It is illegal to hunt wild boar in Alberta

[Rman]

Why are you arguing that hunting is such a great means of controlling wild pig populations when we already have all the evidence we need that it doesn’t work?

The US is a great example showing that hunting does not work.

The argument was more along the lines that rules shouldn't be based on the assumptions that illegal activity will spread a population, Questions were asked, and not answered, then ridiculous assumptions were made.
If there is proof and science behind the no hunting thing, then show it, Don't pontificate about how smart it all is without any significant proof, or solution.

If hunting is allowed on private land, and the pigs are so smart, then where will show up and really populate? Wouldn't that be public land? Where they would have the most impact on native species? Where they are protected? That doesn't make sense. Does it?

And if hunting doesn't work, then what does? A government run bureaucratic nightmare program of trapping? Do the pigs not die when they are trapped? Or are they released to some pig resort run by some taxpayer funded tree hugger? It's not we haven't seen that show before?


R.

 

[Rman]

He's applying the "common sense" that Pierre is always talking about. Surface level ideas like "hunting pigs equals less pigs" is obviously the right answer because it makes sense to rural people with at best a high school education. #### the experts, #### experience, #### everything but muh feelings.

Listen fella. You don't know me, at all.

It is always a very weak man that has to introduce politics to an argument. That pretty much guarantees a superior education to whatever it is you have...

Questions were asked. You are too wrapped up in your inflated self-importance to answer them clearly, probably because you either don't really know, or you lack the intelligence to do so

Let's make this very clear. If no hunting is the answer, as claimed, and it's backed by biologists, experienced experts, and not keyboard warriors, then that should be the policy. Period. And it should be the policy everywhere. Not just on public land. No? Because the no public thing, but ok on private thing, especially at this point, should have a fairly heavy stink to it?

R.

 

[Suther]

Let's make this very clear. If no hunting is the answer, as claimed, and it's backed by biologists, experienced experts, and not keyboard warriors, then that should be the policy. Period. And it should be the policy everywhere. Not just on public land. No? Because the no public thing, but ok on private thing, especially at this point, should have a fairly heavy stink to it?

R.

No. Landowners don't have the same incentives that hunters do. Landowners DON'T WANT PIGS on the landscape, while a portion of hunters absolutely do.

The fact you can't comprehend the difference between the two groups speaks volumes.


What questions were asked that have not already been covered? I thought I answered them all but maybe I missed some, it's hard to keep track when people keep asking questions that are answered in my first couple of posts.

 

[Rman]

No. Landowners don't have the same incentives that hunters do. Landowners DON'T WANT PIGS on the landscape, while a portion of hunters absolutely do.

The fact you can't comprehend the difference between the two groups speaks volumes.

You're still on about perceived and pretend criminal activity by would be criminals dictating policy. The fact that you do is what speaks volumes.
This is the exact thinking behind the current gun policies, and many others that do nothing but hurt law abiding citizens.
A portion of hunters? Really? What portion? What percentage? Why would any hunter want an invasive species that puts native species at risk? It's not like these pigs are grocery store quality. The opposite in fact. Not to mention that you are also holding hunters in general to a ridiculously low standard with you comments.
What percentage of the general population would willfully break the law to perpetuate a pastime or hobby that interested them? An incredibly small percentage, no?
Comprehension indeed.

R.

 

[Suther]

You're still on about perceived and pretend criminal activity by would be criminals dictating policy.

If it has happened a bunch of times in the states (and it has) why WOULDN'T we expect the same here?

People poach game every year. The simple fact is there ARE hunters who break the law. Pretending like that's not the reality we live in is stupid.

 

[Rman]

If it has happened a bunch of times in the states (and it has) why WOULDN'T we expect the same here?

People poach game every year. The simple fact is there ARE hunters who break the law. Pretending like that's not the reality we live in is stupid.

Again... you want the actions of a few to dictate the policy to many. That is what is really stupid. You can't see the flaw in that thinking?

R.

 

[simonsez]

A 500-1000$ bounty per wild hog killed would solve the problem, instead of the ridiculous 50$ offered before.

 

[Suther]

Again... you want the actions of a few to dictate the policy to many. That is what is really stupid.

R.

Man I'm done. Clearly you're not interested in listening to anyone, you've already made up your mind - hunting pigs good, regardless of what decades of experience has taught us.

Luckily for the farmers and taxpayers of Alberta its not your decision to make.

 

[Suther]

A 500-1000$ bounty per wild hog killed would solve the problem, instead of the ridiculous 50$ offered before.

Oh yeah. Hunters who want to hunt pigs locally are already a problem, let's add a monetary incentive to it. No way that'll backfire...

