Jump to content

Menu

s/o on Environmental action is liberal thread


Recommended Posts

How about this one?

 

Is someone who fully supports this guy necessarily of one perspective or simply demonstrating common sense. I would hope the answer is common sense.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1195970949001/man-fined-for-killing-grizzly-bear-to-protect-his-family/?playlist_id=86856

 

"Many conservationists wish the gov't had taken this one to court..."

 

I think that whomsoever proffered charges should be fired for complete absence of common sense.

 

 

To clarify this may be seen as related to the thread where the OP stated "I read an article about a conservative senator who bought one of those electric cars that you charge up. He was criticized for buying a "liberal-mobile". I thought that was so weird. I know there are different viewpoints about what government regulations should be or how far those regulations or actions should go from a government viewpoint. I just didn't think an individual doing something they felt was good for the environment would qualify them as "liberal" or would offend someone who was conservative."

 

 

if some deem buying a Prius to be liberal is shooting a bear in self defense conservative?

Edited by pqr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er...we get bears in our yard and they're often 5 or 6 feet from the house (even on the back porch on occasion). It's really not common sense to run out and shoot them, especially if you're not sure where your kids are. You might miss the bears and hit a kid or you might enrage the bears.

 

Common sense is making sure you know where the kids are when you're in bear country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your question. :confused:

 

Are you asking if this story will become (or maybe has become) a partisan issue?

 

I don't know if taking one side or the other indicates anything about a person's politics but it does probably indicate something about a persons urban/rural experiences. :001_smile:

 

I have found several national issues lately to be divise not along liberal/conservative lines but along urban/rural lines.

 

To clarify -there are people who either currently live or have lived in rural areas (some are liberal some are conservative). There are people who have only lived in urban (or suburban) areas (some are liberal some are conservative).

 

Some supposedly political issues are really about where you live. :tongue_smilie:

 

For instance the post office crisis seems to matter more urgently to rural people.

 

I spent many years in rural areas: I am fairly 'green', I was releived that endangered fish were rescued from drought threatened rivers, I belive that man had the right to defend his family on his land.

 

To me those issues do not indicate liberal or conservative. They indicate a familiarity with actual wildlife not disney wildlife. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your question. :confused:

 

Are you asking if this story will become (or maybe has become) a partisan issue?

 

 

 

Simple spin off on another thread.

 

I was interested if there was actually anyone who felt that this man was in error and if they would attribute this to a belief system.

 

Those I know, regardless of where they fit on the spectrum, would line up behind this guy.

 

As to not shooting them, the story stated that his wife screamed and he felt they were a threat to his kids. So from someone who has lived in bear country it is common sense to shoot. The "third" shot was also perfectly reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll clarify my perspective based on Denise's great point. I'm a rural person now and was raised a rural person. I'e taken my gun safety course but never bothered getting a gun. We don't have any because neither the husband or I have a particular interest in hunting. I'm comfortable around rifles and shotguns though and half my family owns 1 or 2 or 3 or more.

 

I just don't see the common sense in the situation in the link as it's described. If you live around bears, you live around bears. You keep an eye on the kids and get some noisy dogs. The bears will always be around and if your first response is always to rush out and shoot them then you'd best move somewhere with no bears.

 

ETA: No, I don't think beleif system has anything to do with his actions. Panic yes, but not belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived in bear country, I went into the woods, I played in the woods, there were times my parents had no idea where I was for hours at a time. Bears are simply part of the environment, one does not mess with them....but if my wife were to scream and I looked out and saw 3 grizzlies near the house, I would shoot.

 

The entire town (who also live in bear country) seem to deem his actions reasonable so are they entirely without common sense?

 

I fail to see your point.

 

1. Wife screams

2. You see 3 grizzlies

3. You do not know where your children are (but your wife has screamed)

 

Most people would perceive a threat and if it were 1 in 100 that they were threatening my kids...bang, bang and if need be bang.

 

 

Given that the town is near the Canadian border the bear was probably an illegal alien from Canada and I know that immigration is a conservative liberal issue :-)

Edited by pqr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't kill an endangered species just because ones wife screams.

