Black bear hunts to begin Thursday in Oklahoma

Oklahoma will become the 29th state to allow bear hunting when the season opens later this week.

Hunters will be able to hunt black bears in four southeastern Oklahoma counties beginning Thursday. Lawmakers last session approved a measure to legalize the hunting. Gov. Brad Henry signed the bill into law in April.

Hunting is limited to Latimer, Le Flore, McCurtain and Pushmataha counties. In those counties, residents say bears have become a nuisance, disturbing people and getting into trash.

Hunters must purchase a special license. Only 20 bears may be killed during the archery and muzzle loader season.

When the quota is met, the season will end.

Hunters must check by phone or online at wildlifedepartment.com to make sure the quota hasn’t been met before hunting each day.

"We’re pretty excited about it,” said Micah Holmes, spokesman for the state Department of Wildlife Conservation. "It’s a big deal for us. There has been a lot of interest in it, and it has been a long time coming.”

http://www.newsok.com/black-bear-hunts-to-begin-thursday-in-oklahoma/article/3404374?custom_click=pod_headline_southeast-oklahoma-news

Kind of evens the playing field.

lives just like we are. No one needs bear meat. Maybe overpopulation is a reason to cull the heard but that should be done humanely. I wonder how many bears suffer a long lingering death. It is horrible, really.

If you're hungry and need to feed your family, that's one thing. If the species in question is totally overpopulated (as deer are in many places), that's one thing too.


If you think it's cool to kill some big visually impressive mammal coded in human minds as a "macho" target for trophies and kicks just because you can, then your karma suggests that maybe someday, somehow, a spider or snake or rat will take YOU down and show off pictures, and maybe your head and skin, to all his or her buddies. I certainly wouldn't tell them it's wrong!

Or even know what it is?

You win the dumb post of the day award.

I live in OK. Haven't seen one bear. I did hear about the season opening. While I can't attest to the management plan of bears here (whether or not culling is truly a necessity), I can say the thoughts of more ignorant rednecks in this area hitting the woods in droves to kill things disturbs me. Hey, maybe we can collect information about the hunters when they tag the bear and put it on the internet like the women having abortions.

But the democratic party is lucky to have you there. Welcome to DU.

we have to wear bright frickin' orange in the fall to avoid getting shot. Nice.

:hi:

your not the only Democrat in Oklahoma. There are a few of us.

Idiots with weapons will make up for their pitiful penis sizes by protecting trash.

Another penis-obsessed anti {insert cause here}...

How do some of you people get *anything* done throughout the day? It seems that all you do is sit and obsess over the penises of people who own guns, drive cars you don't like or ride loud motorcycles. I don't get it...

Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no dick.

Otherwise, it looks like an excuse to go big game hunting , and I don't get it.

i have bears on my property daily and could easily then say they were going after my crops, or a danger to my kids. It looks as though the wildlife management people see the need to cull the population and rather than pay to have it done they have decided to raise some revenue and give some hunting opportunities to the locals. As to the bear trash thing, people have to realise that this is a danger as the bears become used to the food source and lose their fear of people which means that they may start to associate us and food, and i dont want my local bear population thinking of food when they are around my home...

Once a species is considered any form of nuisance to us, they need to be systematically destroyed until we feel it's okay to end the killing. Motherfucking human fucking race for the win!!! This is OUR planet, motherfuckers! God gived it to us, so stay out of the way!

w0000000t!

They are just too dumb. Not smart like us humans. :eyes:

Opposable thumbs and higher brain functions gave us the planet.

If you will.

not our planet, Chilly. We don't own it. We just live here for the time being.

We're the top of the food chain and we can change the environment.

Not to say we always will be. But it's our planet right now. I would say that Humanity claimed ownership once we learned how to make fire.

And a conscience.

Nothing requires us to dominate over the world.

Humanity has many desires. Among them, the will to overcome the nature and the environment that for hundreds of thousands of years died whither we live or die.