 

[Rman]

A 500-1000$ bounty per wild hog killed would solve the problem, instead of the ridiculous 50$ offered before.

There is a big difference, or at least there should be, between hunting, and population of invasive species control.
Every year, for a couple, or few, months there are folks in the wilds of our provinces pursuing game. It would make decent sense that if these folks saw an invasive species that they should be able to kill it?
If the information available shows that this is in fact detrimental, then make the rules apply accordingly, which would be the same rules for everyone. If hunting and killing is detrimental on public land, then why isn't the same on private land?

R.

 

[Rman]

Man I'm done. Clearly you're not interested in listening to anyone, you've already made up your mind - hunting pigs good, regardless of what decades of experience has taught us.

Luckily for the farmers and taxpayers of Alberta its not your decision to make.

You are not reading anything, or understanding it, That's on you, not me.
Several questions were asked. You didn't answer any of them.

What decades of experience?

If the information available shows that hunting is in fact detrimental, then make the rules apply accordingly, which would be the same rules for everyone. If hunting and killing is detrimental on public land, then why isn't the same on private land?

If your answer is "hunters want wild pigs" then that clearly isn't really the answer, is it?
And why all the contempt for hunters in general?


R.

 

[Suther]

If the information available shows that hunting is in fact detrimental, then make the rules apply accordingly, which would be the same rules for everyone. If hunting and killing is detrimental on public land, then why isn't the same on private land?


R.

I did answer that question - landowners and hunters do not have the same priorities. See? You're just ignoring what others say and keep repeating the same things even when they've been answered.

With that, I'm really done here. Good luck to all the Alberta farmers, I pray you never get stuck with someone like Rman making decisions for you.

 

[Rman]

I did answer that question - landowners and hunters do not have the same priorities. See? You're just ignoring what others say and keep repeating the same things even when they've been answered.

With that, I'm really done here. Good luck to all the Alberta farmers, I pray you never get stuck with someone like Rman making decisions for you.

So you really are anti hunter?

The priority should be the elimination of an invasive species. Period. Should it not?

Alberta farmers will do what they always do. Take care of business.
They sure don't need a Lower Mainland cityiot spewing policy out of fear and contempt.
Those that make their own luck through hard work and yes, common sense, certainly don't need any from the likes of you.

R.

 

[farmer47]

i read the points made that hunting pigs increases their numbers, if that is true how were they were eliminated from several country's at a time when guns had not been invented. .

 

[Whybeebaboo]

Well... give it enough time and there will be a club created to protect them. They can harmonize with the "wild" horses.
Folks in Subarus will be out feeding them fawning about how majestic they are.
R.

Hey! I drive a Subaru

 

[apexanimal]

Hunting doesnt create more pigs. Hunting them in an extremely half assed inefficient manner does. Antibiotics do not help bacteria or infections. Using antibiotics in an extremely half assed inefficient manner does. Hunting is a tool that needs to be used properly, if someone is hunting polar bear from a tree stand in mexico, i will not blame "hunting" for the increase in polar bear population. If you want to utterly destroy the boar population you remove almost all hunting laws pertaining to them, and heavily punish anyone who contributes to the longevity of the creatures. I know this will probably be physically impossible for the braindead boomer liberals in this thread to grasp, but well even their own kids have given up on them so no big loss. All they have left is smugly pretending to be intellectual on an obscure canadian gun forum, and fellating anyone they are told is an "expert". Lets not take that away from them. Btw the "experts" also said banning the svt 40 made canada a safer place lmao.

 

[dan belisle]

Hunters don't want their target species to be eradicated though. If hunting works then the USA wouldn't be swimming in them.

You need to look at it from a population perspective, not an individual animal perspective. Otherwise you're likely to draw conclusions that only apply at the individual level, and that's not what's important when discussing something like the establishment of a population in a new landscape.


Coyotes are another example where the population effects of hunting can be counter-intuitive if you only think about the individual level effects.

It isn't hunting. It's killing varmints. No more, no less. Need no regs at all for these. - dan

 

[Rman]

Hey! I drive a Subaru

Was that you on the Forestry Trunk Road at 579 feeding the feral horses? Pulling a bale from the hatch?

R.

 

[Rankuwa]

Still waiting for those smarter than me to explain why the Americans have this problem with as far as I can tell zero restrictions on hunting them.

 

[MiG25]

Still waiting for those smarter than me to explain why the Americans have this problem with as far as I can tell zero restrictions on hunting them.

Do we really need to compare Alberta with Alabama climate and vegetation wise as well as the private vs public land issues? Alabama is about 7% public land, Texas about 4%.

Some of those places also have "Buck a Day" or "No Limit on Does" for Whitetail. Why can't Alberta have that?