View Full Version : Bear that could open bear proof canisters killed......
Mrs Baggins
11-12-2012, 06:09
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/11/new-york-bear-who-outsmarted-canisters-killed-by-hunter/?test=latestnews
Spirit Bear
11-12-2012, 10:20
Yay for the hunter, he killed a 20 year old bear who wasnt even bothering him. He is a real man, i wonder if he will have her stuffed so he can show her off to his other buddies.
tjkenney67
11-12-2012, 10:29
+1 to Spirit Bear.
To live 20 years in the forest only to be shot in the head for being intelligent... very disturbing.
Rocket Jones
11-12-2012, 10:34
The hunter followed all the rules and took her legally. Quit whining about it.
Spirit Bear
11-12-2012, 10:38
The hunter followed all the rules and took her legally. Quit whining about it.
Im not whining, it's his right to shoot animals to compensate for other short commings he may have. Oh yea, he probably killed her to provide for his family. Stupid me. Hunting is legal in this country and it is every americans right to go out and kill an animal during the season. I just choose not to exercise this right as an american and I don't think of it as an honorable thing to do. Just my opinion on it.
HikerMom58
11-12-2012, 10:58
When I first read the thread, I felt bad for the 20 year old bear. I told my hubby about the thread.. he isn't a hunter. He predicted that the non-hunters on WB would not like what happened to the bear & share their opinion. Right on!! :) I just accept hunting season as a part of our culture...the pro's and the con's.
The hunter followed all the rules and took her legally. Quit whining about it.
It's legal to whine about it. Quit whining about it.
I have to admit, seeing it on faux news makes me suspect that relevant information has been out or twisted. For example, it says the bear was killed by a hunter in town....that's odd. If the bear was in town and was killed because was deemed a threat to town residents, then being a hunter has little to no relevance. Which raises the next question. If the bear still had the yellow ear tags, does that change the rules regarding hunting it, assuming it was actually hunted?
Pedaling Fool
11-12-2012, 11:30
I have to admit, seeing it on faux news makes me suspect that relevant information has been out or twisted. For example, it says the bear was killed by a hunter in town....that's odd. If the bear was in town and was killed because was deemed a threat to town residents, then being a hunter has little to no relevance. Which raises the next question. If the bear still had the yellow ear tags, does that change the rules regarding hunting it, assuming it was actually hunted?
Stop being stupid, naieve and biased. Here's a source just for you, since you fall for the same old tired line of faux news...:rolleyes:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NY-bear-that-outsmarted-canisters-killed-by-hunter-4027667.php
LAKE PLACID, N.Y. (AP) — A black bear that gained notoriety when she learned to open bear-proof backpackers' food canisters has been shot dead by a hunter.
Wildlife officials say the 20-year-old bear known as Yellow Yellow was killed on Oct. 21 in the town of Jay in the eastern Adirondacks. Her name came from the yellow ear tags biologists had placed on her.
The bear was so well known for her ability to work the locks on BearVault food containers that the company advertised that its product was approved for use everywhere but the High Peaks region of the Adirondacks.
Department of Environmental Conservation (http://www.whiteblaze.net/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Department+of+Environmental+Conservation% 22) spokesman Dave Winchell (http://www.whiteblaze.net/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Dave+Winchell%22) tells the Adirondack Daily Enterprise (http://www.whiteblaze.net/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Adirondack+Daily+Enterprise%22) (http://bit.ly/W1AQw6 ) that the hunter contacted DEC because the bear was wearing a radio collar. Her yellow ear tags were missing.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/NY-bear-that-outsmarted-canisters-killed-by-hunter-4027667.php#ixzz2C1Ui4BoX
Cookerhiker
11-12-2012, 11:36
I remember reading that Bear Vault was redesigning their canisters and planned on using Yellow-Yellow to test them. Won't happen now.
I remember reading that Bear Vault was redesigning their canisters and planned on using Yellow-Yellow to test them. Won't happen now.
Her offspring can open them also.
Nutbrown
11-12-2012, 12:50
The only people who have a legitimate reason to complain about hunting are the vegans of this world. To eat only what you hunt is both honorable and humane.
...and to comment on the op, neat that the bear could open the bear proof container.
...and to comment on the op, neat that the bear could open the bear proof container.
Bear canisters are already so clunky, I can only imagine what may be required to hike with next.
I have to admit, seeing it on faux news makes me suspect that relevant information has been out or twisted. For example, it says the bear was killed by a hunter in town....that's odd. If the bear was in town and was killed because was deemed a threat to town residents, then being a hunter has little to no relevance. Which raises the next question. If the bear still had the yellow ear tags, does that change the rules regarding hunting it, assuming it was actually hunted?
Just a minor but important clarification. You said the bear was killed "in town". The article said the bear was killed "in the town of Jay". The term "town" as is used in upstate New York encompasses a much larger area than what many people may think as "the town". In other areas of the country an equivalant might be referred to as a township which may include within it villages or towns. Large forested areas could and normally would be included within a "Town". I feel quite certain the bear was being hunted in the forest, not on the village/city streets.
