November 14, 2018

Bursting the Bubble of “Normal” Bear Behavior

If anyone might be interested to return to my seemingly endless commentary on bear behavior and bear attacks, they would discover that I’m a broken record when it comes to the sickening echo chamber of “bears don’t ‘normally’ act that way” and “bears don’t ‘normally’ attack people for no reason.” etc. And of course the most childish of all lame comments, “Bears are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

It never ends. When children don’t act the way we WANT them to, or what the indoctrination institutions and doctors consider “normal” behavior, we feed them chemicals to alter that behavior to make them “normal.”

“Normal” is a subjective issue that we have willingly given over to centralized authority and as such are slaves to their perspective of normal. Whatever doesn’t fit the “normal” mold is left either unexplained or simply passed off as an anomaly regardless of the frequency of not normal (by chosen perspective) behavior.

We can’t harness and drug bears. Instead, we insist on sticking to human-projected behavior patterns, framed around the bio-perverse obsession with protecting wild animals (large predators like bears) even at the expense of human life. In short, we want animals to be human-like and therefore project human characteristics onto animals.

A recent attack by two bears in Wyoming on a guide and his client has created a bit of a stir. The Media including Social Media and Internet websites have, once again, revealed to us the very reason we should NEVER believe ANYTHING we read on their platforms. Written accounts of the event have proven over and over to be inaccurate and yet the bad information gets embellished and passed along – and worst believed.

The brain trust – those who know more about everything than anyone else and has an “expert” opinion – have provided all the answers to any question asked and even those that haven’t.

In all of this, once again we are subjected to the vomit of the Media as they try to choke back their regurgitated nonsensical misinformation about bear behavior – and refuse to change.

I read this evening in the Newscentermaine.com website how we will probably never know why these two bears attacked two men attempting to retrieve a dead elk. The entire article is rife with terrible information that is formulated in the manner in which I described at the beginning of this piece.

Based mostly on the perverse need, having been indoctrinated into the minds of most American’s these days, to paint a completely positive aura about bears and other large predators, officials, brainwashed in their strong delusion that “bears don’t normally act this way,” now want to tell us we’ll never know why these bears attacked. Could it be that they attacked because they are BEARS??? Geez!

Here is a laundry list of nonsense repeated in this Online Media article:

“Wyoming wildlife officials say we may never know why a grizzly bear and her cub killed a hunting guide in an unusual and unprovoked attack.”

We are to believe that this attack was “unusual” because it doesn’t nicely and conveniently fit the narrative used to protect large predators. We are also to believe the attack was “unprovoked.” Try to understand how stupid that statement is. Because we refuse to understand that all animal behavior is unpredictable, this attack is called “unprovoked.” Obviously, something provoked the bears to attack, even if they were provoked by the simple fact that they are wild, unpredictable, large animals. Geez!

“We’re very fortunate that bears usually behave like bears should… But there are occasions where bears don’t behave like other bears.”

Once again, we are supposed to believe their inconsistent mantra that bears’ behavior is “normal” and predictable.

“Grizzlies don’t typically attack humans like that…”

Says who? Well, the authorities, that’s who. They don’t want anyone to have any ill feelings toward grizzly bears so they repeatedly tell us bears are afraid of us and are harmless except if you “surprise” them or meddle with cubs. B.S.!!! They even tell us bears are so harmless we can effectively protect ourselves by arming ourselves with bear spray – the same bear spray the guide used and died anyway. And note these same authorities who want you to carry bear spray so you won’t harm bears had to kill the same bear that attacked the guide and hunter with a rifle. Hmmm.

“Attacks are more commonly associated with either a surprise encounter… or if the bears were defending their food.”

None of my comments are intended to tell people this information about bear behavior isn’t true – it is just incomplete and saturated with the human condition foisted onto an animal. Each and every time authorities go out of their way, and the press becomes their echo chamber, to tell us how RARE it is that a bear, a wolf, a fox, a mountain lion, a bobcat – you name the animal – attacks someone, it’s unusual and not “normal” behavior. The truth is they don’t know what’s normal or abnormal behavior. If it fits their determined narrative, then it must be “normal.” Anything outside of that convenient narrative is just “unexplained,” as though it never happens but once in a million years. And yet we are always reading about those “unusual” and not “normal” attacks on people while refusing to change our understanding of wild animal behavior and do and say responsible things like, “______ attacks are considered to be not man-created normal behavior. All animals, wild and domestic can be and are unpredictable. You should always approach every animal in every situation as though just about anything will happen…including one of those ‘unprovoked’ attacks.”

