When we faced the threat of a spring hunt
closure in Manitoba last year I organized
a debate with the antis (who were financed
by the same man that shut down Ontario-
Robert Schad) and we absolutely kicked their
ass. The insane arguments that they present-
ed could not withstand the light of day and
the public saw that.

The truth is on our side and with some
proactive behaviour we will indeed win
on the bear issue. Do something!!

Ross

quote:

---

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
BBBruce ... trying to apease the anti's is just what they want. BBBruce get in their face do not sit back and let them take you without a fight.

---

p dog,

A respectful winning attitude is not "appeasement." The group you must convince is the general public, not the antis. The general public is NOT impressed by body counts. The general public is impressed by things like sportsmanship, reasonableness and a responsible attitude towards the resource. Our present generations have seen whole species shot to death. The general public would rather cancel hunting than see bears extinct. If they read your "body count" and feel offended, YOU have just created more antis.

We will never convince true antis. They are mostly professional protesters and many of them don't really care personally. THIS is their hunt, and they do it for fun.

If you really want to keep hunting, change your public relations attitude. Say what you want around the camp fire, but don't go online with body counts, "gut piles" and other language that the public finds offensive. Otherwise you might as well sell your guns. Everytime a hunter posts something offensive online, an anti is created.

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 01-06-2002).]

Most hunters do in fact have a respectful winning attitude when dealing with the general public. I am even able to keep mine
when debating with hardcore Peta types and
our local animal rights aficionados.

You also seem to think that bears are somehow
on the verge of extinction and I can't speak
for anybody but myself but my generation has
not seen a single species "shot to death" and
I would also submit that managed hunting has
NEVER resulted in the extinction or even the
threat of it to a single species.

The initial post on this thread said nothing
about a "body count" and anybody even remotely familiar with this site knows it is
chock full of stories about shooting animals,
terminal bullet performance on game, pictures
of dead animals, pictures of multiple dead
animals and how to info on how we can all
kill more animals. In light of this I would
assume that there are precious few sections
of this site that would meet with your approval.

You seem more concerned with appeasing the
animal rights fanatics with politically
correct posturing than you are with educating the
non-hunting public about the tremendous
worldwide success of managed hunting that
has resulted in skyrocketing populations of
big game animals for us all to enjoy.

Ross

Good show on beating the anti's on the spring bear hunt. I think a bigger threat to bear hunting is indiscriminate trapping. While I was in MB on my bear hunt there was a trapper in the area I was hunting who was setting traps for bears and not collecting them. He was just out to kill as many bears as he could, wasting the hides and meat. Funny how hunters were limited to one bear, but this trapper could take as many as he wanted and wasted so much. I'm sure not all trappers were like this guy, but anti's lump trappers and hunters together. This guy gave everyone a bad rap.

------------------
~Ann

Every day spent outdoors is the best day of my life.

[This message has been edited by Aspen Hill Farm (edited 01-07-2002).]

We can all see where your positive winning attitude got the gun owners in your country. Bear hunting, for that matter, all hunting has had an oral tradition since man has had a language to speak. The internet has given to us the ability to share this oral tradition with others that we will probably never share a campfire with or chat with face to face. My suggestion to you is to continue to monitor Bear Watch and not let them get over on you while the rest of us are doing what we love: BEAR HUNTING!

From your info I can only assume that this
trapper had a permit to eliminate bears
that pose a threat to lives and property.

Was your hunt spring or fall? In the fall
black bears in Mb. do incredible damage to
crops with corn, oats, barley and wheat
topping the list. Farmers can kill without
limit in situations like this. Perhaps this
was part of what you saw.

Also it must be noted that these activities
are strictly "control" measures and have been
going on for years in Manitoba with no effect
whatsoever on the population of the bruins.

One can just imagine what "control measures"
would be necessary in Manitoba's tourist and
agricultural regions if there were no bear
hunting. Populations of hunted animals are
an asset with tangible benefits to both the
humans and the animal populations as a whole
while non-hunted big game populations typ-
ically are liabilities that require taxpayer
dollars to deal with.

Educate, educate, educate. They will get it.

Ross

It was a spring hunt. He was still trapping and a bear had been in a trap for several days (suffering). It was near or on the area that the outfitter I was hunting with managed. The bottom line I think was the waste of the animal as the trapper was not really trying to do anything but kill bears.