Humans don't need to require to dominate. Our existence as the smartest, strongest and most vicious animals on the earth makes dominate by just existing.

I've already ran into someone else with a similar argument.

You cannot justify innocent killing of animals by saying that we are the dominant species. We have the capacity to reason.

We are the most advanced species as far as intelligence goes. That, however, does not mean that we must dominate the planet.

I'm not even sure I approve of hunting the bear in this case.

I originally rang in to mildly-snark at a self-righteous post. Plus while I'm fond of animals I roll my eyes at all that "animals are our equals" crap. If the bears are causing a nuisance or overpopulated then move them to move isolated area/kill them.

"We are the most advanced species as far as intelligence goes. That, however, does not mean that we must dominate the planet."

Yeah it does. We have no range, no natural enemies, no population limit and we have the reasoning to overcome what limits animals and our needs come first. And like I said before, we dominate simply by existing. It's not a question of should/shouldn't or must. It's simple fact.

Saying it is does not make it so.

We do not dominate by simply existing. We dominate by dominating. And we are damn good at it because, like you said, we are the most intelligent species.

I'm not arguing that we aren't currently dominating. I am saying that we should not be dominating. You seem to assume that it is impossible to not dominate. That simply isn't true.

"I'm not arguing that we aren't currently dominating. I am saying that we should not be dominating. You seem to assume that it is impossible to not dominate. That simply isn't true."

How do we existing without dominating? What's the lay-out? Remember dominating doesn't necessarily mean cruel. We wouldn't have nature preserves and endangered species lists if it was all about cruelty.

Dominance is not always cruel. You are correct. But in this context, the domination of our planet is cruel and violent.

"How do we existing without dominating?"

I don't get what you are trying to say. Your thinking process is so afoul that I do not know that I can provide you with an answer.

Existence does not equal dominance. Superior intelligence does not equal the domination that I am talking about. The absolute domination of the planet by our species is what I am talking about.

And it is neither moral nor unavoidable.

crazed men will be shooting pregnant women?

Oh wait. It's always open season on women. No license/permit required.

In case you missed it...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6735054

Hunting bears... It seems we're going backwards as a civilization. :(

x(

Going after a bear with a one-shot, slow-reload, weapon actually takes a bit of courage.

I'll probably be excoriated for this but the killing of 20 bears seems pretty limited. The species is not endangered in the US (or isn't recovering from extirpation like wolves). Bears die all the time. Usually from disease, starvation from tooth loss due to old age or through the actions of other bears. Death by human weapon isn't comparatively more gruesome. I often have this impression that the anti-hunting crowd thinks the natural world is absent of violence, suffering and pain. Everything dies -- in the wilderness this is almost never peaceful or painless.

That said, its seems unlikely that these animals will be harvested for food. Killing for trophies is not cool.

On Edit:

The natural park service estimates adult bear mortality at 2% from a population of 600,000. Or about 12,000. With most deaths a result of hunting or automobiles.

some reading on natural and non-natural bear morality : http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/status/grizzly/lim.html

So if a child is being mauled by a bear I should stand back and let things go?

I can play your idiotic game too.

So far over.

his point: If the fact that everything dies makes killing things OK, we can apply this to humans...

The key part of this is the human part.

The act of prematurely ending the life of some living thing is not itself objectionable.

Had he written: "insects die too, should we kill insects", we would laugh at his logic.

The impact of his statement presupposes the moral value of the object in question. Killing humans is wrong.

Only if we equate bears with humans does his statement have any value. If we equate them with insects, then its nonsense.

Frankly bears aren't equal to humans in my (and most people's) moral code.

Were we to find a human and a bear locked in mortal combat, the choice of which of the two we would shoot to end the fight would be obvious unless you thought bears were equal to people and then the selection would be problematic. I was simply following the absurdity of his premise on the moral equality of bears and humans.

Yes it is, assuming that you lack proper justification for ending said life.

