LynnF Posted October 11, 2008 Share Posted October 11, 2008 What makes this all worse today is that if they don't capture the cubs, they said they're going to have to kill them. Even if they didn't the chance that the cubs would survive at a year or just over (as they've estimated) is almost zero. I like the bear vs human capital punishment debate. Apples to oranges but can't help feeling that Dube is right for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryfly Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 "There are nearly 7 billion ( 7 000 000 000 000) of us 2 legged upright bastards" I happen to think humans are not bastards as a species. It is lost (easily) on many people that us humans are part of the earth's bio-eco-sytem. We are not aliens from space who just dropped in on this orb to mess it over. We are as natural a part of the planet as any other creature. Alas, it is not always pretty what we do, but it is imperative that we do not forget who and what we are.... Homo sapiens, resident of the planet along with millions of other species. Lions will eat the oozing intestines out of an still alive gazelle. Snakes eat frogs whole. Nature is ugly from many many aspects. Man is not a lot different than most beasts and what we do is often ugly. We kill for the sake of religion and power and hell we don't even eat what we kill in war. I am uncomfortable with the amount of development in Alberta--and THAT is what this is about. But what we going to do about THAT? Tell everyone who arrived here within the past 40 years (after I came ... naturally ) that they have to leave. I don't like what happened to the sow either. But this was a policy decision. Policies are largely are changed politically. Opposition should be aimed at Ted Morton, and bet he has heard an earful already. As Toolman noted, if they had relocated the bear and it killed another, there'd be some hollering then. Cheers! Clive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toolman Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Since everyone's interested in looking at this situation from an ethical and moral viewpoint... Consider this scenario... What if you were there when the bear attacked the victim and you have a loaded gun capable of killing the bear... Do you... a. You walk away, first explaining to the dying man your ethical view on the situation... or... b. You take aim and pull the trigger...possibly saving the mans life? Personally, I'd fire 5-6 rounds before I even checked to see if it was still moving...then a couple more at close range just to be sure it was'nt...If you were the intended target of the bears attack...you would thank me. I'm a pretty good shot too... In all seriousness, this is'nt Winnie the Pooh we are talking about here, this is a 1,000 lb. aggressive, ambush predator, which just killed a person and now posed a very high risk to the public's saftey. F&W officers do our dirty work, everyday...thankfully they man up to the difficult tasks and take care of business for us...They sure get a lot of flak for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 1000lbs huh? big bitchin bear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toolman Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 ok...600lbs...I had to make it sound big n' dangerous...but I'd still shoot em' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 me, i'd just pee my pants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toolman Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Good idea...that way you will taste bad and the bear might spit you out instead of eating you...you could always poop your pants too, just to be on the safe side...Thanks for the bear tip, Taco... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alhuger Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Looks like they found one of the three: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...89-58280a56e574 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DutchDryfly Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 As stated before, humans are part of nature. As everybody know, anything in nature is prey so that includes us. To kill an animal out of revenge for preying on humans is narrowminded and completely against nature. I agree with Greg that if you are around when a bear attacks, you defend everybodies life as best as you can. But no retalliation after the facts, we as humans are choosing to be around bears when we enter their domain. So to be upset when attacked is a bit strange. I don't see a lion/tiger get shot in a zoo when some fool enters the cage and get eaten. Not the fault of the animal, just human error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayhad Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 this stuff breaks my heart.... I have hunted bears but I have eaten them. I have never killed a bear for a rug or head. I figure if you enter the bush there is an inherrant risk that you may get mauled, thats just how it is.. this just sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 As stated before, humans are part of nature. As everybody know, anything in nature is prey so that includes us. To kill an animal out of revenge for preying on humans is narrowminded and completely against nature. I agree with Greg that if you are around when a bear attacks, you defend everybodies life as best as you can. But no retalliation after the facts, we as humans are choosing to be around bears when we enter their domain. So