Barn Owl

Update on grizzly bear hunt that was suppose to begin on 1 Sept.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-halts-first-grizzly-bear-hunts-more-40-years-wyoming-n905311

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

They should postpone it for good!

Rose42

Why? If its done responsibly without hurting a sustainable population its no different than hunting any other animal.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Stating that it is 'no different to hunting any other animal' is a 'justification' not an argument. So then you have to justify why you feel it necessary to hunt something living in a world full of shopping malls. It is hardly 'free food'.

As the population is getting older, but quality of life is arguably much reduced. Perhaps we should allow the hunting of old aged pensioners. They are past mating age so it is sustainable too. It would free up some cash as well into the economy!!!

Rose42

Its not a justification merely a fact. All food comes from something living. Clothes too. I see no problem with hunting nor a reason to vilify anyone for it unless it hurts a sustainable population. Who determines if the population is sustainable is important. Animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the US and PETA should be disregarded for not only do they know very little about the animals they claim they care about but they do next to nothing to actually help them.



You are equating hunting with murdering people?

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Food comes from animals that are slaughtered. They are brought to their death in a controlled and humane manner - not hunted.
Murder is a legal definition of someone deliberately and for no legal reason killing another person.
Legally you can give people a reason to deliberately kill other people. It is called joining an armed force. This is not considered a sport nor open to all. It is illegal to unecessarily harm an amimal,

You can Hunt without killing. You can have the thrill, without the trophy. It is called stalking.

So if you want the thrill of killing something. Lets have a good legal reason as to 'why' it or who needs killing.

The arguments for and against killing certain wild animals seems to change almost as often as 'which' people our governments choose need killing. Very few 'hunted animals' are a danger to humans. Just as very few people are a danger to our government. Yet the collateral death toll in both cases is generally very high.

I find little justification in either case. Some class 'hunting' as a sport. When it is people, they are called 'enemies of the state'. When its an animal, generally it is merely a nuisance.

Fortunately, we rarely try to exterminate a 'human species'. That is not quite the case for animals. We seem to manage to do that quite frequently. Humans are not in short supply, animals are!

So which particular one of the grizzly bears is a danger......and equally importantly to who.

Rose42

Sadly their keep and slaughter is not always humane. That's poor stewardship. On a (responsible) hunt the goal is a quick humane death. Animal rightists would like everyone to believe its all inhumane which is simply not true. I've been on hunts and seen it though my hunting was with binoculars. To a man all the hunters I know have more respect for wildlife than most. They eat the meat - even bear meat which can be pretty gamey. A quick death from a bullet or arrow is far less suffering than the end most will have - disease, starvation, or torn up by predators. Having said that there are definitely those who have no business being out there but they are not the norm.



In a perfect world there would be consistency. People seem to get more attached to different animals without knowing that much about them. Most get their news in sound bites and don't look much further than that. I've sure been guilty of that.



If you've never experienced it you wouldn't understand. Its not about the thrill of killing an animal - that is animal rights propaganda and they are very good at it. I would hunt deer if I could - venison is really good. And I know people who use the hide. Its not a waste.



Again, one can't compare the two. In some poor rural areas some animals "are" a danger to communities. But there are ways to circumvent the danger rather than simply killing them.



Its not a viable argument to compare hunting to killing people. I am all for animal welfare but not animal rights. The former is good stewardship which I strongly believe in, the latter wants total animal liberation and is based on a fundamentally flawed and faux philosophy. The end game for them is everyone is vegan and no one can own any animal, pets included. I used to be part of that movement until I found out their true agenda which is not about animal welfare. The irony is, they have to use products derived from animals to stay healthy. They are as bad as the worst politicians.



We humans are a greedy lot and IMO its worse now than ever before. Poaching is taking its toll on tigers, rhinos and other animals yet other animals are plentiful. I would like to see grizzlies be plentiful and not have them used by politicians OR animal rightists (I trust neither). One can only pray that the decision is made on facts rather than feelings whichever direction is taken.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

"So then you have to justify why you feel it necessary to hunt something living in a world full of shopping malls. It is hardly 'free food'."

Every time you buy meat in a shopping mall, You have paid someone to kill an animal. Every time you buy food other than meat in a shopping mall. You have paid someone to take wildlife habitat.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

OK...your time on the soapbox has expired.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

How much of the "wildlife habitat" did your home take??

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Exactly the point. Killing animals is fine, for the animals that the hunters miss. I can imagine a real challenging sport. Put a certain number of hunters into an outdoor enclosure, and let them hunt each other. It could be televised and make a fortune - and give people jobs.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Yeah, that's a good argument.

Goober Loc: Southeastern PA

Agreed!! In most cases, bears, especially brown (grizzly bears) are not hunted for their meat but hunted for sport and trophy.
To end the life of a beautiful creature just to brag that you killed one and display it, is just plain sick. And the trophy hunters always come up with an excuse why it is ok...like balancing out the ECO system......is pure BS!

I just returned from Kodiak Island where I made over 3000 images of Kodiak brown bears. What beautiful creatures they are and an honor to see them in their natural habitat. They need to be protected, not killed.

Rose42

Paintball! That can be quite painful. ;)

FrankR Loc: NYC

I think the controversy with this specific hunt is that Wyoming authorized the hunt near Yellowstone and any Grizzlys that wander out of the park are subject to being shot. The objection I believe, is that the bears should not have been removed from the endangered list in the first place, that the Yellowstone population is not that large, is already subjected to other challenges and that “overzelous” hunters might not only try to lure bears out of the park, but that tagged and collared Grizzly bears might be killed. I think those are the issues at hand in this case and it isn’t some argument about hunting’s pros and cons.