Calling an animal a nuisance is not proper justification.

Bears and humans have the same right to life in that without just cause, killing either is wrong.

The justifications may be different. But the unjustified killing of a bear is still wrong.



Again I will say that the point went waaaaaaaaaay over your head. Miles and miles and miles.

that you replied to, and others on this thread, are missing is the difference between natural rights, and "legal rights."

Natural rights are universal and unalienable, and are neither "granted," nor "permitted" -- they just are, and apply to all living things. I hate to use Wikipedia as a reference, but this snippet explains the philosophical differences fairly well:

Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

{Snip}

The idea that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century, and as such, even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

It has been argued that natural rights only apply to humans (mainly a religious argument) but there are also philosophical counter-arguments to that premise (human rights vs. natural rights). The universal truth is that all living things share a common natural ancestor, and therefore common natural rights.

which one would I try to help first?

take a wild guess, and its not the politician.

framing an argument to your advantage by introducing a non sequitur. The poster you responded to made no reference to an "either, or" scenario between a human and a bear. The statement was simply a counter-analogy to your position that killing bears by hunting them is actually more humane than allowing them to die horribly by natural causes.

That is the very same argument that is used as a justification for human euthanasia (which I happen to agree with), with the only difference being that we humans could choose that option willingly. Conversely, killing an otherwise healthy bear for bloodsport, and rationalizing the kill by calling it preemptive euthanasia for the bear's own welfare, would be morally dishonest, at the very least.

And yes, I understand the need for culling certain groups of wild animals. I also understand the need for certain groups of humans to satisfy a primal urge to overcome nature by becoming "blooded" in the Hunt -- not for food, but as a right of passage, and for sport.

:eyes:

The point is that a bear has a right to life unless certain qualifications are met. Saying that they are a nuisance is not a qualification.

YOU may believe in animal rights, but that does not make it so. Same goes for God and UFOs.

Aside from some animal cruelty laws and the protection of endangered species, animals have no rights.

I can eat an animal for dinner.

If a dangerous animal threatens me, I can kill it.

If I feel like it, I can kill animals for sport (not my thing, but anyway I can do so).

If I feel like it, I can go buy a puppy and immediately take it down to the vet and order it killed.

Animals don't have rights.

So that argument that you can legally kill a certain animal for sport does not mean that the animal did not have rights.

If a human threatens your life, more often than not, you can use lethal force against that person without punishment. But does that mean that the person never had rights? Absolutely not.

The question of where rights come from must be addressed before we can continue this discussion.

So in other words, 18th Century slaves in America had no rights (immoral as that truly was).

If you want to say "animals SHOULD have rights" then we'd have something to discuss.

You made it very clear that animals have no rights. Yet even under your definition of a right (they must be legally recognized), certain animals have rights.

There are inconsistencies in your argument.





(Slaves had rights that were not recognized.)

So there was no inconsistency at all.

As far as slaves having rights that weren't "recognized", what do you mean by that? God given rights?

Well, if so, I suppose you can continue claiming "animals have rights, damnit!" all you want, but that won't change the reality of the situation one bit.

I think that women SHOULD have the right to not be treated as a piece of property, but that doesn't mean that women in some countries don't still get such treatment at no cost to their oppressors. And that's not likely to change anytime soon.

So, you'd say they *have* such rights, too? A woman being beaten and forced to perform sex acts for her husband over there might disagree with you (if she dared speak up at all).

My own morality assigns rights independent of law or God.

You can argue that my morality is wrong. But you are going to have to use empiricism to prove my moral logic faulty.


(I am going to bed. I'll be back tomorrow afternoon to respond)

I argued that it was meaningless in this argument.

slaves had Rights -- they just were not allowed to exercise them. The supreme law of this nation, the Constitution of the United States of America, does not grant nor create any "rights." It only enumerates those rights that were already in existence, and prevents the government from unreasonably restricting them. The definition of what is "reasonable" changes as a particular society morally grows, or regresses.

