U.S. Hunters Kill Polar Bears In Canada »
Posted by: hurr1 2 months, 1 week agoWealthy American trophy hunters have set their sights on polar bears again.These animals are in enough trouble with global warming, they don't need to be hunted for a trophy as well.
Read Full Story at qassia.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 84
-
-
0%
injest2 months, 1 week ago
Wouldn't be easier and more effective to simple have Canada stop allowing the hunting of endangered Polar Bears?
I looked it up (I know that's cheating) and Canada will let you kill Polar Bears for $50 bucks (Canadian Polar Bear license fee) and there is also a 7% Goods and Services Tax due on each license and fee.
Or $53.35 (Canadian) or 52.80 USD or 53.77 CHF or 33.43 EUR or 267.19 NOK or 315.34 SEK or 543.12 MXN or 5'600.68 JPY
At 900 per year, couldn't someone just pay Canada $48,015.00 buying ALL that years licenses and don't hunt! Problem solved! Everyone wins!
Reply-
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 1 week ago
injest:
Yeah that might work.
Then again you might have the speculators who are hoping to profit from cornering the market. ;~)
Reply -
0%
Candida2 months, 1 week ago
injest,
I agree, that if there is anyone to blame, it's the Canadian Government for allowing the hunt.
I don't think paying them $48,000 would make any difference because I'm sure they don't issue the licenses simply to make money on them. I don't know what the polar bear situation is, but I know that in some places there are not enough hunters to reduce the bear and deer populations to manageable levels.
I'm personally against hunting and fishing for trophies, not just in the case of polar bears but any animals, but at the same time I can understand that some animals do a lot of damage, and their populations have to be kept within certain limits.
Now, if the polar bears are or become endangered, I'm sure public pressure would be sufficient to get the Canadian Government to ban their hunting.
Reply -
0%
BB642 months ago
injest, Unlike the USA, Canada doesn't feel 25,000 polar bears is a good thing. They don't consider them an endangered species. In fact most of the native tribes agree with the possibility there is an overpopulation of bears.
On your math, it's not about the money, it's about controlling the population.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
BB642 months ago
Why is it shocking? We hunt deer, bear and other larger animals in the USA as a way to control the population. There are 20,000 more bears than there was in the 1960's. With an animal that requires a huge territory, that might be a population explosion. I said might, I don't know what the proper population is, but it's a significant increase in under 40 years.
Reply
-
-
0%
cowboygrandpa2 months, 1 week ago
I hunt for the food it provides. You can't buy venison in the local grocery store. The hide is useful as well.
Never have mounted the heads. Have kept the racks of deer.
Quite honestly, I don't see those people as hunters at all. I see them as predators.
They are the ones who would go half way around the world to kill an animal that does them no harm or threaten them in any way. As hunters in the past did in Africa.
They don't impress me much!!! In fact just the oposite.
Lets give the bears an equal chance. Put these idiots out there with no support team just them and the bear. 10 to 1 the bear wins and the hunting stops.
These idiots think it makes them macho. NO!!!!!!!! It doesn't, just shows how sick they are.
Reply-
-
0%
PsychoHosebeast2 months, 1 week ago
Trophy hunters.
I loved the scene in the original Crocodile Dundee when the poachers are just driving around shooting kangaroos... then one of the "kangaroos" starts shooting back at them... not so much fun now, eh?
Reply -
0%
cantfoolme2 months ago
Spot on. This is not hunting even in the remotest sense. Any fool (and these people are extremely retarded) can do what they do. Let them be dropped in the Arctic for a day or two and stalk a bear before killing it. Then maybe they could be referred to as hunters. Even then it is wrong because you should only kill for sustinence. I despair at Man's foolishness.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Eagle_Eye2 months, 1 week ago
"The problem is "killing" is in their blood." ?????????????
So you are saying that wealthy men pay big bucks because it is in their blood to kill wild animals????
Reply -
0%
Endoscopy2 months, 1 week ago
Poor nikkibabe.
She doesn't understand how the Americas were settled. She doesn't understand how the licensing system works.
Before the season there is a rough count of the animals. Only enough licenses are created to trim the population to desired levels. That is the traditional method of giving hunters something to hunt and making the selected animal better off with the trimming of the population.