 

The guy should pay heavy fines and have some "thinking time" behind bars. What a dope!

 

Bill

 

Even the authorities deemed the first two shots as legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived in bear country, I went into the woods, I played in the woods, there were times my parents had no idea where I was for hours at a time. Bears are simply part of the environment, one does not mess with them....but if my wife were to scream and I looked out and saw 3 grizzlies near the house, I would shoot.

 

The entire town (who also live in bear country) seem to deem his actions reasonable so are they entirely without common sense?

 

I fail to see your point.

 

1. Wife screams

2. You see 3 grizzlies

3. You do not know where your children are (but your wife has screamed)

 

Most people would perceive a threat and if it were 1 in 100 that they were threatening my kids...bang, bang and if need be bang.

 

I guess the point is that even among us rural folk your idea of what is common sense is not universal. You started the thread with a fallacy, claiming one course of action as the "common sense" one and further saying that if one challenged that, say with a fine, it was counter to "common sense".

 

As for the townspeople, I made no comment about them. I suppose that if what really makes common sense common is simply the weight of public opinion well maybe it was common sense. But the next question is, was it reasonable?

 

Were his actions reasonable considering the circumstances? Maybe. I'm not convinced. I can see them being understandable but again, that's not always reasonable. People scream when shocked. If you don't know where your kids are you can take a look from the balcony you're looking out from (his circumstance) to see if they're near the bears. You can take a few steps to see if there's a real threat rather then just an illusion of one. Bears are generally just passing through anyway. IME people out here tend to recognize that and don't equate seeing one with an automatic threat. A neighbour once shot into the ground to scare off a nuisance bear but that's about it.

 

I think the real issue is that his actions were understandable and people can easily see his concern and POV.

 

When the bears are out here the kids stay close to the house and when the kids are out the dogs are either with them or in their run to raise the alarm and scare off the bears. Then I generally don't have to worry about running for a gun in the first place.

 

Now, if the story were about Eastern Coyotes then I might be closer to you on this.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the town is near the Canadian border the bear was probably an illegal alien from Canada and I know that immigration is a conservative liberal issue :-)

 

 

I noticed that they gave special mention to the fact that the place was near the Canadian border. As if everything big, cranky and hairy came from here...Okay, other then my husband I mean.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't kill an endangered species just because ones wife screams.

 

The guy should pay heavy fines and have some "thinking time" behind bars. What a dope!

 

Bill

 

I wouldn't go that far myself. I get why he panicked. I just don't see the sense in what he did with just a vague sense of a threat. Bears aren't utomatically threats.

 

But, you shoot a grizzly, you get a fine. *shrug* It's what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common sense is asking ones wife:

 

Honey, are the kids in the house? Because I don't see them down there near the bears.

 

Oh, they are?

 

Then you think maybe I shouldn't kill an endagered species for no reason???

 

That is common sense. The other is stupidity to the maximum degree.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go that far myself. I get why he panicked. I just don't see the sense in what he did with just a vague sense of a threat. Bears aren't utomatically threats.

 

But, you shoot a grizzly, you get a fine. *shrug* It's what happens.

 

Shoot a Grizzly Bear for no good reason and you are supposed to go to prison.

 

A vague sense of threat is not a good reason. If people can't live around wildlife without panicking maybe it would be better they don't live in bear country.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common sense is asking ones wife:

 

Honey, are the kids in the house? Because I don't see them down there near the bears.

 

Oh, they are?

 

Then you think maybe I shouldn't kill an endagered species for no reason???

 

That is common sense. The other is stupidity to the maximum degree.

 

Bill

 

See, I wouldn't give a darn if they were endangered or not but whether the bears were a threat. If I didn't know where the kids were and they weren't with the bears I wouldn't be firing a gun. Bullets and shot ricochet. Big noises can put the idea of a threat into an animal's head where before there was none.