The concept of "rights" is a very different matter from the concept of what is legally "allowable," and is very much a part of civilization's moral code. Rights have always existed. Laws are moral restrictions to those rights as determined by civilized society.

Do wild animals have "rights?" Sure they do, they have the very same unrestricted rights as human animals, but mainly they have the same basic rights to survival and propagation. It is we humans who restrict their rights for our own benefit (i.e., as a source of food) and sometimes for our own pleasure and sport. It is what we human animals have determined to be the "natural order" of life on this planet. We are the contemporary "King of Beasts," and if history is any guide, we hold the title only temporarily.

This is such Peta nonsense its not even funny.

cougar kill the deer for food, and therefore as a necessity for survival, or for sport and a wanton disregard for another life? When we start applying anthropomorphic terms and concepts to wild animals, it is usually an excuse for our treatment of them -- for better, or for worse. Do animals have "rights?" Of course they do (among each other) but they are at the mercy of we humans for their basic right to survive as a species.

In a very basic sense wild animals have a well-defined, and instinctual, grasp of what is "right and wrong" as those concepts apply to their survival and propagation. The human sense of "right and wrong" is mostly artificial, self-delusional, and by our egocentric nature, casually applied to every other form of life on the planet. Evolutionally, humans have a long way to go in order to just return to the basic, and instinctual, morality exhibited by our smaller-brained cousins.

Rights, are a social construction -- a product of human society and interaction. The notion of rights is entirely human imagination congealed into norms and legal doctrine. In the wild there are no rights there are the facts of speed, strength, power, claws, senses, ect. Organisms take what they can and are taken by others.

Cats kill mice for sport, are they evil? Are they simply following instinct? Is the virus that creates a plague wicked? Nature is amoral. We attribute moral categorizations to actions but none are present. The killing of a bear is neither an evil nor good act. Humans are no different from the cougar.

contrary, "rights" are very different from any "moral code," which is what you describe as being a "product of human society and interaction." All "norms and legal doctrine," or laws, reflect society's restrictions to natural rights. The US Constitution, for example, neither establishes, nor grants ANY rights whatsoever -- it merely spells them out, and portrays them as being inalienable and having come from a "Creator."

The very first life-form on the planet (the Creator?) established a "right to life," chain-of-custody for all of its descendants. Every living thing on the planet carries a genetic "right to life" code which compels it to fight for territory, to sustain itself, and to reproduce: the basic rights of all living entities. What you refer to as "instinct" is born of the collective right-to-life, which exists in humans, as well as all other living things. Humans do not have a monopoly on the basic right to survive.

Mankind, being the only creature that we are aware of which possesses the capability of complete self-awareness, has also invented the myth of superiority above all things, including a mythical "afterlife." It is from those religious myths that the notion of only mankind having a "soul" and the "rights" that go with it, have emerged.

"Rights" existed before the evolution of humans, or the human interpretation of rights. The early hominids had rights, as did their ape ancestors, as did the mammalian ancestors of apes, as did their reptilian ancestors, ad infinitum. It was we "modern" humans who first began to codify moral codes and laws restricting those rights imbued by nature in order to live as large aritifically created tribes, or civilizations.

Ok, I thought you were a little off before. Now I know for sure. Maybe rights came from the aliens that planted us here. I'm done with this lunacy.

the Founders did, and put it in the Constitution. My later reference to a "Creator" was tongue-in-cheek (but what would you call the very first single-celled life-form to exist?) but I suspect that you knew that, and have just run out of bullets.

It isn't me that's a "little off," it's those damned egocentric humans, and their made up religious fantasies about their superiority over all other creatures -- who just happen to be their genetic cousins, and who all sprang from common ancestors...;-)

That was a stupid, stupid thing to say.

The cougar does not have the capacity to be self aware. It does not have the intelligence to reason.

We grant rights to these animals because we have the capability, not because the animals are aware of such rights.

..then it would be morally wrong and we would expect all cougars to be vegetarians? I stand by the peta nonsense comment.

It would be wrong. But that isn't in anyway a reality. So it isn't wrong at all.

You stand by that comment because you don't know what you are talking about.

Its not, you need to do some research in black bear population culling. They do a good deal of damage if left unmanaged.

Bear meat is actually pretty good.

20 is pretty limited. I grew up in SWVA, and black bears were rare in my childhood, but increasingly common. My dad woke up in the middle of the night just a couple months ago because he heard the outdoor trashcans getting knocked over, guessed it was probably raccoons, and...whoa. NOT raccoons! :D

20 will not destroy the species, and the rules seem actually pretty restrictive and if hunters actually follow it (BIG IF) it'll probably be OK in the big picture.

The problem I have with it is exactly this: That said, its seems unlikely that these animals will be harvested for food. Killing for trophies is not cool.

I have no problems with people who hunt to eat and eat what they hunt (or donate it to the hungry, whatever). I have BIG problems with people who kill for the "pleasure" of it, because the very idea of killing for pleasure suggests lots of armchair diagnoses to me, none of them pleasant.

People who hunt for pleasure only: I understand the appeal that a lot of hunters claim for their "sport." The patience, the tracking skill, the knowledge of animal behavior, the time spent in the outdoors, the bonding with the buddies, the desire to be on a quest and to succeed at the end... All of that! I get that! I really do!

Now give me a good reason why you have to, at the climax, pull your trigger on a gun instead of a camera lens. Tell me why a dead animal (that you don't need or intend to eat) is a worthier goal than an awesome wildlife photograph. Tell me why ending a life is more worthwhile to you than making something really cool. Tell me why you get more kicks from destroying than creating. Tell me why you'd rather subtract from the total of beauty in the world than add to it.

So far so good. :popcorn:

:popcorn:

dg

That is the frigging daily double there!

Although the Olive Garden, breastfeeding and pitbulls are NOT involved.

:rofl:

including bears, wolfs etc etc...

they gave thanks to the animal's spirit for allowing them the privilege of using its energy to sustain them. They hunted for food, clothing, and shelter, and not for sport.

As for the notion that we humans are doing wild animals a favor by culling their numbers in order to keep them from starving, we need to ask ourselves: why are they starving? Could it be that we have reduced their natural habitats to a fraction of their former size, and interfered with the natural food chain? Could it be that there are more diseased wild animals now that we have greatly reduced the numbers of their natural predators because we considered them a pain in the ass?

In other words, we need to protect wild animals because we fucked up their habitat, and drove many of them to the point of extinction. I realize that we humans need food, and that domesticated animals are a part of our diet. But please don't try and justify the bloodsport killing of wild game as a "nobel" endeavor. Killing living things for sport satisfies a primeval urge in some people, and we, as a species, have not evolved far enough to eradicate that undesirable trait as yet.

killed all they could to make sure they had enough.

were making sure that they had enough to last them through the winter months, and they wasted absolutely nothing from these mass killings:

Every part of the animal was used and nothing was wasted. Even the bison's manure was used as fuel on the treeless plains. No wonder when the white people killed off the buffalo during the 1870's and 1880's, the Plains Indians were forced to give up the fight for their lands.

{Snip}

Each animal killed was thanked for giving its life to the people for their own existence.

http://www.webpanda.com/There/uot_uses_of_the_buffalo.htm

Unlike the white man who in the latter part of the 1800s, wantonly killed off the buffalo to the point of extinction for sport, for their hides, and as a way of starving the Native American plains tribes into submission.

http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisContent&series_id=1&episode_id=10&chapter_id=2&page_id=2&lang=E