If this is not done then the animals will be over crowding the area and they will over feed from the land. Thus making the population under nourished and unhealthy. True environmentalists are very much in favor of this method.
Reply-
0%
PsychoHosebeast2 months, 1 week ago
So you're telling us that there are so many polar bears that they're in danger of overpopulation and starving themselves out? Please supply a cite for that one. You might also try considering that on a worldwide scale, that's more often the exception than the rule, which is terrible, because the plan you describe is a good thing... but it only works if actually hunt with a license.
Poor Endoscopy...
Reply -
0%
cantfoolme2 months ago
We are talking Polar bears here (already declining rapidly) and not caribou. Yes, we need culling in some other species but by professionals not retarded amateurs who could perhaps spend their excess money on something more constructive.
Reply
-
-
0%
foksipayne2 months, 1 week ago
"The problem is "killing" is in their blood."
Yeah, only they'd send someone else if the bears were armed.
Reply
-
0%
simonsez2 months, 1 week ago
The recent decision to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act closed a gaping loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act that had allowed U.S. trophy hunters to kill polar bears in Canada, where such hunting is legal, and import polar bear trophies into the U.S. More than 900 polar bear heads and hides had been imported since 1994 because of this loophole.
Isn't this paragraph saying exactly the opposite of what the title of this story says?
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
Yes, this is what I heard too. I don't get it - there's a contradiction here between that and the story. I guess, even though "threatened" they still are allowed to hunt polar bears in Canada, with some controls on the numbers. I'm not sure it is allowed in the U.S. (Alaska).
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
BB642 months ago
You're worried about oil? With the current do nothing senate and house, do you really think they're going to permit drilling? Especially if Barack "my foot is in my mouth again" Obama doesn't win?
This is totally a scam. The bears are endangered by over population. They went from 5000 in the 60's to 25,000 today. Perhaps instead of shooting them, you greenies would go up there and teach safe sex practices. Take a few Planned Parenthood folks with you to... But seriously, if the bear population grew that fast, what is the cause. Food supply increased would be the best solution. So global warming is helping them?
Reply
-
-
0%
Mutainia2 months, 1 week ago
When I was a kid, I went to a cinema to see what I thought was going to be a nature show. Instead, it was a movie about an old hunter and his friends where the highlight of the movie, was the old hunter hunting down and murdering this polar bear. He doesn't kill the bear quickly, but, uses many ineffectual bullets, TORTURING it to death, making it all the more tragic and sad. The film then shows the guy quickly carving it up before it freezes, reducing the bear to a bunch of bloody fir. Anyway, I know now that polar bears brutalize seals. It's probably a horrifying thing for a seal to be in the paws of a hungry polar bear, but, I was about 11, at the time, and just felt sick and sad for that polar bear.
Reply-
-
0%
cantfoolme2 months ago
Either way it is for food and both whale and bear have to work extremely hard to get that food.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
waterwolf20002 months, 1 week ago
well first yes the licenses are 50$ but that is only for me as i am a canadian now for u or any other non canadian no u have to stay at hunting outfitter/lodge to be able to hunt them and i think that starts at around 9,000 us a week(cant buy them from store only from licensed lodge) not includeng tip booze or transport from canadian city to us city or export permits yes these are needed. plus tip and if its a trophy means high end lodge and permits everything u need to get there shoot it and get back the us 15,000-20,000 us dollars.not so cheep. out of 40 million canadians. guess how many canadians pay for a trip to shoot polar bears my guess under 100 maybe less.mostly yanks .there the ones who kill everything. y do u think they travel to kill animals because the u.s has no large game left in any sort of numbers except deer.the u.s had every animal/fish we do
except polar bears now u guys have empty lakes and cattle/farmland.
waterwolf
Reply-
0%
PsychoHosebeast2 months, 1 week ago
"except polar bears now u guys have empty lakes and cattle/farmland"
You just put everything else you said into question... but that might have been suggested by your use of "u" instead of "you."
How about lions, griz, black bear and caribou? Then in the waters there's steelhead, salmon, muskie, pike... Gee, the same animals the Canadians have, imagine that. Guess you can't say that about alligators and crocs, though. Don't worry about any of this, it's a problem a lot of people have that never pick up a book but are overly anxious to run another country into the ground.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar2 months, 1 week ago
I don't think that was what it was. I think it was just not knowing about it, more then anything. Like most countries with a high population, the United States has really driven creatures to extinction or near it. But we have been trying to combat this for a century or so and its been paying off (conservationism really started to take off with TR). I was guilty of ignorance myself in this very thread! However, lets be honest here... the killing of these bears isn't the fault of the United States government.
Reply
-
-
0%
DaneL2 months, 1 week ago
Most all the posts I have read here I would bet were written by people that have never hunted. You focus on nothing but the killing of an animal. There is much more to hunting than just the kill. You act as if the animal is defenseless, it hears better, sees better, sense of smell is better. The smart ones know when someone is in their area, so the ones normally killed are the less intelligent ones. I take people hunting here in Wyoming every year and ALL of them have found it to be an experience of a lifetime. I don't agree with killing something just for the head or skin but the monies received for these tags goes back into the management and protection of these animals.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar2 months, 1 week ago
I actually agree with you. Hunting serves very positive purposes when it is kept under control, such as keeping the population of various creatures under control so they do not overly stress the environment. You are quite correct; I've never hunted (if I was one of those you mentioned). I don't really condemn people for hunting polar bears, I gotta say if a species shouldn't be hunted its up to the government to regulate how many you can hunt via licensing and bag limits and, when needed, place a temporary ban on the hunting of said creatures. I'll leave it to the Canadian government to decide if polar bears should be protected or not... they know the populations better then we do.
Reply
-
-
0%
TrueProgressive2 months, 1 week ago
"so the ones normally killed are the less intelligent ones." Like you DaneL. Oh yeah, I've heard that some game are so smart they know when they're being hunted by modern rifles with telescopic or night vision scopes. Yes, those are intelligent creatures.
I've been a man for a long time, and I've never had any urge to shoot a defenseless animal. And I love the outdoors and am very good in in, and I'm very comfortable with my masculinity. Guys like DaneL and Endoscopy and all the gun nuts here need to kill to make up for their stunted sense of manhood, their tiny little penises that when they're not killing something, makes them feel like little girlymen.
I'm not with you on this one Mdair. Hunting serves no useful purpose. The balance of nature worked for millions of years before homo sapiens. Governments are corrupt, and will hand out licenses to just for the revenues.
Reply-
0%
DaneL2 months ago
You are just to stupid to even read my post. We use the deer, elk and antelope as a food source that is not filled with antibiotics and steriods. And I bet you are very good in the outdoors, at the park in the swings and slides. I would love sometime to show you what kind of man I am sometime, you punk.
Reply -
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
The Regressive - With all your bragging about your manhood, you sound like you have doubts and need to prove your 'manhood" to everyone. Perhaps you are a latent gay or are one. If I was a hunter I would hate to be scolding those who don't. As a non-hunter I respect the hunters' enjoyment of their recreational choice. And you seem to think man shouldn't be here to despoil the balance of nature. We are here and have been for a long time upsetting nature's balance.
Reply-
0%
TrueProgressive2 months ago
Ooooooooooh, I'm gay because I abhor the killing of animals. That makes me gay. Wow, thank you whiner for proving my point. You regressives really do get off on killing animals and other things. I would ask you and the jerk above your comment whether after you kill something you jerk off, but your penises are probably not big enough for you to get anywhere with that.
And whiner, if you read my comment as "bragging" about my manlihood, then not only are you a regressive jerk, you have obvious basic reading problems as well suggesting you maybe didn't make out of the third grade.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jiganshusharma2 months, 1 week ago
Culinary school training covers areas like baking, catering, chef, pastry, nutrition. It also gives training in budget management, purchasing supplies, hiring staff and managing kitchen. Valuable information for trainees is present on sites.
http://www.culinaryschoolsprograms.com/
Reply -
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
ANWR is in the U.S., not Canada. Drill now, pay less at the pump!!
Reply
-
-
sunshineandrosesComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
0%
arc88822 months ago
Global warming? There is no such thing as global warming - this is just another scam - do some research for yourself.
