A Conservative with whom I could not disagree more

Friend of ours was killed in a car, moose collision and not in some remote bog area in northern Alberta, but a well settled agricultural area. What's the problem here ? how could anyone of you object to increased hunting opportunities with the aim of reducing the number. Been pressure for this in Newfoundland for year. Give your heads a shake , guys.

Grizz

Its actually reducing hunting opportunities. Slaughter them for a couple years, then there are none. ever. How does this help us again?
 
Rather than a cull, increasing the number of hunting licenses for sale, reducing the fee for those licenses, allowing any moose, and more than one moose to be taken on a license, and extending the length of the hunting season in those areas designated as a problem would seem to be better solution then a cull. I have nothing against Mr. Fletcher, but to take his council concerning moose populations is analogous to taking the suggestions of a mauling victim on grizzly populations; his point of view might be a bit skewed. But what he has done, is opened the issue to discussion, which is the necessary first step if there is to be a positive change.
 
Rather than a cull, increasing the number of hunting licenses for sale, reducing the fee for those licenses, allowing any moose, and more than one moose to be taken on a license, and extending the length of the hunting season in those areas designated as a problem would seem to be better solution then a cull.

Some of these measures have already been taken. This province is already in the midst of developing a new moose management strategy, and where necessary, expanded hunting opportunities would be part of that. But its not like we are 'overrun' with moose. There are parts of the province where licenses have been decreased because numbers are down. This is where the extremists have no clue about wildlife management.

I have nothing against Mr. Fletcher, but to take his council concerning moose populations is analogous to taking the suggestions of a mauling victim on grizzly populations; his point of view might be a bit skewed.

Exactly.

But what he has done, is opened the issue to discussion, which is the necessary first step if there is to be a positive change.

He's done nothing of the sort. The discussion has already been going on for at least couple of years now. Quite publicly. He has simply lended his voice to the more extreme, and imho, nonsensical side of the debate. This is a wildlife management issue, not a situation that needs an emotional, knee jerk reaction where wildlife are targeted because they are considered a 'pest' or an inconvenience.
 
He's done nothing of the sort. The discussion has already been going on for at least couple of years now. Quite publicly. He has simply lended his voice to the more extreme, and imho, nonsensical side of the debate. This is a wildlife management issue, not a situation that needs an emotional, knee jerk reaction where wildlife are targeted because they are considered a 'pest' or an inconvenience.

You're correct of course, but a necessary part of any discussion is to find the boundaries designated by the extremists on either side of the issue, and find the correct answer between these tolerances, or perhaps I should say intolerances. Whether we like it or not, extremest views are an essential component of any debate.
 
In Ottawa ignorant idiots in electric wheel chairs and motorized bicycles taking up lanes of traffic, suddenly appearing out of no where. Passing you on the right and making lefthand turns infront of you. Crossing intersections diagonally. Travveling the wrong way in a traffic lane etc. Are a hazard and threat.
I recomend a cull of ALL disabled persons to avoid further incedents of creating disabled persons.
Makes sence right?

Either increase hunting tags or better yet relocate them......I hear PEI needs moose. ;P
 
You're correct of course, but a necessary part of any discussion is to find the boundaries designated by the extremists on either side of the issue, and find the correct answer between these tolerances, or perhaps I should say intolerances. Whether we like it or not, extremest views are an essential component of any debate.

That's true. If Mr. Fletcher has contributed anything to this debate, he's offered an extremist view that I am confident (or hopeful) most people will see as nonsensical and reject outright. We don't HAVE to sacrifice wildlife for highway safety.
 
First of all, your link does not work.

Works fine from here.

Secondly, no Newfie`s going to vote for some douche that wants to eliminate all moose in Newfoundland, so the whole story is a non-starter.

Since he's a Manitoba MP, I don't expect any Newfoundlanders or Labradorians will have to worry too much about voting for him. But for some reason, he's interested enough in the debate to be involving himself here. And, unfortunately, there are some here who agree that a cull is the correct and necessary course of action, and therefore a position that needs to be challenged.
 
