Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Killing bears Options · View
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:18:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Here's an interesting conundrum that I just gleaned from the newspaper today. I thought it might make a nice respite from the hellfire and brimstone arguments of late....

In Coquitlam (which is a suburb of Vancouver) over the last ten days there have been four bears shot dead after coming into the residential area to pick through the garbage that people leave outside their homes. Due to this, the mayor has proposed a $10 000 fine for anyone that leaves their garbage out and results in the "putting down" of a bear. He states:

"The bear gets shot, the resident gets a warning not to do it again," he said. "There's an imbalance there. The consequences don't seem to match."

"If you don't reward them, they don't come -- garbage is the No. 1 problem,"

So is this fine a bit of overkill? Or is it justified when a homeowner's laziness results in the destruction of a bear? Or is this another example of government putting the rights of animals ahead of the rights of humans?

Let's hear your thoughts.


nicola
Posted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:23:38 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 26,100
Location: By a fireplace.
Their habitat is being destroyed, so they need to forage in the suburbs. What do people expect? It's nothing to do with leaving garbage out, that's a mindless answer.
Jillicious
Posted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:49:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
$10,000 is rather steep. Bears are scavengers and anyone leaving their garbage out is inviting them in.
West Yellowstone has this issue. Their garbage cans are insane! I've even been at a loss on how to open them. So perhaps instead of such a ridiculous price for leaving your garbage out they should have requirements on the type of refuse containers they use. They will take a beating every once in a while but they do keep the bears out. And if bears don't actually get food then they will go elsewhere.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
ducky69
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:01:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 446
Location: My own little world
100% JUSTIFIED, the poor Bears

Rubber Ducky your the one, you make my life so much fun
Guest
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:22:15 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,954
I completly agree with Ducky...You wouldn't dangle a piece of meat infront of a animal then kill them when they try to take a bite!!! just sounds ridiculas, but that is exactly what is happening!!! bunny cat grommit fish dog munky2
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:07:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Honestly, I'd have to know more about the current state of the bear population up there in order to have a comment. Issues like this are rarely as cut and dried as they seem on the surface. In the western states here, they recently went through some issues with predators like wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes. The problems came about due to a number of things. First, the populations of these animals was getting low, so they passed strict laws against hunting these predators. Second, the conditions were great for their prey animals (deer, rabbits, etc.). This caused an explosion in the numbers of predators prowling around. Then, when the numbers of prey animals dwindled in the following seasons, the predators got hungry. Nature took it's course.

Regarding the bears, one question to ask is, "How many bears are there?" If there are too many for their natural habitat to support, their only recourse is to leave those areas in search of food. One reasonable solution would seem to be cull their numbers so they can live comfortably in the wild, without the need to encroach on human habitats to survive. If the bears could survive in the wild and are only coming out of the woods because eating is easier in the city, then one answer is to force all the city dwellers to remove any potential food source from the bears' reach. This could have unintended consequences, though. If the bears are SO attuned to getting food in the cities, they may react the same way as the lions and coyotes did down here - namely, using humans and our pets as a food source. It's all well and good to SAY you're at the top of the food chain (when you're sitting safely behind your computer monitor), but when you're face-to-face with a hungry bear, the matter may be up for debate.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:15:58 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
Similar things are happening with the Mountain Lions in the hills above Oakland, and lots of other parts of California too (plus other states probably as well). But it's not just that they like being around people and want to invade our neighborhoods- we're developing further and further into the mountains, where they've been for centuries and we take away their habitat the further we go. Then, everyone's up in arms when somebody's dog gets killed and eaten in their backyard. The garbage thing seems like common sense.

Coyotes are so used to both people and trash now that I remember being in Oakland out late at night, and seeing them stroll down the middle of a street like they owned it. Take the trash away, and it's one less thing the Bears have a reason to show up for. The habitat thing though is something that only gets worse- I think that's the number one problem actually, the garbage just gives them extra incentive to be around us. We're at the top of the food chain, but that doesn't mean we win every little battle and never feel threatened by what's directly underneath us.