:sarcasm:

dg

That would be a great argument if data supported it. I am a huge supporter of wildlife management and support well managed hunting when necessary; however, the situation with this particular species in this particular area is unsettling. Black bears were hunted to the brink of extinction in the early 20th century here. The majority of naturalists in this area, as well as the wildlife department concedes that the bear population is a relatively young one, with the average age being only approximately 3.7 yrs old. This is a far cry from areas like Maine where the bear population is a good 30,0000 strong and the hunting has been, not only successful in terms of revenue, but also imperative for a healthy population of bears. It is not uncommon to see very large and very old bears roaming the streets there. Even generous estimates put bears at only about 800 in numbers in OK and there is absolutely no evidence that the food chain has failed them to this point. What I feel this does is create a false sense of their viability. Poaching here is a huge problem. Opening up the bear season for such a small bounty, IMO, is foolish when they haven't even the funds to hire enough wildlife experts to determine the actual numbers, habitat, etc. They are definitely not a nuisance here and there is no evidence they are starving. Hunting is a revenue generator here. Education is not.

very nformative

we are cool with that. die of disease or starvation. as awful or painful or horrendous as that death might be.

we approve of that death.

infinitely superior to a sudden and quick death by a "small penis-ed hunter."

natural. no "penis size" involved.

we sleep comfortably at night, just knowing that. starving bears do not worry us. the penis size of the hunter? that bothers us to no end!


we are progressive!

seem to be everywhere these days.

she plans to hunt deer this season.

All of her female friends hunt.

A freezer full of venison and hog sure helps the grocery bill in these tight times. Prepared correctly the meat is fantastic and lacks all the chemicals of store bought meat.

They like their narrow world-view.

There are a multitude of forums I can post on where everyone agrees with me.

hunters should hunt each other.

Is the primary method Conservation Departments across the country have for fulfilling their missions. Hunters pay for tags, the money goes to fund conservation efforts and keep the Conservation department under control. For "nuisance" species like deer it is also the primary method that Conservation Departments have for keeping the population at a healthy level. Because predators have been hit so hard, deer populations are usually far above their sustainable levels, leading to mass starvation and disease within the population. The hunting season is the best tool for the job. Not only is the population level brought to a sustainable level, the Conservation Department gets a huge pile of cash to fund species that are actually threatened.

Obviously the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation has decided that the Black Bear population is becoming too large and needs to be culled to the tune of 20 a year. Would you rather the state hire exterminators so it could be done on your dime?

In any case, they can only be hunted during the Archery and Muzzle Loader season. Would you want to go after a bear with a bow or musket?

(northeast Texas)...but I didn't believe we had any.
Guess I might be wrong about that. I live in a pretty wooded area.

nt

not to mention often full of parasites.

can't stand the gamey taste.

A good friend of mine did whatever it takes in Colorado to save points or however it works for many, many years to get a bear tag. He went out in the serious back of beyond, an area he'd been checking out for years. No chance those bears ate trash, for example. Three days of solo hiking to get in, five to pack the bear out. Needless to say he's pretty sincere and serious about hunting.

Never having fired a weapon myself, but for him I would never have tasted game meat "properly" taken. Amazing elk I have had over the years. He's a bit of a hunting snob, stops himself from taking easy shots and what-not.

Anyhoo, the point: I couldn't pass up the chance to try the bear he killed after so many years of trying. Somewhere between beef and pork.

And amazingly good. :shrug:

i'll pass.

...of muscled African-American gay men with extensive body hair.

O8)

y'all ain't actually ever seen an actual penis, have you?

that is so sad. but, its all cool, for y'all.

being all ignorant as you are and all. how could you know? what is big and what is small.

how could you know?

disrespecting on something you will never know?

dumb. childlike. unknowing. sorry. sad.

it is your fate. so sorry for you. i feel bad. so sad.

*tears*

a lot of bear penises do you? How do they taste?

in this thread is amazing.