Cat in the Hat
Snowleopard
11-12-2012, 13:29
I'm sad that she was shot. Still, it looks like it might be a case of good bear gone bad, or more accurately, bad hikers providing food to bears. For many years, she was regarded as a shy bear who avoided people, but recently lost her fear of people and was behaving more aggressive to people.
Video of Yellow Yellow 'borrowing' a pack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMPSjzKzC-c&feature=context-cha
Video of Yellow Yellow in the same area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cZ68EPHoNQ&feature=youtu.be
I can't help but feel that the end is near. She didn't display a lot of fear, even when facing 3-4 loud hikers. While we may very well be a guest when in the High Peaks, it doesn't mean that problem bears won't be removed when necessary.
She's got three cubs; apparently, stealing picnic baskets (and backpacks) is a good livivng.
http://forums.adkhighpeaks.com/showpost.php?p=204031&postcount=43
I spoke to a ranger this past August who told me they were able to track Yellow Yellow pretty well, and found her maintaining a pattern, trolling Johns Brook Lodge, Marcy Dam, and Avalanche Camp most every night. He said Yellow Yellow was "worse" than ever this year, and seemed to have moved to an "all people food diet", he supposed to support the two cubs.
http://forums.adkhighpeaks.com/showpost.php?p=210458&postcount=85
From the news stories, she was probably not in a built up area but was within the town boundaries of Jay, NY, which contains substantial wilderness. If she wasn't taken by a hunter it's possible that the NY rangers might have had to kill her.
peteyglad
11-12-2012, 13:36
Correct on the distinction between the term "town." In NY the central living place is called a village while the outlying area is called a town. For example, I grew up in the village of Clayton with an area of 2.6 square miles. The town of Clayton was 104 square miles mostly consisting of farm land and forest.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
staehpj1
11-12-2012, 13:37
Her offspring can open them also.
Hell I can't open them, at least not when it is cold! I barely can in the store. Not surprising that her offspring can though, mother bears teach their offspring most of their tool of the trade.
On the hunting thing, I find hunting, done properly, more ethical than the way a lot of our domesticated livestock is raised.
Spirit Bear
11-12-2012, 13:55
Oh yea I forgot...
The penalty for illegally opening a bear canister in NY is death by firing squad.
Oh yea I forgot...
The penalty for illegally opening a bear canister in NY is death by firing squad.
You are not allowed to use the canister she could open in the High Peaks area. Others posted that she was becoming more aggressive. I had my empty pack taken two years ago at Marcy Dam. The bears are not afraid of humans which is not a good thing for the bears life expectancy.
Yep he must feel like a real man now.
Darwin13
11-12-2012, 15:58
killing for the sake of killing doesn't raise any alarm bells with you guys? if youre going to eat it, fine, but making killing a SPORT (a game you play to feel good about yourself?) is ridiculous. People are horrible.
Old Hiker
11-12-2012, 16:02
killing for the sake of killing doesn't raise any alarm bells with you guys? if youre going to eat it, fine, but making killing a SPORT (a game you play to feel good about yourself?) is ridiculous. People are horrible.
And you are what species?
Blissful
11-12-2012, 16:14
killing for the sake of killing doesn't raise any alarm bells with you guys? if youre going to eat it, fine, but making killing a SPORT (a game you play to feel good about yourself?) is ridiculous. People are horrible.
So is the idea we can show mass murder on tv of fellow humans but heaven forbid, NEVER the shooting of an animal....
Death of humans is just so natural.
:confused:
HikerMom58
11-12-2012, 16:18
Sounds like more of the story is coming to light.....poor yellow, yellow!! :( I hope her cubs didn't learn her bad habits- smart bear tho. Leave it to Rasty to think about that piece... :)
Darwin13... I know the point you were trying to make. It's the non-violent side of you coming out...
Darwin13
11-12-2012, 16:38
And you are what species?
i am human, and like everyone else have many flaws. however, one of them isnt personal enjoyment of death so i can have a good time.
Darwin13
11-12-2012, 16:42
So is the idea we can show mass murder on tv of fellow humans but heaven forbid, NEVER the shooting of an animal....
Death of humans is just so natural.
:confused:
Me: Insert claim about how hunting in my opinion is ****ed up.
You: PEOPLE ARE SHOWN DYING ON TV ALL THE TIME SO WHY CANT WE SHOOT ANIMALS!
Um, just becuase I don't agree with hunting for sports sake, does not mean that I think its ok to show 'mass murder' on the tv (which doesn't happen btw, please show me real cadavers from a mass murder on a news show and il concede that point). Animals are animals, we are animals, death to a human and death to a dolphin in my eyes are the same thing.
Pedaling Fool
11-12-2012, 17:17
Nature can be pretty ugly, I'm sure everyone has seen this on Discovery channel and no, that baby seal is NOT dead, but it's sure being terrorized http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0qMT2YBIcg and then you got this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_YN5GnW94o&feature=related
Tons of other examples through out the animal kingdom.
Nutbrown
11-12-2012, 17:39
Why is it assumed that this was a sport killing? Bear meat is eaten just as deer meat is.
bubonicplay
11-12-2012, 17:42
I look down on people that kill wild animals, someday there will be none left.
Lone Wolf
11-12-2012, 17:44
I look down on people that kill wild animals, someday there will be none left.
oy vey :rolleyes:
Nutbrown
11-12-2012, 17:55
I look down on people that kill wild animals, someday there will be none left.
