Bear Kills Two...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do I live on a golf course? Did I clear land for a golf course? Did I petition for a new golf course? No.

In fact, last weekend I traveled across the state to visit my grandfather who gave me a new rifle for my 22nd birthday (which is on the 17th). I was appaled at all the construction on Hwy 60 and even moreso around Stuart/Ft. Pierce, FL. It's ridiculous, but in the end money wins.

I grew up in very rural New York, Hopewell Junction/East Fishkill to be exact. We were far removed from the actual town. My backyard was woodlands as far as the eye can see. I grew up with all sorts of nasty poisonous snakes, and furry critters. I could wake up and see deer in my front or backyard. Unsure of any bears, but we had foxes and wolves and whatnot. My friends and I ran all over those woods and never had a problem. When I went back to my hometown about a year ago, I was shocked. New developments were sprouting up everywhere. Precious forests were leveled and in their place massive houses. I didn't know what to do, I cried to be honest. There was one road that lead to where our house was, and where there used to be only one development, there are now 5. A couple miles down the road, around my old house is still the same, but it's rapidly growing and pains me very much.

So no, I'm not really a Florida boy. I still stand by what I said. Sure, you have a right to be there too. However, you are still just another mammal and should get over that fact that you are not some supreme being. If you think you should have a gun in a park to defend yourself, then you should be arming the little prey with AR-15s, camelbacks and 1911's so they too can "defend" themselves against becoming the bear's food. I'm not quite sure how a squirrel, gopher, racoon, wolf, deer, etc will be able to use said equipment...but fair is fair!! :D

And Keith, bro, calm down. Do you forget everyone is entitled to their own opinions? Ah, yes it's that whole 1st ammendment thing... Thus, I will not back off, not even a little bit! :neener:
 
Joe,

It wasn't me that told you to back off. You seem confused...

Unsure of any bears, but we had foxes and wolves and whatnot.

There are no wolves in New York. But the fact that you don't know that (even though you lived there) demonstrates the level of knowledge you have on the subject.
And it's interesting that you bemoan the housing developments that went up over those woods, but don't seem to understand that your house was one of them!

Kind of reminds me of the definition of environmentalist and developer. An environmentalist is the guy who already has a house on the lake while a developer is the guy who merely wants one...

Keith
 
I'll make a deal with you .45FMJoe. I'll leave my rifle behind if the next time you go diving you leave your scuba tank empty. That will make you "even" with the fishes.
:D

I've run across your POV before. Frankly if you choose to go unarmed, that's fine. But don't demand that I do likewise because you have this bizarre notion that Alaska should be one big park.

Not sure where you're getting this nonsense about "supreme beings." That has nothing to do with the issue of forbidding firearms for "little people" in the National Parks. You will note, I hope, that rangers are VERY well armed. One rule for us, one for them. You like that situation?!?
 
Wolves in upstate NY? Where?

From the New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/grwofs.html

The history of wolves in New York is by no means clear, although it seems reasonable to assume thatthey were once present. We know of only one museum specimen of a wolf taken from New York State.
Since we have not checked the accuracy of that identification and are without a substantial body of physical evidence to work with, we cannot be sure how many animals historically reported as wolves were indeed wolves. It is possible that the animals we call coyotes were considered wolves by early settlers and that some portion of historic wolf accounts may have been attributed to the wrong species.

New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation has a long and proud history of restoring native species when it is both biologically feasible and socially acceptable to do so. It is not clear that a wolf population could survive in New York given the abundance of highways and our large human population. Nor is it clear that having wolves in the woods of northern New York would be compatible with the interests of residents or the farmers that live on the periphery of that region. For these reasons, DEC does not believe that wolf restoration warrants serious consideration at this time.

Don't remember hearing of, or seeing any wolves when I lived there in the mid 60s.

If I'm going where critters can kill me and eat me...I'm going well armed.
 
There are a few wolves in Northern Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. A few more in the Northern Rockies, introduced from Canada.

There are no wolves in New York. It's hardly pertinent to the thread, but it does demonstrate your level of knowledge. Of course, you're entitled to have an opinion even if you don't know anything about wildlife!

Keith
 
OK GUYS; BREAK TO YOUR CORNERS!!!!!

Let's get back on topic before we're locked!

Obviously a sad, tragic, and stupid situation.

My only resentment of the results is the double standard for Rangers regarding firearms. Prohibiting hunting is one thing; survival another.