Wildlife populations in the US haven't been stronger in their history than they are right now. Why? Because states have adopted wildlife management practices which benefit the species both from a perspective of disease and famine and from encroachment which is dangerous to humans and the various species. I am curious how many of the rabid anti hunters in this thread spend/donate one dime to wildlife preservation? No matter, the amount spent by hunters on preservation far, far exceeds all of the "animal rights" donations. Who saved the various waterfowl which were endangered just a few years ago? Certainly not animal rights groups. Hunters have supplied the much needed revenues for habitat revitalization through the purchase of duck stamps, membership in groups like Ducks Unlimited, and the purchase of hunting licenses at the state level.

I can't speak for OK, but just north of OK in Kansas we have vast, well maintained state parks and game preserves funded ENTIRELY by hunting and fishing licenses and state park permits. The Kansas Parks Department is the ONLY state agency which is funded entirely without tax dollars. Wildlife populations have never been healthier. Twenty five years ago there were absolutely no wild turkeys or elk in Kansas, waterfowl habitats were diminishing, coyote populations were riddled with mange, bobcat populations were sparse to say the least. Since, hunting license revenues have purchased wild turkeys and reintroduced them across the state in wildlife preserves. The turkey populations have exploded, bobcats have multiplied exponentially, the coyote mange problem has diminished dramatically simply because of the food supply being reintroduced. Kansas hunting license revenues have reintroduced elk in south western Kansas, and while elk populations in Kansas will likely never be huge, they never were. Hunting license revenues have funded huge waterfowl habitat preservation projects which has dramatically increased waterfowl populations in most states on the migratory routes. Sandhill cranes are a common sight now, 30-40 years ago they were endangered.

Without the preservation afforded by hunters, wildlife would be in far, far worse shape than it is in.

Hunting/fishing also keep the small towns in the mountains alive. Right now in towns like Meeker, Gunnison, Montrose here in Colorado the grocery stores, sporting goods stores, motels and cafes are full of hunters and those merchants count on them to stay in business through the slow months.

Well said and thanks for posting.

keeps many small and otherwise poor towns in western ks alive. It is hard to get a room for the first 4 weeks. Hunting ground (natural habitat) in many areas sells for more than ag ground. What that means is that the ground will serve as habitat, free of pesticides and herbicides, for insects and indigenous plant life to birds and deer. The state and fed both employ scientists who study and monitor wildlife year round, they do a good job.

Sacrificing a few bears to expand or sustain habitat for hundreds is good bargain.

Here in Florida I typically take 3-4 deer, a few wild hogs, a turkey, many ducks, dove, and a coyote or two during a regular hunting season. All go on the dinner plate or in the freezer with the exception of the coyotes that are extremely overpopulated in recent years and need thinning. The reason much habitat is preserved or created these days is because of the direct efforts of hunters or indirectly through their license fees.

Not since 1855 has the Quinault Indian Reservation been open to hunting by non-tribal members. Now, the bear hunting opportunity of a lifetime is right at your fingertips. Due to excessive timber damage caused by burgeoning black bear populations, the reservation is now open to guided hunts for these magnificent creatures.

http://bigbearhunting.com/BearHunts.php

I think I know which side he'd be on and it's not the BEARS!

B-)

:rofl:

- damage and injury to property, other animals and humans as bears search outside their normal environment for food if overcrowded. When the meat is eaten or donated to homeless shelters, thinning benefits everyone.

Wishing everyone a safe and successful hunt.

..now just get rid of those damned critters that keep dumping the trash cans out. One of them could bite little Jimmy while he's playing on the slide.

eta: And someone do something about that big black dog thing.. he keeps shitting over there near the head of the woodland path. Oh, it's a bear? Shitting in the woods?

it sounds like they have strict limitations on the hunt...

what's wrong with proper wildlife management? :shrug:

benefits of population control.

a very big population of bear to begin with. Hunters must check by phone or online at wildlifedepartment.com to make sure the quota hasn’t been met before hunting each day. Gee, have you ever met any of these right-wing redneck okies. I can't believe they even know how to use a computer, let alone own one.