You a vegetarian sweetheart?
1stgenfarmboy
11-12-2012, 18:04
I live in the heartland where "if you don't hunt your just not right" I don't however because i don't like the tast of the wild game.
I live on a farm and raise cows, and pigs, yes to eat, yes my wife gives them names, yes i sometimes have a tear when it comes time
for (the deed) and butchering time.
i don't have a problem with people taking a deer,elk,goose,duck legally, if they eat it and not at all if they need it.
people that pay 3 times more for a permit to kill an elk than they could have bought a hole butchered beef for kinda bothers me though.
i see between 5-40 deer on the way home every day and they are quite the problem with my alfalfa fields, but i let it go and take the hit, i just don't see
it beeing right killing them just because i came into there world and planted something that they love to eat in there field and then saying...
..no no no you can't eat that.
if the old bear was a danger to people then it was time for her to be moved far far away or put down, as much as i don't like it.
Dar
Stop being stupid, naieve and biased. Here's a source just for you, since you fall for the same old tired line of faux news...:rolleyes:
Ah, look at you, responding like a typical over reactive extemist faux news worshiper. Your response added nothing to the discussion but hate, and attempted to deflect the questions raised. Thank you for fitting the stereotype exactly as expected.
Just a minor but important clarification. You said the bear was killed "in town". The article said the bear was killed "in the town of Jay". The term "town" as is used in upstate New York encompasses a much larger area than what many people may think as "the town". In other areas of the country an equivalant might be referred to as a township which may include within it villages or towns. Large forested areas could and normally would be included within a "Town". I feel quite certain the bear was being hunted in the forest, not on the village/city streets.
Cat in the Hat
Thank you for adding to the discussion. If it's not answered in this thread, I'll look up more about the ear tags. Since there were sightings of Yellow Yellow this summer along with the bear canister openings, I would think that the ear tags were still on, which allowed the identification. Yellow Yellow was given ear tags in 2004.
evansprater
11-12-2012, 18:59
More disturbing than these guys killing bears are the dogs they leave to die in the forest. I have encountered multiple dogs with radio collars on now who sobo's have told me they saw 15 miles north the previous day, who have followed me to a road crossing, only to have some hunter drive by in his truck and say, "You see any other dogs up there? This one ain't even mine!" and leave them. One hunter told me they have enough dogs to continually let one or two "live freely" in the forest after they finish hunting and can't find them or don't want to spend the time and effort to find them.
swjohnsey
11-12-2012, 19:07
The only people who have a legitimate reason to complain about hunting are the vegans of this world. To eat only what you hunt is both honorable and humane.
...and to comment on the op, neat that the bear could open the bear proof container.
You really think he ate the bear?
Snowleopard
11-12-2012, 19:12
The bear had a radio collar, so it was definitely Yellow Yellow. It no longer had the yellow tags on it.
I don't hunt and don't care for it at all. But, I regard hunters as our allies in preserving wilderness. Many hunters appreciate the outdoors as much as I do and some know about wildlife and their habitat
Old Hiker
11-12-2012, 19:16
Maybe if we call all the hunters "pro-choice", it'll make it OK.
WingedMonkey
11-12-2012, 19:23
Maybe if we call all the hunters "pro-choice", it'll make it OK.
It will be my pleasure to call you pro-choice.
Old Hiker
11-12-2012, 19:33
It will be my pleasure to call you pro-choice.
.................................................. .................................................. .....................
You really think he ate the bear?
Bet he tastes like ramen.
Nutbrown
11-12-2012, 19:43
You really think he ate the bear?
Any bear hunter I know, and that is quite a few, hunt for the meat. Yes, he ate the bear. Probably in a stew though, old meat it pretty tough.
I have to admit, seeing it on faux news makes me suspect that relevant information has been out or twisted. For example, it says the bear was killed by a hunter in town....that's odd. If the bear was in town and was killed because was deemed a threat to town residents, then being a hunter has little to no relevance. Which raises the next question. If the bear still had the yellow ear tags, does that change the rules regarding hunting it, assuming it was actually hunted?
It's an Associated Press article. Fox, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, etc all use Reuters and AP for much of their news articles. AP most likely picked up the story from the local newspaper.
According to wiki answers...
Black bears can live as long as 23 years in the wild. Their chances of reaching that age are pretty slim though. Survival rates of juveniles and sub-adults are generally less than 50%. Adult bears have an annual survival rate of 50 - 80%, depending on the location. So it's pretty rare to find a bear more than 10 years old.
Sounds like Yellow Yellow lived a long and glorious life.
The bear had a radio collar, so it was definitely Yellow Yellow. It no longer had the yellow tags on it.
Was that to me? I didn't dispute the identity. I'm wondering why the ear tags weren't present. I doubt the hikers that identified it this summer did so because of the radio collar.
To address my concern earlier, I found this video from three months ago with one missing tag...that is, if that's indeed Yellow Yellow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMPSjzKzC-c
I found this quote about Yellow Yellow.
“A lot of people say why don’t you just kill Yellow-Yellow, and your problem will be solved,” Tabor says. “Well, it won’t. ... The reason she’s still there since 2004 is she’s scared of people. A hunter has not harvested her; we have not had to take her out because of aggression. She is what we would conclude to be a good bear for the area because she’s not aggressive.
“She does steal food, and you cannot stop a bear from eating the food that’s available, but you can make them afraid of people, and that’s what we’ve done with her,” he continues. “If we removed her we might get a younger bear, and who knows what personality that bear would hold, and that could be an aggressive young male and we don’t want that. Yellow-Yellow effectively keeps a number of larger males out of the area.”
http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/bears.php
LOL... great video, wish it were longer.
It's an Associated Press article. Fox, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, etc all use Reuters and AP for much of their news articles. AP most likely picked up the story from the local newspaper.
I got that. I'm glad you did too. Even so, there are often multiple stories on the same thing by the AP. Some news sources are pickier about the quality of which one they publish. My local paper is terrible about it. Regardless of who published it, there are still valid questions.
Spirit Bear
11-12-2012, 20:13
Real talk here, no more playing around.
I don't have a problem with hunters, it is their free choice to do that should they choose and follow the rules.
However before we had hunting laws in place the entire southeast AT area there were no more game of any kind virtually to hunt at the turn of the 20th century. Deer were completly whiped out, mountain lions are still extinct in the southeast. And elk, which use to roam all over the southeaster app mountains are no longer in existance, except now in the smokey's they introduced them back and after nearly 10 plus years they have a tagged population of over 100 roaming in the smokey mountain areas.
Buffalo use to roam the southeast as well until they were killed to extinction.
Hunting and over hunting especially extincts natural animals, it is proven fact. Thankfully we now have laws regulating hunting or we would have no wild animals in the southeast left in the wilderness.
Everyone in the 21st century in the united states hunts for sport, yes many eat the meat but they have the funds necessary to buy food at the grocery store despite eating the game meat they kill. Personally it is how they justify their sport, by eating the meat and promoting how great it tastes. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "oh man you have to taste this deer meat sausage, it is so yummy" or I love the taste of deer meet, you must try some.
Well I think we slaughter enough animals in this country for human consumption and there is no need to go out and slaughter more, eat it only to justify me killing it in the first place.
21st century hunters in this country are all 100% sport hunters. It's ok to admit it, just admit you love killing a wild animal, you get a rush from it. But many can't admit that, it messes with their conscience, or they use fall back on religion saying humans are above animals, all the while their conscience is haunting them for doing something they know they shouldnt be doing.
My take on hunting, again I have no problem with those that choose to do it, I just think they need to acknowledge the core behind their motive, they love the thrill of the chase and the kill, the sport of it.
MuddyWaters
11-12-2012, 20:19
I look down on people that kill wild animals, someday there will be none left.
But hunting isnt the cause of that, the cause is loss of habitat. You, and everyone else, is responsible for that.
T.S.Kobzol
11-12-2012, 20:25
He should have the bear stuffed and mounted as if it's trying to open a bear canister.
...
Yay for the hunter, he killed a 20 year old bear who wasnt even bothering him. He is a real man, i wonder if he will have her stuffed so he can show her off to his other buddies.
Nutbrown
11-12-2012, 20:28
Real talk here, no more playing around.
I don't have a problem with hunters, it is their free choice to do that should they choose and follow the rules.
However before we had hunting laws in place the entire southeast AT area there were no more game of any kind virtually to hunt at the turn of the 20th century. Deer were completly whiped out, mountain lions are still extinct in the southeast. And elk, which use to roam all over the southeaster app mountains are no longer in existance, except now in the smokey's they introduced them back and after nearly 10 plus years they have a tagged population of over 100 roaming in the smokey mountain areas.
Buffalo use to roam the southeast as well until they were killed to extinction.
Hunting and over hunting especially extincts natural animals, it is proven fact. Thankfully we now have laws regulating hunting or we would have no wild animals in the southeast left in the wilderness.
Everyone in the 21st century in the united states hunts for sport, yes many eat the meat but they have the funds necessary to buy food at the grocery store despite eating the game meat they kill. Personally it is how they justify their sport, by eating the meat and promoting how great it tastes. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "oh man you have to taste this deer meat sausage, it is so yummy" or I love the taste of deer meet, you must try some.
Well I think we slaughter enough animals in this country for human consumption and there is no need to go out and slaughter more, eat it only to justify me killing it in the first place.
21st century hunters in this country are all 100% sport hunters. It's ok to admit it, just admit you love killing a wild animal, you get a rush from it. But many can't admit that, it messes with their conscience, or they use fall back on religion saying humans are above animals, all the while their conscience is haunting them for doing something they know they shouldnt be doing.
My take on hunting, again I have no problem with those that choose to do it, I just think they need to acknowledge the core behind their motive, they love the thrill of the chase and the kill, the sport of it.
Some of what you say holds water. Yes, without regulation, hunting did almost wipe out a lot of fabulous creatures. And hunting now helps to regulate their numbers at healthy levels.
But you are very wrong when you say that all these hunters have the funds to go to the store and buy the meat that has already been slaughtered. That's a naive and elitist attitude to have.
When more people support, or stop supporting things that are sold in stores, the manufactures change how they do things. Look at the demand for organics. The more people want it, the more it is provided. The same goes for buying meat in the stores. The less it happens, the less animals will have to go through the horrible conditions in the factories.