Reply -
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
I don't hunt and can't kill an animal. But I eat meat and do not characterize hunters as some kind of evil people. I know and have known hunters (I'm from Wisconsin and now live in Nevada) and they are all a cut above the average person as far as their character and postive traits. I'm sure there are some bloodthirsy kill-kill-kill hunters but none that I've met. There are more polar bears than in the past but some are in danger of starving and declining again. So if it's going to happen may as well let the hunters kill them (a closely regulated percentage). When I was a kid I had bear and venison shot by one of the hunters I knew. The bear was pretty good m-m-mm.
Reply -
0%
triizine2 months ago
You should not shoot what you are not going to eat. That is the philosophy my husband and I have raised our kids on. There is nothing more comforting that a freezer full of elk meat, when food prices are soaring.
Reply -
0%
TrueProgressive2 months ago
Sorry tiredofwhiners, but I don't agree, based on the hunters that I've known, that they are "a cut above the average person as far as their character and postive traits." All the hunters I've known have suggested some serious character flaw. Some are like the wealthy trophy hunters, true sociopaths that would like nothing more than to mount a few human heads next to the polar bears if those guys could get away with it. Others are like DaneL above, they have nagging existential doubts about their manhood.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
It figures that those who choose to know you would be a big cut below the average. I guess I only associate with good hearted people, unlike you. Your bringing up "manhood" so much in your comments leaves you very suspect in most people's minds here on propeller. If in disagreement with someone it's best to stick to an intelligent reason to counter them with.
Reply-
0%
TrueProgressive2 months ago
whiner, using "reason" with morons like you is really an exercise in futility.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
TrueProgressive2 months ago
[Continuing] The development of agriculture ended the human "hunter/gatherer" era. Modern high tech agriculture completely eliminates the need for humans to resort to the "wild" for their survival. Those who insist on doing so are trying to fill a psychological void. I know, triizine, what you say sounds all nice and moral, but the fact is that if everybody took to the hills today and hunted their meat, the elk and other species would disappear, which is exactly what happened or almost happened to many American species that were or almost were hunted to extinction. If you insist on eating meat, go to the grocery store.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
Regressive: I see your point, I still think you're full of $h1t.
Reply
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
Reality: - I read a lot of the comments here. First of all, "wealthy American trophy hunters" an obvious attempt to blame rich Americans again. Hello! - did you expect the poor to go up there and hunt polar bears? And is it only Americans? I've heard of Europeans and other non-Americans who have money and like to hunt too. And I read this article to say it's the Canadians who are allowing this hunting to go on. Hello!! did I read wrong? Man, since he appeared on Earth, has done a lot to upset the previous "balance of nature". Think about the percentage of the world's land that has been changed by agriculture, building of houses and cities, mining, roads etc. Does anyone think that 6 billion humans are not changing the habitat of most animals?
Reply-
0%
TrueProgressive2 months ago
Exactly whiner, why do you think we have global warming now. But according to your twisted logic, since humans have soiled the planet, we might as well finish the job.
Reply
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners2 months ago
Of all the big hunting animals, most have been negatively affected by man's presence and invasion of their territory. Tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars, cheetahs, and many other large predator populations have been much more reduced by man than polar bears have. How many of each survive in the wild? Polar bears only are surviving in numbers because they live so far from man's favored living space. If you tranplanted S. Calif. into ANWR there wouldn't be much left for the caribou and polar bears. Good thing people prefer Calif. When I saw gorilla meat secretly photographed at a market in Africa, I saw that wherever man lives, threatened and endangered species will become extinct. "But I have to feed my family" - that's poor people (poachers) doing that. They call it "bush meat". Right, as if the few remaining gorillas are going to feed all the poor in Africa.
Reply -
-
Submitted By:
hurr1
Prostate cancer survivor.
Did you know... Prostate cancer is diagnosed in an estimated 80% of men before they reach age 80.
Not even doctors agree ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Help protect animals affected by Gustav
- 1.0 - My sister is jealous of my relationship with our father
- 4.4 - Radio is the Soundtrack to our Lives
- 4.9 - After prostate cancer surgery. Will you lose your job?
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
MidnightPrism
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
berkeley
ameliog
Eagle_Eye
engineer
BronxBomber
david_nwpa
boatmich
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