I support the fine- don't be a dumbass and invite them into their own deaths.
Remington
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:33:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
The fine is a little excessive. I could see a $1,000 fine, but not $10,000. Just my thoughts though. Where I'm at, wolves and coyotes are a problem. coyotes not so much, but definitely the wolves because the government listed them as "endangered". The wolves are everywhere and are killing deer, elk, moose, whatever it can just for the sake of killing. A lot of hunters in this area want the "endangered" label lifted and hunting season on the wolves extended so everyone actually has a chance of getting an elk or deer during hunting season.

As for the bears, keep your garbage locked up until it's time to set it out to be collected. It's not that hard...

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:45:20 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Remington wrote:
The wolves are everywhere and are killing deer, elk, moose, whatever it can just for the sake of killing.


I was going to say the same thing about the hunters... happy8

But seriously... are you saying that some guy getting the chance to bag a deer or moose should take precedence over maintaining an endangered species?

WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:00:25 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,427
Location: Cakeland, United States
Wolves are murderers now, just killing for sport or the sake of killing?

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:01:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Remington wrote:
The wolves are everywhere and are killing deer, elk, moose, whatever it can just for the sake of killing.


I was going to say the same thing about the hunters... happy8

But seriously... are you saying that some guy getting the chance to bag a deer or moose should take precedence over maintaining an endangered species?


There needs to be balance. Human needs should take precedence over animal needs. But what humans should also realize is that one particular human "need" is to not hunt wildlife to the point of extinction. In general, Fish and Wildlife officers (game wardens) strive to set limits on hunters so all animals can live stress-free. For instance, sometimes the deer populations grow to levels where the forests can't sustain them. If that happens, you can either allow the hunters to cull the "extra" animals, or you can let them starve to death. Which is the more attractive option? Here in Florida, if we have a severely wet rainy season, sometimes the wildlife are all pushed out of the normal forage areas because they're flooded and they can't survive there. We're faced with the same option - let animals starve, or kill them as humanely as possible. In a perfect world, we would never face these decisions, but our world is far from being perfect.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:03:33 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
My overall feelings on this subject are that people choose certain areas to live in, and their choices may incur some natural hazards or dangers when it comes to environmental influences.... whether that be mudslides, tornados... or in this case being in close proximity to potentially dangerous or curious wildlife.

The wildlife listed in this thread that are posing "problems" for people are not those that are naturally inclined to attack a human or intentionally crave mayhem and blood lust. All they are trying to do is eat to stay alive. Their habitat is being pushed further and further back in order to make room for new developments, and so they have nothing to sustain them. When faced in a life or death crisis situation, they will come looking for garbage or small animals (they don't know that Coco or Fluffy are your beloved family pets). As well, when they smell food because people carelessly leave garbage out, they are going to come around.

Same as when you are camping, you are warned not to leave garbage laying out at night unless you want to risk getting some 'visitors'.

My feeling is that if you choose to live in these areas, then put your garbage away, and keep your small pets on a leash and watch them a little closer, especially when you are out at night. If you don't like having to deal with these issues, then move closer to the city and stay away from developments that border natural ravines or areas where wildlife and man live side by side, and are only separated by an invisible border drummed up in the heads of real estate developers.

A neighbouring community is my city regularly has issues with coyotes snatching small cats or dogs on occasion. Most of the people living in that area are against the suggestion to destroy those animals. Seeing them first hand, they have been described as underweight and weak, and are just becoming more daring because it might mean grabbing that chihuahua on the lawn or starving to death. Survival instinct is stronger. We (as humans) would do the same thing if faced with that situation.

I say, keep the fines, and educate the people. And if they don't like it, then they should move to the city. You can't have the serenity of nature in your backyard and not expect to deal with the reality of it.



Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:22:02 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Remington wrote:
The wolves are everywhere and are killing deer, elk, moose, whatever it can just for the sake of killing.


I was going to say the same thing about the hunters... happy8

But seriously... are you saying that some guy getting the chance to bag a deer or moose should take precedence over maintaining an endangered species?


There needs to be balance. Human needs should take precedence over animal needs. But what humans should also realize is that one particular human "need" is to not hunt wildlife to the point of extinction. In general, Fish and Wildlife officers (game wardens) strive to set limits on hunters so all animals can live stress-free. For instance, sometimes the deer populations grow to levels where the forests can't sustain them. If that happens, you can either allow the hunters to cull the "extra" animals, or you can let them starve to death. Which is the more attractive option? Here in Florida, if we have a severely wet rainy season, sometimes the wildlife are all pushed out of the normal forage areas because they're flooded and they can't survive there. We're faced with the same option - let animals starve, or kill them as humanely as possible. In a perfect world, we would never face these decisions, but our world is far from being perfect.


I agree MrNudiepants, letting an animal starve to death is not a solution, regardless of whether it's due to nature (flooding) or man (through urban developments). But I have a serious issue with hunting an endangered species only because they are competing with humans for the same prey, as Remington mentioned.

Now, I don't know my game-culinary-menu very well, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that wolf-steak is not very popular. Killing wolves for sport or their skin, is definitely never ok by my opinion... especially when they are on the endangered species list.

More importantly, if there are issues with the hunters being unable to shoot a deer because there aren't enough of them in the wild, the decision should be to scale back the hunting season or allotment per hunter... not to eliminate the competition, when the competition is having enough trouble surviving as a species as it is...

I agree that balance is the important thing here, but humans throw that balance out of whack so often, that it often just ends up making a bigger mess of things...

Remington
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:29:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Remington wrote:
The wolves are everywhere and are killing deer, elk, moose, whatever it can just for the sake of killing.


I was going to say the same thing about the hunters... happy8

But seriously... are you saying that some guy getting the chance to bag a deer or moose should take precedence over maintaining an endangered species?


That's the problem, wolves are everywhere now. If the hunter is being attacked by a wolf, shouldn't he use is god given right to defend himself? I would say yes!

WellMadeMale wrote:
Wolves are murderers now, just killing for sport or the sake of killing?


Maybe not all wolves are like that, but as far as their behavior goes, that's what they do. Wolves are a very mean dog.. I'd just like to see some evidence that would make me inclined to believe otherwise.

Dancing_Doll wrote:
My overall feelings on this subject are that people choose certain areas to live in, and their choices may incur some natural hazards or dangers when it comes to environmental influences.... whether that be mudslides, tornados... or in this case being in close proximity to potentially dangerous or curious wildlife.

The wildlife listed in this thread that are posing "problems" for people are not those that are naturally inclined to attack a human or intentionally crave mayhem and blood lust. All they are trying to do is eat to stay alive. Their habitat is being pushed further and further back in order to make room for new developments, and so they have nothing to sustain them. When faced in a life or death crisis situation, they will come looking for garbage or small animals (they don't know that Coco or Fluffy are your beloved family pets). As well, when they smell food because people carelessly leave garbage out, they are going to come around.

Same as when you are camping, you are warned not to leave garbage laying out at night unless you want to risk getting some 'visitors'.

My feeling is that if you choose to live in these areas, then put your garbage away, and keep your small pets on a leash and watch them a little closer, especially when you are out at night. If you don't like having to deal with these issues, then move closer to the city and stay away from developments that border natural ravines or areas where wildlife and man live side by side, and are only separated by an invisible border drummed up in the heads of real estate developers.

A neighbouring community is my city regularly has issues with coyotes snatching small cats or dogs on occasion. Most of the people living in that area are against the suggestion to destroy those animals. Seeing them first hand, they have been described as underweight and weak, and are just becoming more daring because it might mean grabbing that chihuahua on the lawn or starving to death. Survival instinct is stronger. We (as humans) would do the same thing if faced with that situation.

I say, keep the fines, and educate the people. And if they don't like it, then they should move to the city. You can't have the serenity of nature in your backyard and not expect to deal with the reality of it.


I completely agree with you here. People living where I'm at enjoying to go hunting. This is a great spot to find that trophy buck you've been after you're whole life. I see that as a sport. Like MrNudiePants said, there are restrictions on where you can hunt and how many you can get in one season. The way it works here, you have to put in for a certain area you want to hunt and if you're drawn that's the area you can hunt. Now some of the public land, as far as I know, is fair game. Once again, you're limited. Hopefully that made sense.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Remington
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:38:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Dancing_Doll wrote:


I agree MrNudiepants, letting an animal starve to death is not a solution, regardless of whether it's due to nature (flooding) or man (through urban developments). But I have a serious issue with hunting an endangered species only because they are competing with humans for the same prey, as Remington mentioned.

Now, I don't know my game-culinary-menu very well, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that wolf-steak is not very popular. Killing wolves for sport or their skin, is definitely never ok by my opinion... especially when they are on the endangered species list.

More importantly, if there are issues with the hunters being unable to shoot a deer because there aren't enough of them in the wild, the decision should be to scale back the hunting season or allotment per hunter... not to eliminate the competition, when the competition is having enough trouble surviving as a species as it is...

I agree that balance is the important thing here, but humans throw that balance out of whack so often, that it often just ends up making a bigger mess of things...


I feel the same way about hunting an endangered species, but wolves are causing problems. But like my previous post said, we are limited to what we can get per season. I think the max (and I could be wrong) is 5 deer, elk or moose. Whatever you decide to hunt that year. Usually hunters just take one, or as far as I know they do.

Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

Guest
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:38:50 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,954
If I saw a bear in my yard I would take pictures of it ^_^. I've had coyotes, deer, and 1 bobcat in my yard over the years... a bear isn't going to bother me unless it tries to get into the house...
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:54:16 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Remington wrote:
[
WellMadeMale wrote:
Wolves are murderers now, just killing for sport or the sake of killing?


Maybe not all wolves are like that, but as far as their behavior goes, that's what they do. Wolves are a very mean dog.. I'd just like to see some evidence that would make me inclined to believe otherwise.


I hope you'll find this evidence convincing (see quote below) The reality is that wolves are not ruthless killer canines that hunt for sport or blood lust. The rarity of their attacks on humans is actually quite astonishing. Hollywood and fairytales have painted wolves as "the bad guy", but they are extremely intelligent pack animals, that are just trying to survive... just like us. Animals will only kill for food or to defend themselves or territory. They don't do it for entertainment. The biological reason for this is that animals do not expend calories for unnecessary activities. It's not efficient in terms of maintaining and using their energy (why waste fuel, especially when resources are so scarce, right?). Plus wolves don't really care about mounting those trophy deer (or human) heads in their dens for bravado or show... happy8

QUOTE: A reasonable source for information is the world-wide study of wolf attacks on humans done by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) in 2002. The finding of the report was that during the 100 years of the 20th century there were between twenty and thirty attacks in North America (including Alaska and Canada, which have relatively high populations of wolves). Of these, three were fatal, all because of rabies. For comparison, during the 20th century there have been 71 fatal grizzly (brown) bear attacks in North America. Each year in the United States, 16-18 people die from dog attacks."

WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:54:53 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,427
Location: Cakeland, United States
I would probably soil my jeans if I were out hiking in a forest and came upon a bear cub. I'd drop everything I had and climb the nearest scalable tree looking for one with branches that would not support a 250 to 400 pound black bear sow.

And even then that would not calm me down. I'd be cursing myself for not bring along my hand cannon.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:59:32 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
WellMadeMale wrote:
I would probably soil my jeans if I were out hiking in a forest and came upon a bear cub. I'd drop everything I had and climb the nearest scalable tree looking for one with branches that would not support a 250 to 400 pound black bear sow.

And even then that would not calm me down. I'd be cursing myself for not bring along my hand cannon.


That actually happened to me once, except the bear climbed the tree in terror before I could even think of doing it. I guess I was a scary sight to see... which was probably true, since I had been trekking for two days at that point...

WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:00:49 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,427
Location: Cakeland, United States
When I read or hear about mad-as-hell ranchers, bitching about losing livestock to the natural predators of any of our western states, all I can do is shake my head and think...

"You are running operations in their natural habitat and acting like this is 1855. You 'own' the land or lease it from the US Government and think it's perfectly natural and 'your right' to kill off the native population of wild animals, to 'protect your investment'.

Greedy bastards.

Our cities and suburbs have taken over all their natural habitat and forced these animals to live in the areas which we have not encroached upon yet.

250 years ago...Oakland, California was the natural range for bear, puma, wolves. As was Kansas City and it's sprawling asphalt and now manicured lawns.

And all we can do is blame the animals.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Remington
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:04:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/21/2010
Posts: 1,753
Dancing_Doll wrote:

I hope you'll find this evidence convincing (see quote below) The reality is that wolves are not ruthless killer canines that hunt for sport or blood lust. The rarity of their attacks on humans is actually quite astonishing. Hollywood and fairytales have painted wolves as "the bad guy", but they are extremely intelligent pack animals, that are just trying to survive... just like us. Animals will only kill for food or to defend themselves or territory. They don't do it for entertainment. The biological reason for this is that animals do not expend calories for unnecessary activities. It's not efficient in terms of maintaining and using their energy (why waste fuel, especially when resources are so scarce, right?). Plus wolves don't really care about mounting those trophy deer (or human) heads in their dens for bravado or show... happy8

QUOTE: A reasonable source for information is the world-wide study of wolf attacks on humans done by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) in 2002. The finding of the report was that during the 100 years of the 20th century there were between twenty and thirty attacks in North America (including Alaska and Canada, which have relatively high populations of wolves). Of these, three were fatal, all because of rabies. For comparison, during the 20th century there have been 71 fatal grizzly (brown) bear attacks in North America. Each year in the United States, 16-18 people die from dog attacks."


Thank you, Doll. I guess I was blinded by my own desire and passion of hunting to look past the fact that wolves aren't exactly as malicious as others like to believe.

WellMadeMale wrote:
I would probably soil my jeans if I were out hiking in a forest and came upon a bear cub. I'd drop everything I had and climb the nearest scalable tree looking for one with branches that would not support a 250 to 400 pound black bear sow.

And even then that would not calm me down. I'd be cursing myself for not bring along my hand cannon.


Haha I'd probably do the same. Now if you see a cub, it's a good idea to clear the area because more than likely the momma bear is somewhere very close by.

Now if a bear sees you at a great distance, it's most likely that the bear will turn around and haul ass the other way. Usually most attacks occur because people don't take the necessary precautions are they startle the bear and it feels threatened.

Which I'm sure you already knew that.. icon_smile


Go check out my new story - How Did This Happen? - John's Story

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 3:16:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Several years ago, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game issued this bulletin...

"Warning: In light of the rising frequency of human/grizzly bear conflicts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, hunters and fishermen to take extra precautions and keep alert of grizzly bears while in the field.

We advise outdoors men to wear noisy little bells on their clothing, so as not to startle bears that aren't expecting them. We also advise outdoors men to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear.

It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Outdoors men should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat: Black bear scat is smaller and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper."
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 3:26:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
When I read or hear about mad-as-hell ranchers, bitching about losing livestock to the natural predators of any of our western states, all I can do is shake my head and think...

"You are running operations in their natural habitat and acting like this is 1855. You 'own' the land or lease it from the US Government and think it's perfectly natural and 'your right' to kill off the native population of wild animals, to 'protect your investment'.

Greedy bastards.

Our cities and suburbs have taken over all their natural habitat and forced these animals to live in the areas which we have not encroached upon yet.

250 years ago...Oakland, California was the natural range for bear, puma, wolves. As was Kansas City and it's sprawling asphalt and now manicured lawns.

And all we can do is blame the animals.



Part of me agrees. It just doesn't make sense to blame or punish a predator animal for acting like a predator animal. But then again... I LIKE beef...

The Seneca tribe had a philosophy that went "We don't inherit the land from our ancestors - we borrow it from our children." The problem is, it's the white man's way to always strive for bigger, better, more land, larger herds... We "civilized" folk are going to have to learn that there HAS to be a balance between nature and development, or nature will die out, plain and simple. It just depends on whether we as a race see the necessity of preserving our outdoors or not.
Jillicious
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 3:49:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
It is hard to not blame wolves around these parts. They were not a part of this ecosystem for nearly a century. Then reintroduced by a group of environmentalists that thought they knew best. The species of wolf reintroduced is nearly three times larger than the original native species of this area. Timberwolves never were native species and now we have to deal with them. So yeah, we blame wolves a lot and for good reason.

Idaho has a hunting season for wolves and a good number have already been bagged. The ecosystem balance was skewed when they were put back into the wild around here. So hunting them has helped balance that out. They really don't attack humans, but are well known for their taste of cattle. I would only imagine how difficult it would be to lose a $500 - $600 calf only to be reimbursed $400 for it. If I were a cattle farmer I would stay on watch every night with my rifle. Just for the chance to shoot one.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 5:05:22 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,427
Location: Cakeland, United States
Yeah, and I loved when my girlfriend would don one of her six mink coats with nothing on underneath it, too.

But a mink never did anything to harm me.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:17:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Wow, I never thought this would be such a hot topic. I hope its not too "contentious."

One thing I've been wondering about this fine, is how the authorities would be able to specify which household was at fault. Would they just issue 10 000 dollar fines to everyone in the area that has garbage out? Or just the one that the bear was digging through at the time of its death?

One thing I should mention is that this area is a metropolitan region of almost 3 million people. Its not exactly a "rural" or backwoods area. I think that dealing with wildlife should be treated differently when considering the differences between the two situations. I grew up in a small town and we had bears walking through our property all the time. I don't think anybody would ever think of killing the bears for eating grapes at 4 in the morning.

My question is why are they even killing the bears at all? It's not like these are grizzlies, prowling the streets, hunting humans and wreaking havoc...these are scavenging black bears and that run away at first site of a human. They probably could relocate them, but since black bears are not even close to being endangered, I guess nobody cares.

A 10 000 fine? That's a bit steep. I fact that's a lot steep! It seems to be another example of punishing the outcome rather than preventing the offending behaviour. How about a 100 dollar fine for everyone that leaves garbage out regardless of whether it results in a bear's death?

It's also different from the situation with wolves in the US. I know a few of you are unhappy with the state of wolves in your areas, but realize that those are very isolated and local issues. Wolves were all but exterminated south of the border before the Yelowstone wolf population was replenished by transplanted wolves from Canada. Even now, the wolf population in the US is tiny, and concentrated in two small regions. I know its a nuisance to have livestock being picked at by hungry lupines, but lets try and focus on the big picture. Many endangered and extinct species are that way because humans considered them a "nuisance."
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:38:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
Are you sure these are black bears and not brown/grizzly bears? I don't suppose it makes a whole lot of difference except to note that black bears seem to have much higher populations than brown/grizzly bears do. They're both opportunistic feeders and if they learn that human garbage cans hold tasty treats inside, there's not a lot you can do to keep them out except for locking the garbage cans away in really sturdy containers.

I've been to Vancouver several times, although I can't say for sure if I've been through Coquitlam or not. I did notice that there are plenty of suburban areas where it did seem likely that wildlife could amble down out of the hills and into the city. I would imagine it would be fairly easy to determine who shot the bear, as you would need some pretty heavy-duty hoisting gear to move the body of a 500 pound bear. I also imagine it would be a heckuva lot easier to fine ONE household $10,000 than it would to fine a whole neighborhood at $100 each. Not to mention the cost-effectiveness of only having ONE court hearing, one summons delivery, etc. I think they're mostly looking at the high dollar amount to be a deterrent, though. After all, how many people can just sit down and write out a check for $10,000?

I grew up in an area of the USA where if it's not edible, it's a pest and deserves death. I NOW live in a city where people call 9-1-1 because they saw something brown and furry in their yard. I can understand the difference between urban and rural thinking. There are a lot of urbanites that can't understand the rural mindset of "There's critters out there that we have to protect our stuff from." I figure if they need the threat of a hefty fine to make them tighten up, then that's what they oughta get.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:29:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
Are you sure these are black bears and not brown/grizzly bears? I don't suppose it makes a whole lot of difference except to note that black bears seem to have much higher populations than brown/grizzly bears do. They're both opportunistic feeders and if they learn that human garbage cans hold tasty treats inside, there's not a lot you can do to keep them out except for locking the garbage cans away in really sturdy containers.