------------------
~Ann
Orion Trophy Expeditions

This sounds like a situation where Manitoba
Conservation should be notified so an
investigation may be launched. This can
be initiated by yourself or your outfitter.

Ross

TIP (Turn In Poachers)
No Charge-Dial 1 800 782-0076
Tourist Information
(204) 945-3777

In his first post Ovis said, I feel that the people that CHOSE to participate were just talking with others of their ilk that enjoy the same things. No harm done. Shame? You feel..... well.....if you have to look at us as ashamed, nevermind, you wouldn't understand anyway. Whew! Sorry, guy. Didn't intend anything personal. Then later, Ovis said, We can all see where your positive winning attitude got the gun owners in your country.... My suggestion to you is to continue to monitor Bear Watch and not let them get over on you while the rest of us are doing what we love: BEAR HUNTING! Honest Ovis - I don't wanna argue politics; I don't wanna fight. I love hunting bears, watching bears, eating bears. And taking their photos. And bear skins. But why should one hunter attack another for making a comment intended to help us all?

P dog disagreed, but did it quite nicely. Sometimes I think that some of the real angry sounding guys online are antis doing some sh!t disturbing. As somebody else said, we can't see each other across the fire.

CK

I'm not sure where you got that I was angry, actually I was quite amused. Also, this started as a hunting chat and then someone, BB turned it into a bit of a political chat. I hope you don't take any of this personally but if you poke a bear hunter, expect to get poked back. You won't make any friends here insinuating any of us are antis.

Thank God for Alaska, the Last Great Place!

quote:

---

Originally posted by BBBruce:
Some anti bear hunting asshole is gonna read this thread and use it against us.

Who needs a "body count" anyway?

---

Get real! This is a hunting board, I like to hear the body count!

If people are impressed by body counts then they should get a job in a meat packing plant.

IMO the hunter who has spent 200 hours hunting and killed one animals has much more to teach us that the hunter who has spent 20 hours hunting and killed four animals. The second hunter is not necessarily the better hunter, he may just be lucky.

------------------
Regards

Richard

quote:

---

Originally posted by GSF1200:
Get real! This is a hunting board, I like to hear the body count!

---

Then you'd better hunt hard now. You might not be able to later.

The non-hunting public generally doesn't agree with hunting. We don't understand that attitude, but the attitude exists nonetheless. As long as the general public sees hunters as sporting and reasonable they are willing to live and let live. But antis are trying to convince the general public to do away with hunting, and unless we join the public relations game we are doomed.

Last year it worked in BC. A left wing gov't desperate in the polls banned the provincial grizzly bear hunt just before an election. It was later reinstated, but a whole season was lost and some guide-outfitters went broke. The only thing that saved the griz hunt was a change in government.

The Newfoundland seal hunt supported a generation of people who were on welfare without it. A Greenpeace camera crew photographed blood, guts and a cute white seal pup, and the entire industry was banned. Now the seal herd has destroyed the cod fish, the cod fisherman are on welfare with the seal hunters, and politicians are so afraid of the environmentalists' publicity they won't rescue the cod by reinstating the seal hunt.

So go ahead and brag online about gut piles and numbers of dead bears. You have the constitutional right to hurt others' sense of values. But antis are telling the "others" that they have the constitutional right to vote for a ban on bear hunting. The public listens, and antis win whenever the public is turned off by hunters.

Ovis, sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were shooting the messenger. As I said, I don't wanna fight.

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 01-07-2002).]

In certain areas of the Country the general
public does not agree with hunting. This is
not due to the internet, the antis or the
Government it is soley due to our almost
criminal malaise when it comes to educating
them about the incredible success story of
modern, sound wildlife management principles
including hunting that are almost soley
responsible for the large numbers game and
non-game species we currently enjoy.

An education in the reality of hunting must
include the fact that killing is very much
a part of it. To not is to wallow in denial
and pretend we are something we are not. I
enjoy pictures of mountain streams and fall
forests but the reality of hunting goes far
beyond this and I feel the public is entitled
to the truth in this regard. The truth about
hunting combined with the undeniable good that it does for both humans and animal pop-
ulations will win them over. A hunter is a
part of nature and his/her participation
within it is natural, ethical and ultimately
necessary for the good of the land.

