Shooting bears

[Guest Rabbit]

If somebody told me that the bear was definitely left to rot in the trees and no use was made of its death, then I would condemn the shooting.

 

 

Neither would I, probably, but the fact is that according to figures disclosed 87% of bears shot are for the trophy hunters and not for the table. There is a lucrative business for companies that provide this sort of service to rich Americans and Canadians. Apparently the kudos for the kill is measured in the bears skull size, feel free to condemn

[Sportsman]

The original poster Kepac? has stated here that the bear meat was/is used and eaten...sausages and steaks. By law as part of the license the meat must be used. Therefor what is the problem? They eat horse and donkey meat on the continent. Jews and Muslims cannot understand gentiles eating pork... either way attacking others for doing things like hunting bears is still over the top. If ity was atrophy deer would it be different? After all, the royals do that all the time...there are just no bears left in scotland or the rest of the UK, they were hunted out of existance.

 

Can I just point out that none of the deer shot on Royal estates is wasted. All of the venison is sold as quality controlled food. All of the keepers are trained in proper meat handling and preparation and in season the game larder here is in full swing with up to a dozen carcasses to be processed after a good day on the hill.

[Vagabond]

Can I just point out that none of the deer shot on Royal estates is wasted. All of the venison is sold as quality controlled food. All of the keepers are trained in proper meat handling and preparation and in season the game larder here is in full swing with up to a dozen carcasses to be processed after a good day on the hill.

 

Absolutely

 

Although we are not on a Royal estate, the same applies down here in the Ashdown Forest. As a result, venison is our principal meat diet. A tad more wholesome than factory-farmed processed meat.

[kleinboet]

That's interesting - The licence says that game may not be wasted and Both Vagabond and sportsman report on non-wastage of meat

Then the companies organising "trophy hunting" must be responsible for the carcass removal - a very lucrative idea! The hunter pays for the head and the meat is sold - they get paid twice!!

And I am sure that a check is made on the stock to make sure it is healthy and numerous.

[Cranfield]

Neither would I, probably, but the fact is that according to figures disclosed 87% of bears shot are for the trophy hunters and not for the table. There is a lucrative business for companies that provide this sort of service to rich Americans and Canadians. Apparently the kudos for the kill is measured in the bears skull size, feel free to condemn

 

Where is it disclosed that 87% ( a very precise number) of bears shot are for trophy hunters and not for the table ?

Its probable that any "trophy" carcases are still eaten.

[Guest Rabbit]

Where is it disclosed that 87% ( a very precise number) of bears shot are for trophy hunters and not for the table ?

Its probable that any "trophy" carcases are still eaten.

 

I googled, it's all there if you want to look, lot's of folk are against this sort of practice, and you will see the Companies offering these trips to the rich, they are strictly for trophy hunters and not for food.

One site at BONOBO.TV Quotes....''Nearly 90% of all grizzly bears are cruelly killed by TROPHY HUNTERS...78% of British Columbians including the Indigenous people of Costal First Nation want the trophy hunting to stop.''

 

The article also describes how after a longwinters hibernation these bears are shot foraging for food to feed their cubs, so allowing the cubs to starve to death.

 

As in most cases money talks

 

If you can provide any support for your theory that these bears are probably eaten by these so called hunters I would be grateful.

[Guest Rabbit]

That's interesting - The licence says that game may not be wasted and Both Vagabond and sportsman report on non-wastage of meat

Then the companies organising "trophy hunting" must be responsible for the carcass removal - a very lucrative idea! The hunter pays for the head and the meat is sold - they get paid twice!!

And I am sure that a check is made on the stock to make sure it is healthy and numerous.

That's very trusting of you KB from one that had a distinct mistrust of most things...ahh I see not the British here is it

[chesters1]

is it plausible trophy hunters hit their prey in places where death isnt immediate on purpose? i cant see much value in having bruins head on a plinth with a hole in it ,a wound though in the body could far more easily be hidden than the face.the animal may just suffer for a wee while (hopefully it doesnt run to far this gun is mighty heavy)but at least the face is fine

i once read a book about south america (the matto grosso more specifiacally "in search of fawcett " i think the book was called) where jaquar were hunted with a spear .

the hunter chappie waited til the jaquar lept then placed the spear butt against his instep and the point towards the now flying beast who obligingly impaled itself on it (no mention of the flailing claws but as he appeared to do it more than once not so much of a problem),much more "sporting" IMHO and must have had much more satisfaction (if that indeed was what he got) than merely pointing a bang stick in the direction of a beast walking about minding its own business surely or are "hunters" less sporting ? if so you can kill many humans and beasts at long range with even less harm to hunter and foe in a game called Farcry2.

do hunters just hunt stupid prey ? animals acquire a fear of guns i expect when in proximity to their effect so naturally loner animals must be easy targets they may fear humans but in relatively nearby situations so are not out human spotting and avoiding anything that could be human,perhaps if the hunter wanted to hunt clever animals that could fight back only the army could provide "safaris" ? i hear theres several "safaris " going on at the moment but perhaps animals with a defence against a sniper that can snipe themselves are just too demanding on the bravery of some hunters?

i remember stumbling over a vid of brave hunters firing arrows at a tethered sheep ,did it die yes of course it did eventually i expect ,brave brave hunters hunting vicious sheep beasts but didnt they look cool with their camo and grins

i expect they ate it (thats ok then) and joked as they did about how many arrows it "took" before it went down

i expect someone will come up and say they were practising for Big Horns ,maybe but just how many "meals" did it take before they moved onto quarry that can run away? (longer rope?)

had the ladies vid of her "first" bear been silent and the bear drop dead instantly i wouldnt have a problem with it if it were eaten or not ,if its a need for gore or "manlyness" or just show mans power over mere animals some want i can provide a link (american ofcourse) where gore is in abundance and 99% of it human and some using horrific means to get it! after all animals are far to easy to kill arnt they? hardly sporting unless its less than a heartbeat away after all guns were invented to make it less "sporting" for the prey

Edited June 6, 2009 by chesters1

[Alan Stubbs]

Where's the honour or merit in shooting a bear 'because you can'?

 

That's a whole lot different than if it's a case of 'me or the bear'.

 

Newt was fairly disparaging about some of the understandable fury of some of the posters and it just goes to show some of the cultural differences between a nation which condones such brain-dead barbarity and one which is sufficiently evolved to see it as pointless slaughter.

 

I simply can't see why someone would want to share a video of something quite so obscene - slaughter for slaughter's sake.

 

As ever, I'm open to education if I've missed the point.

[kleinboet]

Rabbit: Trust has nothing to do with it!! There was an earlier posting stating that when you apply for a license (you DO need a license!!) you are told that bears are not just for trophy hunting and that the meat must be used. If a company wants to supply a service to facilitate this, then they would surely provide a service to remove the carcass or the government would withhold licensing for them.

Simple really!

Edited June 6, 2009 by kleinboet