According to wiki answers...
Black bears can live as long as 23 years in the wild. Their chances of reaching that age are pretty slim though. Survival rates of juveniles and sub-adults are generally less than 50%. Adult bears have an annual survival rate of 50 - 80%, depending on the location. So it's pretty rare to find a bear more than 10 years old.
because she was coming to the end of her natural life is probably the reason she was becoming more aggressive to stealing easy food. Here is a thought... the reason she became so aggressive and now dead is because of hikers ...leaving their food and pack with food smells laying around shelters.
Which is more humane... letting and elderly bear suffer from malnutrition and possibly hurting humans who get in between food and bear... or taking this old creature out with a shot. How many of you have had to put down a pet. It is very sad thing to do but it is what was best for the animal.
Sounds like Yellow Yellow lived a long and glorious life. ........................................
MuddyWaters
11-12-2012, 20:43
Real talk here, no more playing around.
I don't have a problem with hunters, it is their free choice to do that should they choose and follow the rules.
However before we had hunting laws in place the entire southeast AT area there were no more game of any kind virtually to hunt at the turn of the 20th century. Deer were completly whiped out, mountain lions are still extinct in the southeast. And elk, which use to roam all over the southeaster app mountains are no longer in existance, except now in the smokey's they introduced them back and after nearly 10 plus years they have a tagged population of over 100 roaming in the smokey mountain areas.
Buffalo use to roam the southeast as well until they were killed to extinction.
Hunting and over hunting especially extincts natural animals, it is proven fact. Thankfully we now have laws regulating hunting or we would have no wild animals in the southeast left in the wilderness.
Everyone in the 21st century in the united states hunts for sport, yes many eat the meat but they have the funds necessary to buy food at the grocery store despite eating the game meat they kill. Personally it is how they justify their sport, by eating the meat and promoting how great it tastes. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "oh man you have to taste this deer meat sausage, it is so yummy" or I love the taste of deer meet, you must try some.
Well I think we slaughter enough animals in this country for human consumption and there is no need to go out and slaughter more, eat it only to justify me killing it in the first place.
21st century hunters in this country are all 100% sport hunters. It's ok to admit it, just admit you love killing a wild animal, you get a rush from it. But many can't admit that, it messes with their conscience, or they use fall back on religion saying humans are above animals, all the while their conscience is haunting them for doing something they know they shouldnt be doing.
My take on hunting, again I have no problem with those that choose to do it, I just think they need to acknowledge the core behind their motive, they love the thrill of the chase and the kill, the sport of it.
You obviously have never had a 4 yr old catch their first fish.
They INSIST you cook it so they can eat it.
Children want to kill, and eat things they kill. Until society washes it out of them.
Humans are predators. Sorry, its true. They are the top predator. We ARE part of nature.
Sport hunting is about the pursuit, not the kill.
Animals have better eyes, better ears, better noses than humans. What we have is a larger brain and opposable thumbs.
The loss of game is due to habitat. Not hunting.
In the early 20th century, market hunting wiped out ducks, deer, etc.
Just like greed caused them to cut down nearly every tree unchecked.
GREED.
Not hunting.
Mountain lions and wolves were dangerous nusiance animals that needed to be eradicated to protect livestock.
So were grizzly bears. Bounties were paid to eradicate these animals. Why they had a cost to ranchers and farmers.
GREED.
Hell the great buffalo herds were wiped out INTENTIONALLY to take away the native americans source of food and materials, to drive them into submission and onto reservations. So the white settlers could have their land.
GREED.
The loss of wildlife is primarily due to loss of habitat.
Why? So people can have houses and yards and places to put up fences and call "theirs".
GREED
So they can have factories and chemical plants and oilfields so you can have YOUR car and computer
GREED
MuddyWaters
11-12-2012, 20:57
Have to add that the only reason we have many species studied, managed , ressurected, and protected today is due to hunters and fisherman. Just about the only source of revenue is hunting and fishing license fees as well.
Certainly not due to hikers, they dont pay anything.
HermesUL
11-12-2012, 20:59
I only worry about hunting when it becomes a serious environmental issue, and when it comes into conflict with conservation or compromise the safety of others who engage in outdoor recreation. I hate feeling unsafe outside in hunting season--and you are not entirely safe even when wearing hunter orange. Many species have been driven to extinction by overhunting and overfishing--however, that sort of hunting and fishing is typically of an industrial scale and done for profit--recreational hunting is only an issue in regards to hunting exotic endangered species. In the northeast, hunters regulate deer populations and can take the place for predators that humans have unwisely driven away, such as coyotes.
Personally, I don't hunt. I don't eat meat at all, but that is for environmental reasons; most of my concerns with meat eating deal with the disasters associated with meat production.
A lot of people here seem to be saying that the hunter specifically sought out Yellow-Yellow in order to kill her--however, this is not indicated in the article. The implication of the article is that the hunter happened to kill her and only found out later...with such limited information it is difficult to tell.
Nutbrown
11-13-2012, 09:45
I just heard some numbers, these aren't official, but you get the picture. Deer cause about 200 deaths per year due to auto accidents. Hunters are the cause of about 100 per year (usually accidentally shooting another hunter). So deer are much more dangerous than hunters.
I look down on people that kill wild animals, someday there will be none left.
Which, people or animals? :-?
I just heard some numbers, these aren't official, but you get the picture. Deer cause about 200 deaths per year due to auto accidents. Hunters are the cause of about 100 per year (usually accidentally shooting another hunter). So deer are much more dangerous than hunters.
So maybe we make everyone happy...........
Sic the deer on the bears..........:confused:
1stgenfarmboy
11-13-2012, 10:20
So maybe we make everyone happy...........
Sic the deer on the bears..........:confused:
if we can get the bears to drive cars then we got it made.
Old Hiker
11-13-2012, 10:22
if we can get the bears to drive cars then we got it made.
I wanna see the expression on the driving test evaluator when the bear gets behind the wheel for the driving test!!
Would the license picture have to be taken in the spring so the bear doesn't worry about looking fat in the photo?
if we can get the bears to drive cars then we got it made.
I'm sure that they could get a Rhode Island driver's license.
It seems that the folks at the DMV hand them out to anyone these days. :mad:
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program. :D
Pedaling Fool
11-13-2012, 10:25
According to wiki answers...
Black bears can live as long as 23 years in the wild. Their chances of reaching that age are pretty slim though. Survival rates of juveniles and sub-adults are generally less than 50%. Adult bears have an annual survival rate of 50 - 80%, depending on the location. So it's pretty rare to find a bear more than 10 years old.
Sounds like Yellow Yellow lived a long and glorious life. Nature does kill a lot of kids and it's why we humans have been able to increase our numbers so much; we've seemed to figure out how to sheild our kids from nature. Nature hates kids and love killing them.
turtle fast
11-13-2012, 11:08
I think a good point arose that the story here was not just about a bear who could open a bear canister, but that the bear was becoming more brazen and had become a problem bear. If the authorities were already thinking on culling the bear, and as long as the hunter was legally hunting I do not see an issue here. The permits for hunting many game species actually helps the survival of those populations through funds raised for either breeding programs, habitat enrichment or expansion, or overpopulation control. Just if people hunted mice for food...
gizzy bear
11-13-2012, 11:19
technically...the "people" who fed yellow yellow and gave her a false sense of security around humans, is what ultimately killed her...and if the meat was eaten or donated to a good cause (ie homeless shelters, etc...)...it isn't any different than hunting or slaughtering of any other animal for consumption...
turtle fast
11-13-2012, 11:41
Like many have said before here it is likely that he meat was used as well as the hide....especially since bear hunting is so limited. In our state only a few licenses are granted each year through a lottery system with a high cost associated. And because its seen as a once in a long time thing and with the high cost I tend to think people use the animal and especially retain the hide.
I'm sure this incident was investigated properly considering this was a well known, tagged and followed bear. If the person that shot and killed the bear did so outside the scope of legal boundaries, then they will rightly face the consequences of their actions. If within the legal boundaries then it is what it is. Regardless of one's position on hunting or whether or not this bear was harmless is really not a debate that will have an outcome to change either camp's minds. None of us know what the real and complete details of the incident are unless i missed one of the links that shows the actual report done after interviewing the shooter and looking at the physical evidence. I can tell you that most serious hunters are responsible, love the outdoors, have great respect for the game they hunt and understand the importance of proper regulation. Many hunters are avid hikers, backpackers and campers just like those here. And vice versa. Just like in the WB community, their are a few A#&$*$@'s in the hunting community. This guy may or may not have been one of them.
Darwin13
11-13-2012, 15:47
"Animals have better eyes, better ears, better noses than humans. What we have is a larger brain and opposable thumbs."
Those eyes and ears are great at deflecting high powered rifle rounds.
chynabear
11-15-2012, 12:57
I don't really have any problem with legal hunting, but if if he was to have killed the bear with a lance or bow, or even a deadfall, that's the guy I would have respect for...
A very large rifle and a food bag with a set of little bells on it (to wake you up at night).
Oops- that was in response to "what we will need to hike with next?"
HermesUL
11-15-2012, 21:41
I just heard some numbers, these aren't official, but you get the picture. Deer cause about 200 deaths per year due to auto accidents. Hunters are the cause of about 100 per year (usually accidentally shooting another hunter). So deer are much more dangerous than hunters.
Those are not comforting numbers. Who is to say what they would be in the absence of hunting, or with increased hunting?
Based on those numbers and a few others (6 million deer killed per year by hunters), we arrive at an interesting number: For each 60,000 deer we kill, one person dies by accident (not to say how many are injured). In other terms, we kill one person for every 0.2% decrease in the deer population.
To have any dramatic effect on the deer population, a lot of us would need to die by accident. I'm not sure, but I bet there would be less loss of life if we worked to maintain a healthy predator population and quit hunting. Can't say for sure.
TunaSlayer
11-16-2012, 02:36
Without the efforts of hunters/conservationists like Teddy Rosevelt and John Muir. Black bears and a lot of other species would not be around today. Most large game was on the verge of extinction til the efforts of these men.
In 1937 the pittman-robertson act was established which placed a 11 percent exsize tax on all guns, amunition and archery equipment. Today that equals 68 million a year. These funds over the last 75 years provided by hunters are the reason you enjoy the trails and park system you have today.
I am proud to be a hunter and of the legacy of outdoor recreation left by our fore fathers whom I am certain would be appalled at the state of affairs today.
SassyWindsor
11-16-2012, 03:26
I question the need to allow bear hunting. I wonder just how overpopulated they are and I doubt many eat the animals, like deer or elk. I'm not a hunter but not against it, but there are cases like this I am against and question the motives behind allowing it (bear hunting).
Lone Wolf
11-16-2012, 08:06
I question the need to allow bear hunting. I wonder just how overpopulated they are and I doubt many eat the animals, like deer or elk. I'm not a hunter but not against it, but there are cases like this I am against and question the motives behind allowing it (bear hunting).
you ever hiked/lived in western N.J. ?
Cookerhiker
11-16-2012, 08:31
Without the efforts of hunters/conservationists like Teddy Rosevelt and John Muir. Black bears and a lot of other species would not be around today. Most large game was on the verge of extinction til the efforts of these men.
In 1937 the pittman-robertson act was established which placed a 11 percent exsize tax on all guns, amunition and archery equipment. Today that equals 68 million a year. These funds over the last 75 years provided by hunters are the reason you enjoy the trails and park system you have today.
I am proud to be a hunter and of the legacy of outdoor recreation left by our fore fathers whom I am certain would be appalled at the state of affairs today.
I agree that hunters are conservationists (though John Muir didn't hunt much) but the reason we have the AT to hike on now is passage of the National Scenic Trails Act in 1968 with the 1978 amendments. And much of the land acquisitions since the mid 60s was funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the repository of royalties from oil drilling and motorboat fuel taxes.
HermesUL
11-17-2012, 03:09
John Muir was not a hunter at all. In fact, he was very much against hunting, and said so many times. He opposed Roosevelt's tendency towards hunting and begged him not to. Here's a quote:
"In nothing does man, with his grand notions of heaven and charity, show forth his innate, low-bred, wild animalism more clearly than in his treatment of his brother beasts. From the shepherd with his lambs to the red-handed hunter, it is the same; no recognition of rights - only murder in one form or another." - John Muir
I would like to try bear meat, but I'm not all that keen on the way in which they are hunted. It is a difficult animal to hunt in a dignified way. I do think bear hunting can be beneficial, if done right, in shaping the bear demograhics to keep the number of adult male bears down, and the more aggressive or curious bears down, but its a difficult thing to get right and still be dignified. If it is too controlled, it amounts to bear farming, and that ain't dignified either. Too many people is want it comes down to, at the end of the day. Same with all meat, and fish and fowl, and all food maybe. We should leave this planet a little more dignified, and a little less populated. Not sure how to do that, but I'm afraid we are going to find out soon enough.
Pedaling Fool
11-17-2012, 12:36
Here's a quote:
"In nothing does man, with his grand notions of heaven and charity, show forth his innate, low-bred, wild animalism more clearly than in his treatment of his brother beasts. From the shepherd with his lambs to the red-handed hunter, it is the same; no recognition of rights - only murder in one form or another." - John MuirJohn Muir was a good man, but that quote is just awful. For starters, there are no "Rights" in nature other than you have the Right to kill, in other words, in nature Might is Right. He also seems to be saying that "wild animalism" is a bad thing, but that's a hallmark of nature. The quote seems to be saying that we humans were put on this earth as a being above nature. Strange :-?
Even shepherds don't escape his wrath; are ants that farm aphids just as horrendous?
Drybones
11-17-2012, 13:18
It didn't pay to be smarrrrrrrter than the average bear.
Altarboy
11-17-2012, 19:19
If the hunter processes and consumes the meat, I'm ok with the kill. If not, shame on him.
Ironically, many of the more commonly hunted species of animals in the U.S., actually have populations which are INCREASING in size. In fact, some (including the Black Bear) are estimated to currently have population levels equal to (or greater than) when the Europeans first settled in North America. (And there is now less natural habitat area today for such animals. Thus, their population density is greater.)
That being said, humans provide much "unnatural" habitat for the animals. Careless disposal of food and other trash makes finding food easy for bears in rural and suburban areas--and attracts them to human-inhabited areas. Farm fields provide deer with abundant sources of grass and grains--and has led to extreme over population of white-tailed deer in much of the U.S.
Without hunting, many animal populations would soar to levels far above what the natural habitat could sustain--leading to mass illness and starvation and/or animals moving in larger numbers in areas inhabited by humans (often creating death for animals which are hit by vehicles). Furthermore, animals in human-inhabited areas cause untold amounts of destruction to human crops, orchards, buildings, vehicles--and sometimes even cause human death. Deer overpopulation is also leading to destruction of forest habitat as the deer eat vegetation and young saplings.
Therefore, hunting becomes a preferred method of controlling animal populations. (It is more humane manner of death and population control; than than starvation, disease, or being hit by a motor vehicle).
In all fairness, John Muir, was not as "anti-hunting" as his modern disciples might tend to be. Furthermore, Muir himself was more tolerant of hunters than his modern followers would sometimes portray him.
Even though John Muir was vehemently anti-hunting as his own personal philosophy--he often associated with hunters and spoke fondly of them. In at least two books, Muir writes extensively (and fondly) about celebrated bear hunter William S. "Davy" Brown. Muir also writes about the hunting methods used by Brown. (See John Muir, "Our National Parks"-1901, and "My First Summer in the Sierra"-1911)
Muir chastised Teddy Roosevelt for hunting, yet spent time with him. camped with him and worked with him politically to bring about the formation of National Parks.
In "Shasta Game"--a 1874 article by Muir, Muir devotes much of the article to a discussion of of multi-day hunting trip that he took with four hunters in the Mount Shasta area. Muir apparently did not hunt himself--but was a full member of the hunting expedition. Muir concludes the article with these words: "We intended hunting two days longer to allow time for the arrival of "Brown's luck," but mountain and plain are already white, and a pass of 6,000 feet high lay between us and home, and the danger of being snow-bound so late in the season hastened our departure. Therefore all our game, sheep, deer, antelope, fox, geese and sage-hens were packed and crammed into the wagon and our hunt was done." (Note Muir's use of the words "we" and "our" in relation to the hunting).
When it came to trying to establish National Parks, Muir often worked along-side well known hunters in order to make the parks a reality.
Was John Muir personally against hunting? Yes! HOWEVER, Muir was also a friend, associate and colleague of many hunters. He accompanied people on hunting trips. He maintained friendly, working, relationships with hunters in order to achieve common environmental and conservation goals. Muir was a very strong opponent of HUNTING--but a friend with many HUNTERS.
Maybe we can learn something from John Muir---such as--how to agree, to disagree, agreeably in regard to topics such as hunting.
HermesUL
11-18-2012, 10:42
Muir's time was also very different from ours...he was living in a world where hunting was essentially unregulated and as a result hunting was driving population sizes down and actively drove many species into extinction, especially in the case of exotic game hunting of which Roosevelt was a fan. Roosevelt shot one of the last white rhinos ever, which is embarrassing to a man praised for his conservation initiatives. However, Muir also understood that hunters could be his allies even if they didn't agree with him, and men like Roosevelt could do a great deal to help his movement.
Hikers need to learn to compromise with hunters in the same way as smokers and non-smokers, or Democrats and Republicans. When two very large groups of passionate people are pitted against each other and refuse to come to an agreement that allows for the existence of the others, then disaster ensues.
Cookerhiker
11-18-2012, 12:30
...Without hunting, many animal populations would soar to levels far above what the natural habitat could sustain--leading to mass illness and starvation and/or animals moving in larger numbers in areas inhabited by humans (often creating death for animals which are hit by vehicles). Furthermore, animals in human-inhabited areas cause untold amounts of destruction to human crops, orchards, buildings, vehicles--and sometimes even cause human death. Deer overpopulation is also leading to destruction of forest habitat as the deer eat vegetation and young saplings.
Therefore, hunting becomes a preferred method of controlling animal populations. (It is more humane manner of death and population control; than than starvation, disease, or being hit by a motor vehicle).
What about the fact that their natural predators - I'm talking deer here - have been wiped out in most of their historic habitat, especially in the East? I'm not saying this to criticize hunting but restoration of panthers and wolves would also help curb the deer population.
Sarcasm the elf
11-18-2012, 13:16
What about the fact that their natural predators - I'm talking deer here - have been wiped out in most of their historic habitat, especially in the East? I'm not saying this to criticize hunting but restoration of panthers and wolves would also help curb the deer population.
That's all well and good in a philosophical sense, but I am quite content with not having large carnivores living in the same heavily populated area as my family and my pets. I am all for wildlife preservation and restoration of wild areas, but I think you will find very little support among the general public for intentional cohabitation with large predators.
Pedaling Fool
11-18-2012, 16:01
That's all well and good in a philosophical sense, but I am quite content with not having large carnivores living in the same heavily populated area as my family and my pets. I am all for wildlife preservation and restoration of wild areas, but I think you will find very little support among the general public for intentional cohabitation with large predators.That has been my understanding, that most people don't want these predators back. I don't understand that, especially since many of these people are self-described, "Nature Lovers".
Then you got them people that are afraid, but use the excuse that there's not enough land on the eastern U.S. Not true.
Just some interesting numbers http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib89.aspx
The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres. In 2007, the major land uses were:
Forestland: 671 million acres (30 percent)
Grassland pasture and rangeland: 614 million (27 percent)
Cropland: 408 million (18 percent)
Special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas): 313 million acres (14 percent)
Miscellaneous uses (like tundra or swamps): 197 million acres (9 percent)
Urban land: 61 million acres (3 percent).
HermesUL
11-18-2012, 18:37
I'm pretty sure that wolves wouldn't kill as many people per year as hunters do. Plus, it's not our business telling the natural world what creatures can live in our backyard. It's not ours.
Drybones
11-18-2012, 18:37
If the hunter processes and consumes the meat, I'm ok with the kill. If not, shame on him.
+1...I love to hunt but dont really like to kill, always felt bad after killing a deer, that's why I got into hiking, an excuse to go to the woods without killing something, never felt bad about killing a quail tho, loved those little raskles for breakfast with biscuits and gravy, my favorite meal. Killing for food is okay with me.