 

At one moment you have a fairly controlled situation where the bears are wandering through your property and you can take a few minutes to establish where the kids are. In the next you're introducing variables that have the potential to make the situation more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I wouldn't give a darn if they were endangered or not but whether the bears were a threat. If I didn't know where the kids were and they weren't with the bears I wouldn't be firing a gun. Bullets and shot ricochet. Big noises can put the idea of a threat into an animal's head where before there was none.

 

At one moment you have a fairly controlled situation where the bears are wandering through your property and you can take a few minutes to establish where the kids are. In the next you're introducing variables that have the potential to make the situation more dangerous.

 

You demonstrate "common sense."

 

The "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality is the polar opposite of common sense.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot a Grizzly Bear for no good reason and you are supposed to go to prison.

 

A vague sense of threat is not a good reason. If people can't live around wildlife without panicking maybe it would be better they don't live in bear country.

Bill

 

I agree. Bears are not automatic threats, especially out in the open country like that where they've got lots of space and are generally more wary of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the headline was misleading since there was no real evidence his family was actually in danger.

 

I think he overreacted and should learn more about bears if he's going to live in bear country. He also should think first and shoot later before he ends up hurting someone in his family.

 

I live in a place where we definitely are more "disney" wildlife than actual wildlife but we do regularly see bears and deer. Our yard is evidently on the bears regular route to and from the river. I'm careful when the kids go outside into the yard, we make sure all garbage is locked away so they aren't encouraged to linger, we have a neighborhood email chain and neighbors will send a message when the bears have been spotted. I don't think the bears we have are endangered anymore but you still aren't allowed to shoot them unless they are causing imminent danger to life or property (and not just garbage cans).

 

We do keep an air horn in our car and one in the house by the door to scare them away if they linger too long. DS was almost late for his Early Intervention class once because we couldn't leave the house. But usually, we all go to the window and watch them. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the information given in the article, it sounds to me like he overreacted.

 

Not knowing where his kids are and seeing bears in the yard, I would first determine where my kids are before I went for the gun and then started shooting. (I'm assuming he wasn't just walking around the house with a gun, and had to take the time to actually go get it from wherever it was.) I agree with the poster who stated that shoot first and question later is not a common sense reaction. Not saying I don't understand how he could have freaked on that situation, but no, I don't agree that his reaction was "common sense".

 

The whole issue of the third shot being the one out of line seems a moot point. I agree that once you have shot the animal as opposed to issuing a warning shot (which I'm not sure why he didn't do) how many times you shoot them doesn't seem to be relevent.

 

FYI, I live in a rural area with bears and mountain lions as well. I don't see this as a partisan issue, just a differing of what the "common sense" reaction would be. Perhaps the law felt that if they didn't issue some sort of fine, then people would shoot the bears whenever they were near their property, whether or not they were a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree he should have been fined. He has a beautiful home in a very wild setting, he should be more informed and prepared to share that space with the wildlife.

 

If you can't hack living out in the middle of nowhere, move to the city.

 

My dad is a hunter and we grew up around guns, I would think my dad would find it to be plain dumb.

 

I don't think it is conservative and I don't think buying a prius is liberal.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the headline was misleading since there was no real evidence his family was actually in danger.

 

 

Remember the source is FOX "News."

 

There is no story or set of facts they won't distort beyond the truth in order to serve their own ends. This is just one more example of the "standard operating procedure" at an outfit dedicated to creating "heat" rather than "light."

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just started reading this thread and was going to post that I was amazed a fox link made it without any comments. Ah well. Nice to know that all is well with the world. ;)

 

As far as your question as I understand it, yes, it is absurd to say that only conservatives should support this guy. One can argue either side of the issue without getting into politics. Of course, politicians, political hacks, media pot stirrers can and will take any issue and make it political. The sad thing is that I think most people have very similar ideas - clean environment, safe families, etc. Rather than discussing the best path for achieving those goals, the aforementioned groups make wild claims like "conservatives don't care about the environment" or "liberals don't want you to protect your family."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone said the bear was 40 yards away...if so, that's really not so close, is it?

 

A grizzly can cover that distance in less than 3 seconds...not a lot of time to chamber a round, aim and fire, and repeat if necessary, particularly under the kind of pressure that one would feel when your life/your loved ones life is on the line.