If the NPS is so Nazi and paranoid about armerd visitors, then complete the idiocy and CLOSE THE PARKS TO VISITORS!!!:)what: )
(Let's see how far THAT gets!!:fire: :fire: :cuss: )
 
I've never seen a bear I didn't want to give a "belly ache" --as in above posts--

I just hate bears -- sorry:D
 
OK, I did a little research and stand corrected "officially" on the wolf issue. However, don't be foolish to believe that in upstate NY, or southern Canadia as it really is, there are no wolves.

Back to the original topic... It is tragic that he died, but he was playing with wild animals. The key being wild. But, in the wild environment you are just another mammal on the long list of entrees.
 
Joe,

i agree with PART of your last statement

It is tragic that he died, but he was playing with wild animals. The key being wild

thats true, the guy was stupid for beliving they wouldn't hurt him, but why no protecting yourself from things with teeth and claws when you are out minding your own buisness in the wilds.??:scrutiny:
 
To clarify, now that I've learned more about the circumstances I would think that if Nature Boy actually had capped off a few bruins, he should have been arrested for poaching and tried by a local jury :D

After all, he invited this attack by encouraging bear to come close to him and not be afraid. That's bear baiting, albeit he was using his own body to do it. And as he would be the first to point out, bear baiting on NPS land is POACHING. Savor the irony.

.45FMJoe--did you ever say if you had a problem with the dual standard on park service lands? I'd be curious to know whether your notion that it's "wild land" and must therefore be free of firearms applies to rangers as well.
 
OK, Cosmo...this might take me a minute.

Where to start?

First, I love my guns and I love nature. I like going out into the woods and shooting targets. I would like to think the noise would scare off any animal that might threaten me. I also think everyone should be able to enjoy the outdoors...at your own risk. But you should also be able to shoot your guns in the great outdoors. Sure, people want to be protected from predators, but you are placing your life in danger by going out. It's like my caucasion Italian ??? walking into the ghetto. I might get popped. Thus, I stay out of the ghetto. Of course, they are just humans who have an ability to rationalize right and wrong so yes I carry wherever I go in case I have to defend myself.

As far as the Park Rangers, you must understand they deal with the most dangerous of all humans. I live in Hillsborough County but was talking to Pinellas County's only FWCC Officer. He said last year they had 3 of the FBI's top 10 in their woods. Where do criminals flee too? The woods. Thus, those Rangers need to be armed to the teeth to deal with some seriously sick mofros. On that note, following that thinking, the common folk visiting should be able to defend themselves from the psychos too.

No clear cut answer is all I can say.
 
okay, the bad guys up here dont necessarily flock to the national parks. they just move out to the mat-su valley.

up here, the only people going into national park/forest/whatever land are 95% outdoors people looking to enjoy a small piece of this great state. there is no good reason why some areas of this state that offer nothing but aesthetic pleasure should have firearms banned.
 
From the learning-from-mistakes angle

I suppose the interesting question is; were any cameras or tapes recovered at the scene? After all, the man was a videographer, and the incident apparently occurred out of the tent in daylight.
 
TallPine,

You're kinda oversimplifying things.

There have been a few murders up and down the Appalachian trail and drug producers are moving pot cultivation and meth labs onto public lands. I'm sure there are more incidents in parks than this.

One of the places I feel LEAST safe is in the woods on public land. Enough so that I'd rather take my chances with a Grizzly than encounter some of the humans.

Anyway, bears, mountain lions or crooks are BOTH pressing reasons to be armed while in the wild. Too bad NPS denies us this right.
 
I'm not sure I understand the answer. It seems like you're saying citizens and rangers should be allowed to pack small handguns and AR-15's for defense against humans, but not be allowed to fire on some bear that decides to attack them. I find this convoluted.

"okay, the bad guys up here dont necessarily flock to the national parks. they just move out to the mat-su valley."

Hey! Watch it there, mister. Next thing you'll be claiming there are more mullets in the mat-su.
 
A Treadwell quote from the link that Steel posted:

"They don’t have much of a future. They’ll either be loved to death or shot to death."

It is ironic that he managed to use both methods to have two bears killed.
 
There is audio

ABC news reports that there is audio from a wireless microphone

Apparently the nature friendly "just play dead" strategy proved somewhat less than optimal...

"They're both screaming. She's telling him to play dead, then it changes to fighting back. He asks her to hit the bear," Hill said. "There's so much noise going on. I don't know what's him and what might be an animal."
:uhoh:
The lesson is; deciding that you life IS worth defending at the last minute is usually too late
 
As my father is fond of saying.... "he was plenty dumb enough, just not quite tough enough..."

Play with fire, and all that....

Leo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top