Re: Matt Erickson's letter to the editor attempting to justify killing of grizzly bears. He writes of "the real trophy hunters" taking their "pursuit" of animals "to the next level." They don't kill the bears, they "dedicate' their seasons; they don't kill the bears, they only "pursue" mature animals; they don't kill the bears, they look to "harvest" the older more difficult animals. They are looking to harvest that "perfect animal."
Then he trashes "the standard arguments" against the grizzly hunt with a numbers game: 30 per cent of six per cent, 65 per cent, and the killing of these magnificent creatures "should be managed by science."
In his closing thoughts he says; "...if you have an ethical disagreement with hunting bears that is another issue" and then urges us "to think about the ethics of catch and release fishing."
Mr. Erickson, in one case we have a dead bear and in the other we have a fish swimming away, rather a different outcome.
You have missed the point entirely: this whole issue is about ethics and morals.
These trophy hunters don't need the hides and claws or the meat; they don't need to kill the animals but they do.
Why would anyone want to kill one of these magnificent animals? Could you not use a camera? But it wouldn't be the same, would it? Is it for bragging rights?
I saw a Youtube video of a young woman who had killed a large grizzly.
She then poses with her "trophy," eyes shining with delight. "Isn't he beautiful?" she says. The irony of it all is that she could take such pleasure in killing something so beautiful.
Disgusting!
There is no justification in killing for pleasure.
Eddie Johnson
Prince George
