Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Canadian Sportsmen Speak Out Against Negative Polar-Bear-Hunting Story

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 07, 2012

Canadian Sportsmen Speak Out Against Negative Polar-Bear-Hunting Story

By Chad Love

Canadian hunting groups are fighting back this week over a series of news stories that tried to portray Canadian polar bear hunts in a negative light.

From this story in the Toronto Sun:

Canadian hunting groups are loaded for bear after the sport hunting of polar bears got some bad international press this week. A story in the U.K. newspaper the Daily Mail reported that rich Chinese sportsmen were trophy hunting endangered polar bears in Canada's Far North. "It was very biased and misleading," said Glen Williams, a wildlife consultant with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc in Iqaluit. "Polar bears are not endangered in Canada; they are probably the best managed wildlife species in the country," Williams said. "There's millions of dollars spent each year doing surveys and population estimates on polar bears."

Trophy hunting is when only a head, pelt or antlers are taken by a shooter, leaving the meat to rot and waste. Williams says all of the polar bear is used, eaten and shared in the host village closest to the kill. "It's food. We just had polar bear ribs for supper on Sunday," said Williams, who says the taste and texture is similar to pork roast -- with a bear flavour. "You are legally required to hunt with a dog team; it's not mechanized; you cannot hunt from an airplane; you cannot hunt from a snowmobile; and you have to go with an Inuk guide," Williams said. The hunting of polar bears is strictly controlled and monitored using a quota tag system in Canada, similar to elk tags or moose tags obtained by hunters every season.

Each Inuit community decides how they want to use their allotted tags, either leasing them to sport hunters or using them for sustenance. Young people who are employed as hunting guides raise their own dog teams and make their own incomes with sport hunts. "In Nunavut, hunting is a part of everyday life," said Steve Outhouse, director of communications to Minister Responsible for the North and Nunavut MP Leona Aglukkaq. "When any hunt takes place, including a sport hunt, the meat from the animal is used to feed community members, no usable part of the animal goes to waste."

Your thoughts? Check out the story of an Inuit polar bear hunter here.

 

Comments (7)

Top Rated
All Comments
from vasportsman wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

I am glad they have chosen to speak out against unfair portrayal, and I am glad to know there really is someone out there with the last name, "Outhouse".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dleurquin wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

vasportsman, This guy Steve Outhouse either gets s**t on a lot or demands a heck of a lot of respect from his community. I'm guessing it's the latter. Names like his can build a lot of character and callouses in a man.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from vasportsman wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

dleurquin, I totally agree and he sounds like a good guy, not afraid to speak up and call BS when he sees it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

Leaving the carcass behind when hunting big bears is usually a matter of self-preservation for hunters. Bears commonly kill and eat each other or feed on carcasses of other bears. A hunter would have to have a death wish to be carrying around five hundred pounds of bear parts in griz country almost certainly on his back. Bad enough to have to deal with the pelt and its scent. I think the concept is to leave the carcass so that the other bears in the vicinity will stay busy with it long enough for the hunter to escape with his trophy hide. Also, grizzlies shot in Alaska/Canada after the salmon run just as well be left on the beach anyway. Pretty much inedible unless you crave the scent of rotten fish cooking in your kitchen. Grizzlies shot during the spring hunt would be much more edible but their meat would be bait for any other half-starved bears fresh from hibernation who happen to be in the vicinity.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

So the media unfairly portrayed hunters as a bunch of murderous Neanderthals, got their facts completely wrong and ignored the economic benefit we provide- this is news?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from COLORADOKID wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

If the people who have the right to hunt these animals because of their native heritage want to earn money by letting someone else do the hunting and still feed their people with the animal that is killed then more power to them. they would be hunting the animals themselves and using the meat in the same way. I hope the bad press people realize that the natives have to survive and thats all they are doing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nehunter92 wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

Part of the issue with the polar bears "endangered" status is that tjeir listing has nothing to do with the polar bears current population estimates. Rather, it is based on the BELEIF that if global warming was to occur (or contine, depending on your point of view) than the polar bears would probably take a serious hit, and possibly be wiped out. That is all based on what might happen though. If you were to take global warming out of the equation, then polar bears would be considered to be in fantastic shape. A good way to think of it is this. In a valley, there is a society composed of many villages. Some of these villages have shrinking populations, others have growing populations but that majority of the villages are stable. On top of the mountain is huge boulder, balanced on the edge of a cliff, and there are groups of people pushing it from both sides. If the boulder falls off the cliff the villages in the valley will all be crushed, and the society wiped out. If it does not, then the society will prosper for the next 500 years. Thats the situation (as I see it) with the polar bears.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from vasportsman wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

I am glad they have chosen to speak out against unfair portrayal, and I am glad to know there really is someone out there with the last name, "Outhouse".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dleurquin wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

vasportsman, This guy Steve Outhouse either gets s**t on a lot or demands a heck of a lot of respect from his community. I'm guessing it's the latter. Names like his can build a lot of character and callouses in a man.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

So the media unfairly portrayed hunters as a bunch of murderous Neanderthals, got their facts completely wrong and ignored the economic benefit we provide- this is news?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from vasportsman wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

dleurquin, I totally agree and he sounds like a good guy, not afraid to speak up and call BS when he sees it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from COLORADOKID wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

If the people who have the right to hunt these animals because of their native heritage want to earn money by letting someone else do the hunting and still feed their people with the animal that is killed then more power to them. they would be hunting the animals themselves and using the meat in the same way. I hope the bad press people realize that the natives have to survive and thats all they are doing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from nehunter92 wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

Part of the issue with the polar bears "endangered" status is that tjeir listing has nothing to do with the polar bears current population estimates. Rather, it is based on the BELEIF that if global warming was to occur (or contine, depending on your point of view) than the polar bears would probably take a serious hit, and possibly be wiped out. That is all based on what might happen though. If you were to take global warming out of the equation, then polar bears would be considered to be in fantastic shape. A good way to think of it is this. In a valley, there is a society composed of many villages. Some of these villages have shrinking populations, others have growing populations but that majority of the villages are stable. On top of the mountain is huge boulder, balanced on the edge of a cliff, and there are groups of people pushing it from both sides. If the boulder falls off the cliff the villages in the valley will all be crushed, and the society wiped out. If it does not, then the society will prosper for the next 500 years. Thats the situation (as I see it) with the polar bears.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ontario Honker ... wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

Leaving the carcass behind when hunting big bears is usually a matter of self-preservation for hunters. Bears commonly kill and eat each other or feed on carcasses of other bears. A hunter would have to have a death wish to be carrying around five hundred pounds of bear parts in griz country almost certainly on his back. Bad enough to have to deal with the pelt and its scent. I think the concept is to leave the carcass so that the other bears in the vicinity will stay busy with it long enough for the hunter to escape with his trophy hide. Also, grizzlies shot in Alaska/Canada after the salmon run just as well be left on the beach anyway. Pretty much inedible unless you crave the scent of rotten fish cooking in your kitchen. Grizzlies shot during the spring hunt would be much more edible but their meat would be bait for any other half-starved bears fresh from hibernation who happen to be in the vicinity.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment