Local girl just got attacked by a Black Bear while deer hunting in Central Pa.
12-12-2013, 04:30 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
This is the reason to put it down and this is why it will probably be trapped and put down. The cubs will be cared for or if they are big enough, be relocated. Some of our "cubs" are two year old bears that can easily survive on their own. Once a cub is above 60lbs (1yr old) they can be independent.
No one is willing to take a chance that the bear might do it again, there will be too much liability for PA Game. There is a one strike your out when it comes to bear attacks and humans regardless of the situation. This is the same thing Alaska game does when a bear attacks a dog at a residence.
No one is willing to take a chance that the bear might do it again, there will be too much liability for PA Game. There is a one strike your out when it comes to bear attacks and humans regardless of the situation. This is the same thing Alaska game does when a bear attacks a dog at a residence.
Also wanted to point out if it is a bear getting comfy being around humans several states have started a program re-introducing fear to the bears to keep them away. Suppose to traumatize the bear mentally and train it to associate humans with the experience so they start staying away. But to re-iterate aint nothing you gonna do to convince a mama.
12-12-2013, 12:45 PM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 3,649
yeah saw that traumatizing in action, they got stick and beat the bears azz, he was scaed unless ya popped the top on a can of Vienna sausage.
and don't feed me the bit about they don't lose they're fear I have saw it too many times.
the more they are subjected to something different the more accustomed to it they become, I've dealt with bears that ain't afraid of ya, its eerie, you don't know what they will do, if they don't act like a bear should, I'll bust a cap. If they try to bite me, cubs or not, I can't make them too dead!
RR
and don't feed me the bit about they don't lose they're fear I have saw it too many times.
the more they are subjected to something different the more accustomed to it they become, I've dealt with bears that ain't afraid of ya, its eerie, you don't know what they will do, if they don't act like a bear should, I'll bust a cap. If they try to bite me, cubs or not, I can't make them too dead!
RR
12-12-2013, 02:11 PM
#23
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 68
Yes I am primitive and I like it that way.
Specially if modern thinking is don't kill the bear because the bear won't relate being dead to the incident.
I get the cub thing though....that actually makes sense. Otherwise I don't see how a bear attacking a person is any more natural than a person killing a bear.
Specially if modern thinking is don't kill the bear because the bear won't relate being dead to the incident.
I get the cub thing though....that actually makes sense. Otherwise I don't see how a bear attacking a person is any more natural than a person killing a bear.
Ontop of that, I highly doubt the bear "lost its fear" of humans. It was being driven (moving away from humans out of fear of them) and when it felt cornered, it attacked (which is an aggressive action based on fear), and after it attacked, it ran away (because it was afraid). A bear who was not afraid wouldn't have done this.
It says that the bear may have been hit. If it was hit, she has an extra reason to avoid humans. Humans bring pain.
I like hunting. I don't encourage or believe in killing an animal for a human's mistake. The blame lies on humans for this situation, not the other way around. She's just lucky she survived this particular mistake. Most accidents like this aren't as forgiving.
Its kind of astounding that some people can't understand the difference.
1.) Bear had cubs. Can't kill it.
2.) Bear defended cubs in natural setting.
3.) Human mistake.
If anything, a search should be made for the bear to make sure she made it (since she may have been hit) and her cubs weren't orphaned.
12-12-2013, 02:23 PM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,359
Its not "modern" thinking. If you've ever trained an animal in your life, iyou'd understand it as common sense.
Ontop of that, I highly doubt the bear "lost its fear" of humans. It was being driven (moving away from humans out of fear of them) and when it felt cornered, it attacked (which is an aggressive action based on fear), and after it attacked, it ran away (because it was afraid). A bear who was not afraid wouldn't have done this.
It says that the bear may have been hit. If it was hit, she has an extra reason to avoid humans. Humans bring pain.
I like hunting. I don't encourage or believe in killing an animal for a human's mistake. The blame lies on humans for this situation, not the other way around. She's just lucky she survived this particular mistake. Most accidents like this aren't as forgiving.
Its kind of astounding that some people can't understand the difference.
1.) Bear had cubs. Can't kill it.
2.) Bear defended cubs in natural setting.
3.) Human mistake.
If anything, a search should be made for the bear to make sure she made it (since she may have been hit) and her cubs weren't orphaned.
Ontop of that, I highly doubt the bear "lost its fear" of humans. It was being driven (moving away from humans out of fear of them) and when it felt cornered, it attacked (which is an aggressive action based on fear), and after it attacked, it ran away (because it was afraid). A bear who was not afraid wouldn't have done this.
It says that the bear may have been hit. If it was hit, she has an extra reason to avoid humans. Humans bring pain.
I like hunting. I don't encourage or believe in killing an animal for a human's mistake. The blame lies on humans for this situation, not the other way around. She's just lucky she survived this particular mistake. Most accidents like this aren't as forgiving.
Its kind of astounding that some people can't understand the difference.
1.) Bear had cubs. Can't kill it.
2.) Bear defended cubs in natural setting.
3.) Human mistake.
If anything, a search should be made for the bear to make sure she made it (since she may have been hit) and her cubs weren't orphaned.
The part of your thinking I'm laughing at is the part about a dead bear relating her deadness to the incident.
Were not talking about rolling up a newspaper here were talking about dead. Dead bears don't relate anything to anything.
Maybe if they killed the bear in the act she would learn her lesson?
12-12-2013, 02:45 PM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 3,649
look I once startled a cub at very close range, it was actualy 2 cubs but one was within 5 feet when it looked at me and I lunged at it, that cub went off a rock cliff backwards, the sow looked at me and layed her ears back, she was 10 yards away, I spoke to her, told her to go for it, she sauntered down off the rock ledge to find her cub, that's how a bear is sposed to act, maybe a woof and a false charge I would have let her by with.
the arched back stiff hopping 3 step charge would be normal, if she started low and didn't keep her fron't legs stiff to appear larger than she was she would have died, end of story.
RR
the arched back stiff hopping 3 step charge would be normal, if she started low and didn't keep her fron't legs stiff to appear larger than she was she would have died, end of story.
RR
12-12-2013, 06:14 PM
#26
Spike
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 68
LOL Ive worked with and managed animals my hole life.
The part of your thinking I'm laughing at is the part about a dead bear relating her deadness to the incident.
Were not talking about rolling up a newspaper here were talking about dead. Dead bears don't relate anything to anything.
Maybe if they killed the bear in the act she would learn her lesson?
The part of your thinking I'm laughing at is the part about a dead bear relating her deadness to the incident.
Were not talking about rolling up a newspaper here were talking about dead. Dead bears don't relate anything to anything.
Maybe if they killed the bear in the act she would learn her lesson?
A dead bear doesn't relate anything. Again, I repeat. The bear wasn't at fault. It was human error. No need to go kill it for a human mistake.
12-12-2013, 06:43 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,359
Its nobodies mistake....its an act of nature.
It has nothing to do with punishing.
Should we not predator hunt?
How do you justify coyote hunting?
12-13-2013, 04:22 AM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Onslow County, NC
Posts: 1,856
We have interfered and tipped the scales and continue today trying to figure out a balance. One of the most effective methods is hunting. We can either increase the numbers or decrease the numbers through proper management for both predator and prey.
With any animal regulated through management we are only allowed to hunt them when we theoretically are not going to negatively affect the healthy population. The biologist spend every year going through sampling data and harvest data to find if we are trending towards a decline or an increase. With those numbers we determine each season what limits if any are needed on which species. With that being said.
We dont just kill bears to kill bears. We do so within the process allotted to us by those in the wildlife management commissions. This bear in particular was doing what she does, she didn't go out of her way to attack the young lady. That is her natural instinct, if our natural instinct is to kill out of a perceived fear or even a potential risk then we would continue to decimate the wildlife we have left, no different then what we did with cougars and mountain lions.
I understand many people throughout the world place the value of a human life over that of an animal. I do that as well when it comes to my children or wife or family. But i have spent years involved in fishery management and have still to this day seen the negative affects caused by just one movie "JAWS", that movie alone lead to the largest increase in shark fishing/ killing for no other purpose then peoples fears of being attacked on the beach and to get a trophy of a perceived man killer. Its in the end our job and duty to determine whether an animal is deemed an actual threat or a perceived threat. Lost my train of thought on this last paragraph but will edit and change it if my thought process kicks back in. LOL
12-13-2013, 08:15 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,359
We can justify yote hunting because there was a time when nature balanced itself. As the yote populations grew their prey declined. Once the decline reached a point the yotes started to decline with that population. As the yotes population declined the prey started to increase in numbers. It balanced itself. It also balanced itself with other predators keeping the other predators numbers in check. Used to have mountain lions all throughout the US in the lower half. When deer and other animals numbers declined you started to increase conflicts between the predators for remaining food sources. All these things worked in a balancing way.
We have interfered and tipped the scales and continue today trying to figure out a balance. One of the most effective methods is hunting. We can either increase the numbers or decrease the numbers through proper management for both predator and prey.
With any animal regulated through management we are only allowed to hunt them when we theoretically are not going to negatively affect the healthy population. The biologist spend every year going through sampling data and harvest data to find if we are trending towards a decline or an increase. With those numbers we determine each season what limits if any are needed on which species. With that being said.
We dont just kill bears to kill bears. We do so within the process allotted to us by those in the wildlife management commissions. This bear in particular was doing what she does, she didn't go out of her way to attack the young lady. That is her natural instinct, if our natural instinct is to kill out of a perceived fear or even a potential risk then we would continue to decimate the wildlife we have left, no different then what we did with cougars and mountain lions.
I understand many people throughout the world place the value of a human life over that of an animal. I do that as well when it comes to my children or wife or family. But i have spent years involved in fishery management and have still to this day seen the negative affects caused by just one movie "JAWS", that movie alone lead to the largest increase in shark fishing/ killing for no other purpose then peoples fears of being attacked on the beach and to get a trophy of a perceived man killer. Its in the end our job and duty to determine whether an animal is deemed an actual threat or a perceived threat. Lost my train of thought on this last paragraph but will edit and change it if my thought process kicks back in. LOL
We have interfered and tipped the scales and continue today trying to figure out a balance. One of the most effective methods is hunting. We can either increase the numbers or decrease the numbers through proper management for both predator and prey.
With any animal regulated through management we are only allowed to hunt them when we theoretically are not going to negatively affect the healthy population. The biologist spend every year going through sampling data and harvest data to find if we are trending towards a decline or an increase. With those numbers we determine each season what limits if any are needed on which species. With that being said.
We dont just kill bears to kill bears. We do so within the process allotted to us by those in the wildlife management commissions. This bear in particular was doing what she does, she didn't go out of her way to attack the young lady. That is her natural instinct, if our natural instinct is to kill out of a perceived fear or even a potential risk then we would continue to decimate the wildlife we have left, no different then what we did with cougars and mountain lions.
I understand many people throughout the world place the value of a human life over that of an animal. I do that as well when it comes to my children or wife or family. But i have spent years involved in fishery management and have still to this day seen the negative affects caused by just one movie "JAWS", that movie alone lead to the largest increase in shark fishing/ killing for no other purpose then peoples fears of being attacked on the beach and to get a trophy of a perceived man killer. Its in the end our job and duty to determine whether an animal is deemed an actual threat or a perceived threat. Lost my train of thought on this last paragraph but will edit and change it if my thought process kicks back in. LOL
I get your point. I just don't think killing the bear is the problem.
I see the problem being else where. I don't like dramatizing it and making a monster out of bears because of it or any of that kind of nonsense but I have no problem at all with these people killing the bear.
I would want to kill it. It would have a value to me that I can't really explain to have the bear that attacked me hanging on my wall it wouldn't be out of fear or hate or blame.
I think the world has gone to a crazy place when strangers start telling people they can't kill a bear that attacked them.
12-13-2013, 09:52 AM
#30
Typical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Buffalo, WY
Posts: 992
Killing a bear during an attack in self defense is obvious.
Killing a bear that simply acted like a bear and isn't an ongoing threat makes no sense. It's just revenge. If it's not bear season and/or the particular bear isn't legal game the only reason to kill it is pay back. You aren't accomplishing anything except, in this case, orphaning some cubs.
Killing a bear that simply acted like a bear and isn't an ongoing threat makes no sense. It's just revenge. If it's not bear season and/or the particular bear isn't legal game the only reason to kill it is pay back. You aren't accomplishing anything except, in this case, orphaning some cubs.