I've been to Vancouver several times, although I can't say for sure if I've been through Coquitlam or not. I did notice that there are plenty of suburban areas where it did seem likely that wildlife could amble down out of the hills and into the city. I would imagine it would be fairly easy to determine who shot the bear, as you would need some pretty heavy-duty hoisting gear to move the body of a 500 pound bear. I also imagine it would be a heckuva lot easier to fine ONE household $10,000 than it would to fine a whole neighborhood at $100 each. Not to mention the cost-effectiveness of only having ONE court hearing, one summons delivery, etc. I think they're mostly looking at the high dollar amount to be a deterrent, though. After all, how many people can just sit down and write out a check for $10,000?

I grew up in an area of the USA where if it's not edible, it's a pest and deserves death. I NOW live in a city where people call 9-1-1 because they saw something brown and furry in their yard. I can understand the difference between urban and rural thinking. There are a lot of urbanites that can't understand the rural mindset of "There's critters out there that we have to protect our stuff from." I figure if they need the threat of a hefty fine to make them tighten up, then that's what they oughta get.



Yes, the bears are black bears. The Vancouver-lower mainland area is pretty much the only place in Western Canada where there are almost no brown bears. I think it does make a difference since black bears are far less aggressive than browns and are far less likely to cause serious injury or death even when involved in a violent conflict with humans. I myself have encountered quite a few back bears and every one has run away (even when they have cubs).

I think you misunderstand the situation. The mayor's proposal suggests that a person will be fined if their garbage being left out results in the killing of a bear by authorities. Homeowners haven't been killing bears themselves. This is Vancouver! Most people here don't have guns. They call animal control and they come and put the bear down.

What I am proposing is the fining of any house that leaves garbage out past a certain time, regardless of whether a bear's death is involved. That way we eliminate the cause and not simply punish the result. We fine people for not cutting their grass...this would be the same thing. No court date. Just a simple fine, like a parking ticket or a fine for urinating in public. Blasting some family with a 10 000 dollar fine seems a bit excessive, when more moderate action can prevent the problem all together.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 11:38:41 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Jillicious wrote:
It is hard to not blame wolves around these parts. They were not a part of this ecosystem for nearly a century. Then reintroduced by a group of environmentalists that thought they knew best. The species of wolf reintroduced is nearly three times larger than the original native species of this area. Timberwolves never were native species and now we have to deal with them. So yeah, we blame wolves a lot and for good reason.

Idaho has a hunting season for wolves and a good number have already been bagged. The ecosystem balance was skewed when they were put back into the wild around here. So hunting them has helped balance that out. They really don't attack humans, but are well known for their taste of cattle. I would only imagine how difficult it would be to lose a $500 - $600 calf only to be reimbursed $400 for it. If I were a cattle farmer I would stay on watch every night with my rifle. Just for the chance to shoot one.


Culling an animal that just came off the endangered species list makes no sense to me, especially using the argument of 'sport hunting' being a good idea for it.

First to quote continental US statistics: "Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005."
"Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation. "
" In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5% of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005."

Conservation through hunting ideology is misconstrued by the general public to mean much needed management that improves the species somehow. The best creature at doing that is the wolf that serves to prey on the unguarded young or the feeble (through age and sickness), yet we seek to eliminate wolves and use man for management instead. Man by contrast as a predator seeks the biggest and best for trophy. It’s hardly the way to improve the health and well being of a species taking the very best. So sport/trophy hunting has no valid scientific or natural value for any species including wolves.

Farmers who are concerned with experiencing conflicts with wolves have other alternatives. They can use guardian dogs like the Great Pyrenees breed. They have been successful at warding off predation. The use of fladry works, bright red/orange flags on a thin rope. The movement scares wolves. There are proven methods to live together peacefully with nature, especially when predation is so low.

Jillicious
Posted: Sunday, July 18, 2010 2:06:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Culling an animal that just came off the endangered species list makes no sense to me, especially using the argument of 'sport hunting' being a good idea for it.


Easy to come up with solutions when you aren't the one actually experiencing it. We'll just tell all the ranchers and shepherds to tie orange or red flags to their herds.

It still does not dismiss the fact that the timberwolf is not and never was a native species to this area. Nor have there been wolves in this area for nearly a century before the environmentalists decided they knew best.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.