 

Remember the source is FOX "News."

 

There is no story or set of facts they won't distort beyond the truth in order to serve their own ends. This is just one more example of the "standard operating procedure" at an outfit dedicated to creating "heat" rather than "light."

<snort> took you long enough...<snort>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I wouldn't give a darn if they were endangered or not but whether the bears were a threat. If I didn't know where the kids were and they weren't with the bears I wouldn't be firing a gun. Bullets and shot ricochet. Big noises can put the idea of a threat into an animal's head where before there was none.

 

At one moment you have a fairly controlled situation where the bears are wandering through your property and you can take a few minutes to establish where the kids are. In the next you're introducing variables that have the potential to make the situation more dangerous.

 

I agree with this. Firing a gun when you don't know where the kids are is crazy. It shows a serious lack of knowledge about basic gun safety. He shouldn't have a house in the wild *or* a gun.

 

I would totally shoot a grizzly that was a direct threat to me and/or my family, fine or no. That's not what this story is about.

 

I just started reading this thread and was going to post that I was amazed a fox link made it without any comments. Ah well. Nice to know that all is well with the world. ;)

 

As far as your question as I understand it, yes, it is absurd to say that only conservatives should support this guy. One can argue either side of the issue without getting into politics. Of course, politicians, political hacks, media pot stirrers can and will take any issue and make it political. The sad thing is that I think most people have very similar ideas - clean environment, safe families, etc. Rather than discussing the best path for achieving those goals, the aforementioned groups make wild claims like "conservatives don't care about the environment" or "liberals don't want you to protect your family."

 

As a gun-toting Democrat my argument, as usual, is "why are there so many idiots out there?"

 

Editing because I've looked at some other sources, and they all claim Mr. Hill was aware that his wife and children were inside the house by the time he fired the final shot. If his wife and kids were in the house, then there was no direct threat.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point is is rather stating the obvious to say FOX "News" is not a source to be trusted. Ho hum.

 

Bill

 

Ho hum is right...your stabs have become a predictable corollary to Godwin's law...while THEHUFFINGTONPOST.com is lauded as objective...whatever, it's a free country...have fun.

 

back to the OP, FWIW I also would have shot the grizzly...if I deemed it necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ho hum is right...your stabs have become a predictable corollary to Godwin's law...while THEHUFFINGTONPOST.com is lauded as objective...whatever, it's a free country...have fun.

 

Did someone link HuffPo in this thread? I must've missed it. I thought my link was the only other link in the thread, it's to a newspaper that I *believe* (could be wrong, I didn't double-check) is local to the area in which the incident happened.

 

back to the OP, FWIW I also would have shot the grizzly...if I deemed it necessary.

 

Would you deem it "necessary" to shoot a grizzly that was over 100 feet from your home and your family was inside of the house? Or would you call the appropriate authorities for removal of the animal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ho hum is right...your stabs have become a predictable corollary to Godwin's law...while THEHUFFINGTONPOST.com is lauded as objective...whatever, it's a free country...have fun.

 

back to the OP, FWIW I also would have shot the grizzly...if I deemed it necessary.

 

I think most of us might have shot the bear if it were necessary, but only one seriously lacking in common sense would shoot an endangered Grizzly when it was completely unnecessary.

 

What's predictable are links to FOX "News" that prove to be distortions of the truth.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone link HuffPo in this thread? I must've missed it. I thought my link was the only other link in the thread, it's to a newspaper that I *believe* (could be wrong, I didn't double-check) is local to the area in which the incident happened.

 

Not on THIS thread, no. And I didn't bring up foxnews either.

 

Would you deem it "necessary" to shoot a grizzly that was over 100 feet from your home and your family was inside of the house? Or would you call the appropriate authorities for removal of the animal?

 

Not enough data in your 'hypothetical' to respond for sure, but as I said before, that amount of ground can be covered by a grizzly in less than 3 seconds...didn't I see that the location of some family members was indeterminant at the time? And how fast can I expect a response from the authorities? An hour? a day? a week? Do I have a phone? do I have cell coverage? And how long can I afford to be held hostage in my home by a deadly animal? What if I'm expecting visitors, like my tasty mother in law, and the beast is lying in wait to pounce on her? So, I can't answer definitively whether I'd shoot without knowing more...nor can I indict the person who shot, either...especially since foxnews had something to do with the reporting, who knows?!?:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not on THIS thread, no. And I didn't bring up foxnews either.

 

 

 

Not enough data in your 'hypothetical' to respond for sure, but as I said before, that amount of ground can be covered by a grizzly in less than 3 seconds...didn't I see that the location of some family members was indeterminant at the time? And how fast can I expect a response from the authorities? An hour? a day? a week? Do I have a phone? do I have cell coverage? And how long can I afford to be held hostage in my home by a deadly animal? What if I'm expecting visitors, like my tasty mother in law, and the beast is lying in wait to pounce on her? So, I can't answer definitively whether I'd shoot without knowing more...nor can I indict the person who shot, either...especially since foxnews had something to do with the reporting, who knows?!?:lol:

 

So, you might shoot it if it was causing you inconvenience? Then that would probably not be a good place for you to decide to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you might shoot it if it was causing you inconvenience? Then that would probably not be a good place for you to decide to live.

 

 

A week without being able to leave my house is a bit beyond inconvenient, I'd say. Having my MIL eaten would certainly be inconvenient...root for the bear if you like...I suppose this couple from rural PA should move too? This bear entered their home...the link is from the Associated Press. BILL...is that allowed?!?

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BEAR_IN_HOME_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-03-13-11-21

Edited by Barry Goldwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A week without being able to leave my house is a bit beyond inconvenient, I'd say. Having my MIL eaten would certainly be inconvenient...root for the bear if you like...I suppose this couple from rural PA should move too? This bear entered their home...the link is from the Associated Press. BILL...is that allowed?!?

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BEAR_IN_HOME_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-03-13-11-21

 

Well, Barry. It would be incredibly convenient to have a bear eat my MIL. I would totally root for the bear in that scenario. :D

 

Oh. And FWIW, I definitely think there's a difference between shooting a bear that is 40 yards from your home, and shooting a bear that is IN your home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W

Oh. And FWIW, I definitely think there's a difference between shooting a bear that is 40 yards from your home, and shooting a bear that is IN your home.

 

:iagree: I seriously doubt if the bear decided to linger and you called the authorities it would take them A WEEK to respond. I also doubt the bear would hang out in your yard for a week unless you were feeding them somehow.

 

As for your MIL, call her cell phone and tell her to be careful when she arrives since there's a bear around (or delay her arrival).

 

If there is danger to life or property, shooting may be reasonable. I don't think it should be the first thing tried though unless the danger is imminent, which nothing indicates it was in this case. I don't think shooting is reasonable because of the possibility of inconvenience.

 

If you don't want to be inconvenienced by wildlife - don't live in the woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the facts, the man was reasonable in his actions.

 

Firstly, I thought the Grizzly was no longer endangered, so I looked it up on the Fish and Wildlife page. It was taken off the endangered list in '75 and off the threatened list in '05 so I wonder where they are getting "endangered." Anyone?

 

Secondly, I'm wondering where people live rural where the bears are predictable. I live rural and we don't have bear alerts where we "keep the kids inside." I live at the base of a mountain where people have lived for 150 years, so its not like we are "intruding." Bears just show up, unpredictably. They are unpredictable, especially if they are coming toward or near a home. Bears that avoid people are predictable and not a threat. Bears that chase dogs into homes and attack people like reported by the AP today are a threat. Bears break into homes around here every year. So, bears that come 40 yards close to a home when they can reach a child who is safely sitting on a porch in 3 seconds is a threat. Those bears are not afraid of people or animals. A grizzly is not a little 'ol bear. Its a car, to its an ATV. Turbo.

 

Also, who manages their kids that much that they know if they are on one side of the driveway or the other at any moment?

 

I imagine if he saw the bear and the bear was approaching the house then he felt the bear was being led to the house by something tempting, a smell like a sweet tasting child perhaps.....

 

I'd shoot. I love my kids more than the bear. Call me wacky.

 

The DOW would come get the bear, if you called it in before you shot it, and they'd go put it back where they thought it belonged until it came down again then they would shoot it. It's a problem bear....

 

 

Oh, which reminds me of the story of the bear around Provo, who took an 11 year old boy from his tent, and killed him. The family won a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the DOW for not warning folks of the bear that they had failed to dispatch when he became a problem.

 

 

If we find out this guy poached this bear or killed it somewhere else then brought it home, then that's a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: I seriously doubt if the bear decided to linger and you called the authorities it would take them A WEEK to respond. I also doubt the bear would hang out in your yard for a week unless you were feeding them somehow.

 

As for your MIL, call her cell phone and tell her to be careful when she arrives since there's a bear around (or delay her arrival).

 

If there is danger to life or property, shooting may be reasonable. I don't think it should be the first thing tried though unless the danger is imminent, which nothing indicates it was in this case. I don't think shooting is reasonable because of the possibility of inconvenience.

 

If you don't want to be inconvenienced by wildlife - don't live in the woods.

 

If you read my post, I said, if I deemed it necessary. I never said anything about convenience. You are putting words in my mouth...

 

I do live in the woods...I thoroughly enjoy all sorts of wildlife...but cell phones are not too reliable here, sooooo...guess MIL is a goner...It might take a week for a bear to eat my MIL...

Edited by Barry Goldwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not on THIS thread, no. And I didn't bring up foxnews either.

 

 

 

Not enough data in your 'hypothetical' to respond for sure, but as I said before, that amount of ground can be covered by a grizzly in less than 3 seconds...didn't I see that the location of some family members was indeterminant at the time? And how fast can I expect a response from the authorities? An hour? a day? a week? Do I have a phone? do I have cell coverage? And how long can I afford to be held hostage in my home by a deadly animal? What if I'm expecting visitors, like my tasty mother in law, and the beast is lying in wait to pounce on her? So, I can't answer definitively whether I'd shoot without knowing more...nor can I indict the person who shot, either...especially since foxnews had something to do with the reporting, who knows?!?:lol:

 

But..that is all still hypothetical since none of that is actually applicable to this situation. There was nothing in the article about a MIL on the way.

 

So no? You wouldn't have shot this bear?

 

Shoot-then-find-kids doesn't sound like a good policy to me, but I am familiar with guns so maybe I am biased towards gun safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A week without being able to leave my house is a bit beyond inconvenient, I'd say. Having my MIL eaten would certainly be inconvenient...root for the bear if you like...I suppose this couple from rural PA should move too? This bear entered their home...the link is from the Associated Press. BILL...is that allowed?!?

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BEAR_IN_HOME_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-03-13-11-21

 

Do you live around bears?

 

I do. I've had them in the backyard and on my back porch. We've had to shovel their delightful parting gift off our driveway.

 

Other then tipping the odd compost cart they have never caused trouble. Most people out here generally DON'T run out with a gun because the bears aren't a threat most of the time. Yes, there's always the odd incident somewhere on the continent but frankly most of us living in bear country will never see an aggressive bear.

 

My neighbours and I just don't assume a bear means danger. It means certain precautions, yes but not danger. If we all ran around expecting the worst and taking shots at bears every time we saw one we'd all be in the poorhouse because of what we spent on ammunition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, I'm wondering where people live rural where the bears are predictable.

 

We live in Nova Scotia so the bears (black bears) hibernate. During the winter they aren't around.

 

The predator I worry about around here is the coyote. Some people out west might giggle at that but ours have interbred with wolves and sometimes dogs. They get up to 60 pounds or so and around here aren't showing the fear of people they used to.

 

I'd still be checking for the kids before firing on a coyote though. I'm not firing a gun around my house with no idea where a child might be.

 

For the record, my main interest in this is just to show that this isn't an issue all "common sense" folk would agree on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

I'd shoot. I love my kids more than the bear. Call me wacky.

 

 

 

So you're making a judgement that those who wouldn't shoot love the bear more than their kids? I feel pretty safe in saying that those of us who said we wouldn't shoot under the circumstances given in the story have no problem with killing a bear to protect our kids.

 

Everyone of us has given valid reasons for our position, and none of them included, "I just love bears too much to shoot them!" The thread reflects that some of us didn't consider the given circumstances to be threatening as they were described. I personally would rip a bear's head off with my own teeth if I had to protect my child, and I don't care if it was the last grizzly bear on the face of the planet.

 

Your comment is just one example of the type of judgement and generalizations that are causing so much division in our country today. "Others" who don't agree with YOUR choice, must not love their kids as much as you.... How disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're making a judgement that those who wouldn't shoot love the bear more than their kids? I feel pretty safe in saying that those of us who said we wouldn't shoot under the circumstances given in the story have no problem with killing a bear to protect our kids.

 

Yup. I don't care if the bear is endangered or Winnie the Pooh. But it's got to be posing a threat. I don't want to do something that might make a bear that's passing through into a bear that's going to attack. Gunshot might do that.

Edited by WishboneDawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ultra-liberal dad shot a flying squirrel in his kitchen. With a rifle. He also shot through the cheese board behind the squirrel. And the wall behind that. We had to have a discussion about discharging firearms inside the house. :glare:

 

Squirrels aren't endangered, though. If they were, he would have called a game warden one of the multiple times it chewed its way in. Of course, squirrels don't pose any grave danger, either, so I'd say that's a toss-up.

 

There are bears, too, but they're black bears. I don't find black bears threatening, but I'm aware of their nature. If there was a grizzly in my yard, I'd feel much differently.

Edited by MyCrazyHouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the source is FOX "News."

 

There is no story or set of facts they won't distort beyond the truth in order to serve their own ends. This is just one more example of the "standard operating procedure" at an outfit dedicated to creating "heat" rather than "light."

 

Bill

 

Do you ever get tired of your diatribes?

 

Here you go:

 

http://www.whptv.com/content/OMG/story/Man-shoots-Grizzly-Bear-to-protect-family-faces/NxF0oCpx_kuQkf24bB9UEQ.cspx

 

http://www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-Grizzly-charges-brief-090911

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110916/NEWS07/109160437/Grizzly-shooting-unites-town-Endangered-species-law-pits-man-against-feds

 

http://www.cw15.com/content/OMG/story/Man-shoots-Grizzly-Bear-to-protect-family-faces/NxF0oCpx_kuQkf24bB9UEQ.cspx

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-faces-2-years-in-prison-for-shooting-grizzly-while-defending-family/

 

and yes the Huffington post report which links to.....you guessed it FOX News! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/jeremy-hill-grizzly-bear-shooting_n_936369.html

 

 

You must get beyond your hatred of Fox News. It does not make for good discussion.

Edited by pqr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ultra-liberal dad shot a flying squirrel in his kitchen. With a rifle. He also shot through the cheese board behind the squirrel. And the wall behind that. We had to have a discussion about discharging firearms inside the house. :glare:

 

Squirrels aren't endangered, though. If they were, he would have called a game warden one of the multiple times it chewed its way in. Of course, squirrels don't pose any grave danger, either, so I'd say that's a toss-up.

 

There are bears, too, but they're black bears. I don't find black bears threatening, but I'm aware of their nature. If there was a grizzly in my yard, I'd feel much differently.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the facts, the man was reasonable in his actions.

 

Firstly, I thought the Grizzly was no longer endangered, so I looked it up on the Fish and Wildlife page. It was taken off the endangered list in '75 and off the threatened list in '05 so I wonder where they are getting "endangered." Anyone?

 

Secondly, I'm wondering where people live rural where the bears are predictable. I live rural and we don't have bear alerts where we "keep the kids inside." I live at the base of a mountain where people have lived for 150 years, so its not like we are "intruding." Bears just show up, unpredictably. They are unpredictable, especially if they are coming toward or near a home. Bears that avoid people are predictable and not a threat. Bears that chase dogs into homes and attack people like reported by the AP today are a threat. Bears break into homes around here every year. So, bears that come 40 yards close to a home when they can reach a child who is safely sitting on a porch in 3 seconds is a threat. Those bears are not afraid of people or animals. A grizzly is not a little 'ol bear. Its a car, to its an ATV. Turbo.

 

Also, who manages their kids that much that they know if they are on one side of the driveway or the other at any moment?

 

I imagine if he saw the bear and the bear was approaching the house then he felt the bear was being led to the house by something tempting, a smell like a sweet tasting child perhaps.....

 

I'd shoot. I love my kids more than the bear. Call me wacky.

 

The DOW would come get the bear, if you called it in before you shot it, and they'd go put it back where they thought it belonged until it came down again then they would shoot it. It's a problem bear....

 

 

Oh, which reminds me of the story of the bear around Provo, who took an 11 year old boy from his tent, and killed him. The family won a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the DOW for not warning folks of the bear that they had failed to dispatch when he became a problem.

 

 

If we find out this guy poached this bear or killed it somewhere else then brought it home, then that's a different matter.

 

It seems, at least in the US, that Grizzly Bears are no longer considered endangered. Do note some of the stories in this article as they may explain why some folks are a bit jumpy with bears in the yard.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5013084

 

Hope that NPR will pass SpyCar's legitimate news source test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't kill an endangered species just because ones wife screams.

 

The guy should pay heavy fines and have some "thinking time" behind bars. What a dope!

 

Bill

 

 

Oh, Bill. I'm sorry to disagree with you on this one because I usually don't disagree with you and I do think I understand your argument, but... I don't think the guy was reacting unreasonably and I do think a case could be made for self-defense. Bears are scary. Generally, I am not in favour of killing animals. Certainly hunting for sport is deplorable, IMO. But, this wasn't hunting of any kind. This was a man reacting to the eminent danger to his loved one. Although the number of shots may have been over-reacting, I can't fault him much for that, as I know I've reacted quite badly when confronted by a bear. I've never shot one, of course, but panic did ensue. I would guess that this man may have been over zealous in his shooting due to panic, fright, simple andrenaline... I don't know. Was it overkill (sorry for the bad pun)? Probably. But, his reaction is understandable to me.

 

That said, I also think the fine is a reasonable consequence of his actions.

Edited by Audrey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the male equivalent of a cat fight?

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

hmmmm....do I dare post this.......

 

yeah sure...why not

 

Urinary Olympiad.

 

I don't think the guy was reacting unreasonably and I do think a case could be made for self-defense. Bears are scary.

 

If you look at the other article, the one I linked from the local paper? Wife and kids were in the house and he was aware of that when he fired some of those shots. Therefore, there was no eminent danger when he killed the bear. Sorry, I am on my phone, I cut your quote off in the wrong place a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you ever get tired of your diatribes?

 

Here you go:

 

http://www.whptv.com/content/OMG/story/Man-shoots-Grizzly-Bear-to-protect-family-faces/NxF0oCpx_kuQkf24bB9UEQ.cspx

 

http://www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-Grizzly-charges-brief-090911

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110916/NEWS07/109160437/Grizzly-shooting-unites-town-Endangered-species-law-pits-man-against-feds

 

http://www.cw15.com/content/OMG/story/Man-shoots-Grizzly-Bear-to-protect-family-faces/NxF0oCpx_kuQkf24bB9UEQ.cspx

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-faces-2-years-in-prison-for-shooting-grizzly-while-defending-family/

 

and yes the Huffington post report which links to.....you guessed it FOX News! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/jeremy-hill-grizzly-bear-shooting_n_936369.html

 

 

You must get beyond your hatred of Fox News. It does not make for good discussion.

 

Your first link sources the blog of a deranged bigot called "Angry White Dude."

 

Do you never tire of bring this sort of filth to this forum?

 

You do not seem to be interested in education issues, just inflammatory links and threads designed to stir the pot. It is tiresome.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...