to be upset when attacked is a bit strange. I don't see a lion/tiger get shot in a zoo when some fool enters the cage and get eaten. Not the fault of the animal, just human error. Dutch, There is absolutely no chance this will ever happen. Ever. Never Ever. If a bear attacks someone near a populated area, then the bear will be dealt with. How could it be otherwise? What is the alternative? Families keep their kids inside because there is a known aggressive bear in the area? Politics will absolutely dictate action is taken. I personally think the bear should be relocated. But something will be done. It has to be. If it comes down to a choice between the rights of the bear vs. the right of the people, then there is no doubt at all where the hammer will fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DutchDryfly Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Rick, I agree with you if the attack happens in a town or village. But the guy was hunting, when was the last time you were hunting in town? (your probably married, so may be it has been a long time ago ) When I visited Sundre I never saw a deer or elk in town. If you go out hunting, you are looking for game which in turn attracts other predators. I like my fishing in remote spots and yes I calculate the risk of meeting a bear. Do I blame a bear if it attacks me, no I don't. It is a risk I am willing to take for fishing remote spots. The point I am trying to make that if someone willingly takes the risk of being out in the wild(hunting, fishing, biking, etc), he should also accept the consequences. If there was an area with landmines, well establised with signs, and he would still enter and step on one, who is to blame? The landmine or the one who took the risk and lost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 I believe if a bear stalks and/or hunts a person then you have to kill it. If a bear is startled and in protecting itself or young attacks someone then it deserves a second chance. No bear is really outside its range since a bear has a very large range and may have been forced to move for food or safety. Moving a bear does not really work unless you find a range that has no bears. Otherwise you are just bringing conflict to another bear. People have to be safe in how they behave in the wild. Firstly why is any hunter out alone period let alone in bear country. Any accident can kill given the cold nights. That being said some of my best friends are hunters. I want them to be safe. If these particular bears fed on a person...then I would say they have to go. Fish and wildlife always prefer to shot first management method for bears and especially for wolves. Sad thanksgiving for more than a few people over the lost of a person. Sun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinhogdaddy Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 I have some more information on why the mama bear was killed although it makes me ache to know they HAD to shoot it. It turns out that this group of bears was also responsible for killing a Clydesdale horse a few weeks back. Even though I share and agree with the same opinions as Dutchdryfly, I guess it had to be done. Still makes me sad though. FHD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutfisher Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Why don't they just put them in a zoo for 5 to 10 and then let 'em out and see if they are better? Of course I'm being facetious but it seems to me there is a bit of a double standard. I just don't understand the mentality sometimes. Less red tape to execute an animal I suppose. I'm not sticking up for the bear, it's an obvious solution to a serious problem, so why then....... unreal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 me, i'd just pee my pants This is an effective grizzly bear detterent. I can vouch for it! (for anyone who DOESN'T know the story behind this, it's too long for this post... lol ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyW Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I am sure the pressure from the locals had something to do with it as well. There are lots of jursdictions with way higher Grizzly populations and Grizzly bears are not hunting and eating humans. To complicate this situation the sow has now taught her offspring to hunt and eat people. I agree it is very unfortunate for the bears and the human victim, but really as you sit in your house or Condo in Calgary this was of no threat to you. Imagine having kids where there are three grizzlies running around that have no issue with eating people. Contrary to what some of you think it is not natural for bears to eat people. SRD definately did the right thing, unfortunate but right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duanec Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 There are lots of jursdictions with way higher Grizzly populations and Grizzly bears are not hunting and eating humans. To complicate this situation the sow has now taught her offspring to hunt and eat people. I agree it is very unfortunate for the bears and the human victim, but really as you sit in your house or Condo in Calgary this was of no threat to you. Imagine having kids where there are three grizzlies running around that have no issue with eating people. Contrary to what some of you think it is not natural for bears to eat people. SRD definately did the right thing, unfortunate but right. well spoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.