I can guarantee without a doubt that if you
were to put myself, a peta rep and a citizen
with no opinion on hunting in a room together
the citizen would leave supporting hunting.
We are correct. The facts are on our side
and I can defend that assertion in any forum.

"The general public would rather cancel hunting than see bears extinct." You made
this statement and I can't imagine why. It
implies that hunting is in some way capable
of doing this. It isn't.

"Our present generation has seen whole species shot to death." Huh? Please
elaborate.

I would submit that the above two statements
have given more ammunition to the antis than
anything else in this entire thread.

I have no beef with anybody on a personal
level as long as they are doing something to
preserve, promote and protect. If you are I
salute and stand with you. Also, I think it
is time to stop complaining and detail a plan
to achieve our goals as a community. I have
a plan and it is based on the assumption that
we can best win this fight by an agressive,
proactive campaign aimed at the general public that knows little or nothing about the
essential role we have and continue to play.

Ross

Hi! I hope we're not fighting. I believe what I'm typing. I get the feeling that you and I stand for the same thing if we can express it properly.

In my experience the "certain areas" of our culture which don't agree with hunting break down into urban-rural. Lots of the anti/undesirables live rural because they like it too. What the heck - its beautiful. They just don't want to share.

The vast majority of urbanites have no active position, but if asked they go through a thought process that says hunting = guns therefore they decline to support hunting. Note that I said, "decline to support." That is very different from "oppose," in most people. The thought process is instinctive, not rational, and is based on

1. the very bad press that accompanies firearms these days, including urban and movie violence,

2. the almost total lack of familiarity with guns and hunting that is common in western industrial urban culture.

I totally agree with you that they can be educated out of their position.

I agree with you that an education in the reality of hunting must include the fact that killing is very much a part of it. I cringe every time I hear somebody refer to "harvesting" a critter. Nonsense, I say, I kill them. Harvesting is for farmers and pot sellers, and I am neither.

I agree with you that a hunter is a part of nature and his/her participation within it is natural, ethical and ultimately necessary for the good of the land. UNFORTUNATELY,IMO, most of our culture is so far from its roots that it forgets that animals die every day so that we can live. Somebody kills them on our behalf, and the fact that we do not do it personally is a function of economic specialization, not human nutritional reality.

As for the pure vegetarian who is eating nuts, I would love to know how much energy is consumed delivering the average tropical nut to a North American diner. I do not doubt that some people do better on a veggie diet. There are over three billion people out there
so there's gotta be some true vegetarians. But not everybody is or should be one. Its a question for each person.

You quote my statement that, "The general public would rather cancel hunting than see bears extinct," then say that you can't imagine why because in your opinion hunting is incapable of doing this.

First, mankind in general is capable of wiping out any vertebrate species he desires. Nobody doubts that "we" wiped out passenger pigeons. Buffalo are only now back to huntable herd proportions. Many African species have been shot to near extinction. Grizzly bears are "extinct" in California and too scarce to hunt in the Lower 48 US states. I'm not a tree-hugger so I do not know all the different species etc. But to deny this reality, ie that we are capable of hunting a species to death, is silly. Not only that, it will scare the bejasus out of John Q. Public and cause him to revoke his hunting support. If we cannot even acknowledge historic reality, we cannot be trusted with future herds.

Finally, even if I am wrong you must remember two things about the voting public.

1. She/he thinks that hunters have wiped out species in the past and are capable of wiping species out again.

2. He/she is capable of voting hunting out of law if provoked.

This means that if we want to keep our sport, we must be an active part of the solution. We must do some things and not do other things. Like you say, we should attend anti places and speak our truth. IMO we should avoid doing in public things that may hurt hunting's image and appear disrespectful of the resource. Again IMO, using a thread to ask for a body count is not appropriate if we want to keep hunting with public support.

What you think or I think about these "realities" is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what it looks like to the general public who casts his vote every year, in one silent way or another, on whether we keep hunting and shooting. This is not a compromise. This is facing reality head on and dealing with it in a positive and responsible manner.

[This message has been edited by BBBruce (edited 01-09-2002).]

I agree 100% with our words. Bragging is one of the worst part of our culture as hunters. Giving us nothing good from the general public, except bad press...

Regards,