunting propaganda is that it teaches the wrong lessons. People will hear the anti-hunter talking about how something is hunted and then, being interested in hunting, go out and hunt that way. They may never learn how to hunt right or how to eat everything they kill.
Yes, most of us do eat what we kill. The only exceptions tend to be when we are culling things. For example, feral pigs. They are incredibly destructive to the land and to the native species. They are kill on sight. If a feral pig is disease free, then it should be eaten, but the rule is to kill on sight.
Meanwhile, there are the folks who find it barbaric that I would kill and then eat an animal. Only the vegans have any clarity on the issue. I find it a little odd that so many people eat meat from an animal that they've never seen. How do you know what you're eating? Are you feating on downer cow? It is wiser, to me, to have vegetarian meals before eating factory meat.