Second class Canadian citizens in Manitoba,such as myself, would not be given the opportunity to purchase a license to hunt them. Metis or Aboriginal Manitoba's on the other had can kill them wholesale for free. Problem solved....

Russ...
 
Its actually reducing hunting opportunities. Slaughter them for a couple years, then there are none. ever. How does this help us again?

We have deer road collisions here all the time. Solution is to liberalize the season and issue more licenses selectively. Wildlife management. :)

Grizz
 
I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about game populations by the number of vehicle/game collisions. That might provide some idea of game distribution, but not of actual numbers. Where highways are busy, perhaps there needs to be a game exclusion zone extending a quarter mile back from the road, delineated by a fence. While this might be an expensive proposition, it could save lives where major roads cut through moose habitat. Hunting should be a game management tool, that when combined with predation and natural mortality, maximizes the birth rate of the target species, or reduces the population of the target species to a sustainable level, where their numbers have put a strain on their own resources.
 
I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about game populations by the number of vehicle/game collisions. That might provide some idea of game distribution, but not of actual numbers. Where highways are busy, perhaps there needs to be a game exclusion zone extending a quarter mile back from the road, delineated by a fence. While this might be an expensive proposition, it could save lives where major roads cut through moose habitat. Hunting should be a game management tool, that when combined with predation and natural mortality, maximizes the birth rate of the target species, or reduces the population of the target species to a sustainable level, where their numbers have put a strain on their own resources.

One of the problems here is that 95% of the land is Crown land, much of it wilderness, with nearly 1,000 km of a single major highway (the TCH) snaking across it. People have to accept some degree of intersection with wildlife populations, and the risk that goes along with it. Getting behind the wheel is already a risky proposition, but the risk of a moose-vehicle accident is much lower than that of some other vehicular calamity.

Moose licenses were increased by 5,020 in 2011-12, mostly as a knee jerk reaction imho, and now for the upcoming season have been reduced again, by -630. As you point out, there may be little direct correlation between the moose population (wrongly perceived as rampant) and the number of accidents. Never mind that there are over 300,000 registered motor vehicles traveling the highway system described above.
 
How many people here know of the round goby, zebra mussel, asian carp or other invasive species?. The moose is just that, an invasive species not native to Newfoundland. The red squirrel although cute to some is also a import that has impacted the rock. The European Green Crab is now threatening marine stocks in parts of Newfoundland as well. If government efforts to eradicate or control these animals the moose has to be considered as well. Just because it is a large,majestic game animal it has no business in the ecology of the island.
Are you aware that humans did not evolve in Newfoundland? Humans have done more to change the ecological balance of Newfoundland than moose. Are you prepared to consider totally evacuating Newfoundland to preserve ecology of the island?
 
Stupid idea. The man is allowing his personal feelings affect his judgment and turning it into a vendetta. This is an emotional approach to legislation and we all know better than most that emotional laws make for stupid laws. If there is something that must be done for human safety either fence the highways or remove any hunting restrictions from the road. Moose will learn pretty quick to stay away from roads.
 
In Ottawa ignorant idiots in electric wheel chairs and motorized bicycles taking up lanes of traffic, suddenly appearing out of no where. Passing you on the right and making lefthand turns infront of you. Crossing intersections diagonally. Travveling the wrong way in a traffic lane etc. Are a hazard and threat.
I recomend a cull of ALL disabled persons to avoid further incedents of creating disabled persons.
Makes sence right?


If people in electric wheelchairs are passing you in traffic, I think YOU might be the problem here.
 
They never learn .. when we started hitting them with 18 wheelers they never learned .. I think they're Dumb ..

Laugh2

Hahaha. I've always said moose were pretty dumb animals. I definitely should have qualified my statements by saying I know almost nothing about newfie moose and highway systems. I just disagree with the "total annihilation" approach.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom