s/o on Environmental action is liberal thread

[Spy Car]

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.

 

You could not make a case for "self-defense" as the man was indoors and not in any danger.

 

You might be able to make a case for "defense of another," except the whole family was also inside the house. There was not eminent danger to anyone (except to the bear).

 

This act was inexcusable.

 

Bill

[Audrey]

Urinary Olympiad.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Ah. I had not read your link. Upon doing so, I amend my earlier statement to say that I would have understood his reaction if he or his loved ones had been in eminent danger. If he was not in any danger, then I must question his quickness to engage a firearm. If one cannot control oneself and feels a need to resort to weapons when no eminent danger is present, then one would be best to remove oneself to a place with less intimidating wildlife. Perhaps a nice little place in the mid-west surrounded by the antics of harmless prairie dogs?

[Audrey]

You could not make a case for "self-defense" as the man was indoors and not in any danger.

 

You might be able to make a case for "defense of another," except the whole family was also inside the house. There was not eminent danger to anyone (except to the bear).

 

This act was inexcusable.

 

Bill

 

 

See post in reply to Mrs. Mungo. I stand corrected. :001_smile:

[FairyMom]

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

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Um, yeah. ;)

[KristinaBreece]

Urinary Olympiad.

 

*snicker*

[Spy Car]

See post in reply to Mrs. Mungo. I stand corrected. :001_smile:

 

I can live with that :D

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Btw, I recently saw a mouse in my bedroom at 3 am (dh was out of town) and called a *very* good friend and neighbor to help me catch it. I am not saying I don't understand an over-reaction on an emotional level. :) But you should be able to recognize it as such.

[WishboneDawn]

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.

 

The first time I saw a bear after moving here I was a little freaked out. The second time it was a neat learning opportunity and the kids and I watched it through the window for until it left.

 

The third time I was tired of it and went out on the back porch in my housecoat with a metal bowl and spoon to scare it off.

 

Bears get old rather quickly. :)

[pqr]

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

 

The link that you found so offensive was to a CBS network!!!!

 

If CBS is now "filth" because of a news link and Fox is "filth" because well...you do not like them....and therefore Huffington Post must be "filth" because they link to Fox just what stations pass your muster?

 

The thread was about a man who shot a bear, not your hatred for Fox, further it was a spin off of another post.

 

The discussion was about facts but never let them get in the way.

 

FACT man shot bear

FACT he claims he was concerned for his children

FACT the majority of the town supports him

FACT the governor of his state supports him

FACT the authorities acknowledge that the first two shots were legitimate

 

I was interested if there was any correlation between one's wider view and support of opposition to the individual. It appears that just as there is no correlation between driving a Prius and world wiew the same is true in this case.

 

Reading some of the posts I see the point made by WishboneDawn (and may come around to somewhat of an agreement) but you seem more interested in calling media stations 'filth"....a little melodramatic don't you think?

 

Until your diatribe this post was not really inflammatory.

[Wheres Toto]

Perhaps a nice little place in the mid-west surrounded by the antics of harmless prairie dogs?

 

As someone who was once bit by a prairie dog and still bears the scar - they are nasty little buggers and far from harmless. ;)

[WishboneDawn]

 

FACT man shot bear

 

No one is disputing that.

 

FACT he claims he was concerned for his children

 

No one is disputing that.

 

FACT the majority of the town supports him

FACT the governor of his state supports him

 

This doesn't address the rightness or wrongness of his actions though. This may sway authorities in how they choose to deal with him but otherwise it's a fallacy (appeal to the people - don't think I know my fallacies off the top of my head, I had to google that one. :D) if used to argue he was right in his actions because they support him.

 

FACT the authorities acknowledge that the first two shots were legitimate

 

But again, it doesn't go to support the correctness of what he did. Circumstances can changes between the second and third shot and the the third shot was the one that killed, which makes it very different in essence as well.

 

I'm not a Fox fan but I thought the report did communicate the facts you listed.

 

I was interested if there was any correlation between one's wider view and support of opposition to the individual.

 

I don't know if I ever addressed that point. Sorry. I'm not sure what my wider view would be labeled as anymore. I used to be involved in conservative politics here. I then identified as a liberal for some time. Now...? I think now, for me, subscribing to any overarching label is a no-go.

 

For the record I DO think electric cars and sort of a, "Meh. Whatever," kind of thing. They're impractical for me as I'm out in the boonies on a dirt road and I can't get why folks who DO live in suburban and urban areas where they're much more practical can't simply take a bus, a bike, or car pool.

[Spy Car]

The link that you found so offensive was to a CBS network!!!!

 

Check the source of the liked article, it is from a blog called "Angry White Man." The content of that blog is just what one might imagine. It was not a story produced by the CBS network. That is inaccurate.

 

The facts are a man violated the Endangered Species Act and killed a Grizzly Bear when there was no one at risk of harm.

 

His actions are not supportable.

 

Bill

[pqr]

The facts are a man violated the Endangered Species Act and killed a Grizzly Bear when there was no one at risk of harm.

 

His actions are not supportable.

 

Bill

 

Well as with so many things you and I will just have to disagree.

 

Of course the authorities side with me on the first shots, the governor and I are in agreement so arguing that it was not supportable is demonstrably wrong. You may find his actions wrong but they are certainly supportable. Were they not then he would not have support,

[Mrs Mungo]

You may find his actions wrong but they are certainly supportable. Were they not then he would not have support,

 

I totally disagree with this. People in politics frequently support the insupportable if they think it will score points with their party or constituency.

[WishboneDawn]

Well as with so many things you and I will just have to disagree.

 

the governor and I are in agreement so arguing that it was not supportable is demonstrably wrong. You may find his actions wrong but they are certainly supportable. Were they not then he would not have support,

 

I'm with Mrs. Mungo here.

 

He may have community support because the folks around him know him and know he's a good guy and can sympathize with the choices he made in the heat of the moment. He may have wider support because people fall for that 'appeal to the people' fallacy. He may have the support of the governor because the governor recognizes he has wider support. None of that means he was in the right.

 

None of that needs to dictate what others think of the situation. Even those first shots. After all, there was a third shot. It could be as easily said that if the authorities agreed his first two shots were valid then they were open to the idea that shooting at grizzly bears can be reasonable action. But there was a third shot. It happened after the first two and had different consequences. It needs to be evaluated on it's own merit and it was there that authorities found a problem.

 

I can hit a person twice and be charged with assault. Fine. But if the third time I hit him he falls to the ground and dies of a head injury then I may be charged with manslaughter and I can't argue that because the first two hits were deemed assaults that the last one should be too.

[Spy Car]

Well as with so many things you and I will just have to disagree.

 

Of course the authorities side with me on the first shots, the governor and I are in agreement so arguing that it was not supportable is demonstrably wrong. You may find his actions wrong but they are certainly supportable. Were they not then he would not have support,

 

You snipped the part of my response that pointed out the source of the linked article being from "Angry White Man", not the CBS network. You had it wrong.

 

As others have rightly noted the existence of people who support illegal behavior does not excuse the illegal actions.

 

Bill

[pqr]

I totally disagree with this. People in politics frequently support the insupportable if they think it will score points with their party or constituency.

 

.....who SUPPORT an action meaning that it is NOT unsupportable. It may be wrong headed, it may be stupid, it may be immoral but given the number of people who feel a particular way it IS SUPPORTABLE. I am also not the only board member who feels his actions were supportable.

[pqr]

You snipped the part of my response that pointed out the source of the linked article being from "Angry White Man", not the CBS network. You had it wrong.

 

As others have rightly noted the existence of people who support illegal behavior does not excuse the illegal actions.

 

Bill

 

For crying out loud.

 

Go to the "Home" page on the link it is CBS21 News.

 

You may not like the link, I may not like his online name but the link is to CBS21.

 

WHPTV is CBS21, just follow the link.

[Mrs Mungo]

.....who SUPPORT an action meaning that it is NOT unsupportable. It may be wrong headed, it may be stupid, it may be immoral but given the number of people who feel a particular way it IS SUPPORTABLE. I am also not the only board member who feels his actions were supportable.

 

Clearly, we are working with different definitions of the word supportable.

[pqr]

Clearly, we are working with different definitions of the word supportable.

 

 

Probably :-)

 

 

....but is your definition supportable? :-)

[WishboneDawn]

Probably :-)

 

 

....but is your definition supportable? :-)

:lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

Probably :-)

 

 

....but is your definition supportable :-)

 

Let me give an example. If a police officer shoots a suspect, and the suspect is incapacitated by that shot, then the officer cannot keep shooting them. Saying that the police officer can empty their clip into a suspect because they were a threat on the first shot is *insupportable* through logic, reason and the laws of our land. Some yahoo out there might support it, but that doesn't *actually make it supportable*.

[pqr]

Let me give an example. If a police officer shoots a suspect, and the suspect is incapacitated by that shot, then the officer cannot keep shooting them. Saying that the police officer can empty their clip into a suspect because they were a threat on the first shot is *insupportable* through logic, reason and the laws of our land. Some yahoo out there might support it, but that doesn't *actually make it supportable*.

 

 

Mrs Mungo, you once told me that I know little about a type of music because I did not know that one band had played backup for another x number of years ago. In this case it must be said that you are not well versed in hunting. Your analogy falls flat, I am afraid.

 

1. Once one shoots an animal he is morally bound to "finish the job" so to speak.

 

The idea of leaving an animal wounded is (to use your definition of the term) insupportable. It is simply not done, I know hunters who have spend days tracking a wounded animal. To shoot an animal and then leave it is reprehensible behavior.

 

2. Dangerous game (bear, tiger, buffalo, lion, boar and others) are exponentially MORE dangerous in one of four cases:

 

a. cornered

b. protecting young

c. males in rutting season when there are potential mates in the area

d. when WOUNDED

 

Leaving a wounded grizzly in the woods is, to most hunters, unthinkable.

 

I put it to board members who live in rural areas...what do you think of people who leave wounded animals to suffer? Regardless of the circumstances by which a grizzly was wounded would you want someone to then leave it wandering around in the woods near your town?

[Caroline]

She wasn't making an analogy between the police officer shooting a suspect and the guy shooting the bear. She was explaining what she meant by supportable. Just because people say they support some action does not mean it is logical to support that action.

 

Sorry for speaking for you, Mrs. Mungo.

 

 

Mrs Mungo, you once told me that I know little about a type of music because I did not know that one band had played backup for another x number of years ago. In this case it must be said that you are not well versed in hunting. Your analogy falls flat, I am afraid.

 

1. Once one shoots an animal he is morally bound to "finish the job" so to speak.

 

The idea of leaving an animal wounded is (to use your definition of the term) insupportable. It is simply not done, I know hunters who have spend days tracking a wounded animal. To shoot an animal and then leave it is reprehensible behavior.

 

2. Dangerous game (bear, tiger, buffalo, lion, boar and others) are exponentially MORE dangerous in one of four cases:

 

a. cornered

b. protecting young

c. males in rutting season when there are potential mates in the area

d. when WOUNDED

 

Leaving a wounded grizzly in the woods is, to most hunters, unthinkable.

 

I put it to board members who live in rural areas...what do you think of people who leave wounded animals to suffer? Regardless of the circumstances by which a grizzly was wounded would you want someone to then leave it wandering around in the woods near your town?

[pqr]

She wasn't making an analogy between the police officer shooting a suspect and the guy shooting the bear. She was explaining what she meant by supportable. Just because people say they support some action does not mean it is logical to support that action.

 

Sorry for speaking for you, Mrs. Mungo.

 

 

....perhaps, but this tied very closely to the situation where the authorities agreed that the first shots into the grizzly were acceptable but the third was not. In her analogy the first short at the perp was acceptable but the next was not. Regardless to the intent the analogy was poor as it was too close to the event only substituting the bear for a criminal.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs Mungo, you once told me that I know little about a type of music because I did not know that one band had played backup for another x number of years ago. In this case it must be said that you are not well versed in hunting. Your analogy falls flat, I am afraid.

 

1. Once one shoots an animal he is morally bound to "finish the job" so to speak.

 

The idea of leaving an animal wounded is (to use your definition of the term) insupportable. It is simply not done, I know hunters who have spend days tracking a wounded animal. To shoot an animal and then leave it is reprehensible behavior.

 

2. Dangerous game (bear, tiger, buffalo, lion, boar and others) are exponentially MORE dangerous in one of four cases:

 

a. cornered

b. protecting young

c. males in rutting season when there are potential mates in the area

d. when WOUNDED

 

Leaving a wounded grizzly in the woods is, to most hunters, unthinkable.

 

I put it to board members who live in rural areas...what do you think of people who leave wounded animals to suffer? Regardless of the circumstances by which a grizzly was wounded would you want someone to then leave it wandering around in the woods near your town?

 

First, I did not see an article where it said definitively that the first shots hit the animal. I only read some of the several links that have been posted. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

Secondly, I already made it clear that in *no* circumstances are you supposed to leave a grizzly wandering around, wounded or not. You are supposed to call the proper authorities, either way.

 

Third, as Caroline said, I was giving an example of what *I* consider a supportable action. You ignored my actual point entirely.

[pqr]

First, I did not see an article where it said definitively that the first shots hit the animal. I only read some of the several links that have been posted. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

Secondly, I already made it clear that in *no* circumstances are you supposed to leave a grizzly wandering around, wounded or not. You are supposed to call the proper authorities, either way.

 

Third, as Caroline said, I was giving an example of what *I* consider a supportable action. You ignored my actual point entirely.

 

No we agree that there are different definitions of the word "supportable."

 

Wounded grizzlies wander off. If you shoot a bear and can take it down then do so, do not put the lives of others at risk.

 

If you live in bear country telling the authorities that there are bears in them thar hills will not necessarily generate much response from authorities, now if you tell them that there is a wounded bear that is a different story.

 

I believe it was the original link that stated that the authorities granted the legitimacy of the first two shots but not the third.

Edited October 8, 2011 by pqr

[Mrs Mungo]

No we agree that there are different definitions of the word "supportable."

 

Wounded grizzlies wander off. If you shoot a bear and can take it down then do so, do not put the lives of others at risk

 

If you live in bear country telling the authorities that there are bears in them thar hills will not necessarily generate much response from authorities, now if you tell them that there is a wounded bear that is a different story.

 

You are saying that the authorities would react to a report of a wounded grizzly, yes? That is a good thing, isn't it?

 

I believe it was the original link that stated that the authorities granted the legitimacy of the first two shots but not the third.

 

So...no? The articles do not say the animal was wounded with the first two shots? firing two shots does not means you hit anything with the first two shots. I am unwilling to make an assumption there.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[pqr]

So...no? The articles do not say the animal was wounded with the first two shots?

 

Go to the link. 1:02 into the video.

[Mrs Mungo]

Go to the link. 1:02 into the video.

 

Sorry, I am in the car on my phone while dh is driving. I can't watch the video. What does it say?

[pqr]

Sorry, I am in the car on my phone while dh is driving. I can't watch the video. What does it say?

 

In essence that the authorities granted the legitimacy of the first two shots but not the third. His defense is that by the third shot he had a wounded grizzly on his hands.

[Mrs Mungo]

In essence that the authorities granted the legitimacy of the first two shots but not the third. His defense is that by the third shot he had a wounded grizzly on his hands.

 

Hm, I just don't know how dire the situation was. Is there somewhere that someone other than the shooter can explain how badly the bear was wounded? This is a grizzly bear. Plus, I am finding it hard to take safety seriously from someone who claims they started shooting before they knew where the kids were.

 

You did seem to imply that the authorities would likely react promptly to a situation with a wounded grizzly?

[pqr]

 

 

You did seem to imply that the authorities would likely react promptly to a situation with a wounded grizzly?

 

I would hope they would, but a wounded animal can be difficult to track and in 15 min can be anywhere in 5 or 6 square miles. It could take days to find said animal and in that time horrible damage could be done.

 

If the authorities accept the first shots, then to me to charge the man for the third shot is silly and does not indicate any understanding of the situation. Wounded animals are dangerous; regardless of what one thinks of the initial shots (and the authorities have granted that they are not the issue) then the final shot was COMMON SENSE.

 

Again I put it to those members who live in rural areas...is it COMMON SENSE to shoot a wounded grizzly or let it wander off?

[TravelingChris]

While I initially thought the shooting was wrong, I now think that if the bear was wounded already and the first two shots were ruled okay by the officials, the third shot was legitimate. A wounded bear is very dangerous and if officials say the wounding was legitimate, the killing must be. I am not so sure the wounding was legitimate; however, I am not there.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would hope they would, but a wounded animal can be difficult to track and in 15 min can be anywhere in 5 or 6 square miles. It could take days to find said animal and in that time horrible damage could be done.

 

If the authorities accept the first shots, then to me to charge the man for the third shot is silly and does not indicate any understanding of the situation. Wounded animals are dangerous; regardless of what one thinks of the initial shots (and the authorities have granted that they are not the issue) then the final shot was COMMON SENSE.

 

Again I put it to those members who live in rural areas...is it COMMON SENSE to shoot a wounded grizzly or let it wander off?

 

So, it is your opinion that wildlife officials are capable of determining the first two shots were legit, but are too incompetent to proclaim the third shot as unnecessary?

[pqr]

So, it is your opinion that wildlife officials are capable of determining the first two shots were legit, but are too incompetent to proclaim the third shot as unnecessary?

 

 

Regardless of how capable, or not, I view them the fact remains that the final decision makes no logical sense.

 

If the first two shots were legitimate (and I feel that they were) then logic MUST dictate that the killing shot was also legitimate.

 

If one debates the legality of the first shots than it is another discussion.

 

Given the fact that authorities say 1 and 2 were legal than please explain the logic that would now dictate that a wounded grizzly should be left to roam an area.

[Spy Car]

The first two shots were not legitimate; there was no person at risk of harm.

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Regardless of how capable, or not, I view them the fact remains that the final decision makes no logical sense.

 

If the first two shots were legitimate (and I feel that they were) then logic MUST dictate that the killing shot was also legitimate.

 

If one debates the legality of the first shots than it is another discussion.

 

Given the fact that authorities say 1 and 2 were legal than please explain the logic that would now dictate that a wounded grizzly should be left to roam an area.

 

Hm, we are working with different assumptions. You assume that you have enough of the facts to make an accurate assessment based upon minimal information. I assume that the wildlife authorities who have all of the facts of the case are better able to assess the issue.

 

Were all of the shots the same weapon? What kind of weapon? What kind of ammunition was used? There are too many missing facts for me to say, "this or that was absolutely the correct action."

Edited October 8, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Mrs Mungo]

The first two shots were not legitimate; there was no person at risk of harm.

 

Bill

 

The one article seems to imply that the homeowner thought the kids might have been outside when he fired the first two shots. But, to me? It is *insane* to shoot into the woods 100 yards from your home if you don't know where the kids are.

[Spy Car]

The one article seems to imply that the homeowner thought the kids might have been outside when he fired the first two shots. But, to me? It is *insane* to shoot into the woods 100 yards from your home if you don't know where the kids are.

 

Insane is an apt descriptor. This man's actions were the opposite of common sensical.

 

He should have time to reflect on his actions with a short stretch behind bars.

 

Bill

[Jennifer3141]

The one article seems to imply that the homeowner thought the kids might have been outside when he fired the first two shots. But, to me? It is *insane* to shoot into the woods 100 yards from your home if you don't know where the kids are.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

'I can't find my kids so I started shooting?!?' Say WHAT? I sometimes wonder if people just are unable to hear how utterly stupid they sound.

 

Even if the kids weren't in the line of line, this dimwit thought it would be better to probably WOUND the grizzly bear while his kids were outside?

 

I only know one person who has ever shot a bear but he said they are usually not a one shot animal, unless you're REALLY good.

 

If you're shooting the animals in your yard for no other reason (nothing's killing your chickens or stalking your kids or destroying yuor crops), then it's time to move to the city because you ain't cut out for country living.