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to change what they say.

Share

Tennesseans Better “Look Big.” Bear Spotted First Time 100 Years

A bear was spotted in Davidson County for the first time in more than 100 years.

The bear was caught on a trail camera in Joelton, not far from Whites Creek Pike. <<<Read More>>>

Share

Bear’s Menu for Fine Dining

Share

Campers, hikers warned to keep food safe from bears

After a wild encounter at a New Hampshire campsite, state officials are warning resident and tourists about bear activity.

Signs have been placed at the Lincoln Woods trailhead warning hikers and campers to keep an extra eye out after a bear came a little too close for comfort.

White Mountain National Forest officials said they believe the black bear has been making its way into the Franconia Brook campsite, as well as Black Pond and other areas along the east branch of the Pemigewasset River.

“We’ve heard there’s been a couple of incidents where people set their pack down to go to look at something, and they come back and the bag’s gone,” said Evan Burks of the White Mountain National Forest.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bears Don’t “Naturally” Break Into Homes?

The Outdoor Wire files a report about increased incidences of encounters with black bears. According to the report, a game warden in Vermont says that “…bears don’t naturally break into homes. They must first have had experience receiving food from humans. The process of habituation begins with attractants that residents leave out such as birdseed, pet food, or unsecured garbage.”

That makes sense…right? Or maybe not so much. What does it mean to say bears don’t naturally break into homes? Does that mean that it is not a “natural” instinct of survival to go around breaking into homes?

I guess I don’t get it. The report says the “process of habituation” begins when bears are attracted to those things humans do that tells a bear, “Hey, bear! That smells like food and you are hungry!”

I understand that bears are attracted to smells. Is this warden trying to tell us that if a bear smells hot apple pie sitting on the sideboard, he doesn’t know that it is food because he’s never had it before?

Why is it that animal protectionists place so many human qualities on animals and deny other qualities if it doesn’t neatly fit the narrative? Wild animal behavior is quite unpredictable. That’s why we label them as “wild” animals.

I will remind all readers that a bear has a sense of smell that is seven times greater than that of a bloodhound. Under the right conditions, a bloodhound can detect the odor of one cell. That’s right, one cell. A bear can probably smell your dirty laundry.

Whether your smelly good “food source” (for bears) is or isn’t “secured” doesn’t mean a bear can’t smell it if it’s put away. And, whether a bear has “previous training” on what is and what isn’t human food and how to get it, a hungry bear doesn’t give a rat’s behind whether a game warden thinks a bear won’t break into your home unless he’s first had the proper training. To think such is a pretty good indication that you don’t understand how the voracity caused by intense hunger pains will drive any wild animal…well, wild.

We shouldn’t assume anything. If you live in bear country you might have the unpleasant experience of encountering a hungry bear. Look out! A curious bear…maybe not so much of a problem.

Bears “naturally” live in the woods. Bears “naturally” eat when they are hungry. If hunger overpowers fear of humans, with or without the proper training, you might have a midnight visitor come knocking on your door…or it’s just come crashing in without knocking.

It should be only “natural” to be prepared…but we’re not.

Share

Odd Way of Selling Bear Hunting

It seems that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is on a bit of a promotion kick attempting to convince more Mainer’s to take up bear hunting.

Maine has too many bears – or at least anyone with any sense at all realizes that – and not enough hunters to control the growth. Or, it could be that the MDIFW is too tightly controlled by the guides and outfitters who dictate to them when, where, how often, how long and what bag limits will be on black bear. Then again, maybe two seasons for bear would work but you still need hunters.

Several articles have appeared in newspapers of late encouraging people to take up bear hunting with the MDIFW expressing thoughts of how the population of bears keeps growing while the population of bear hunters keeps shrinking.

Perhaps an actual change in attitude and presentation of propaganda at the department might help in that way. MDIFW is pretty quick to relate stories of their great bear management activities, cuddling up with bear cubs during the winter surveys and sharing stories of “named” bears as though they were a member of the neighborhood instead of potential table fare.

Some people (potential bear hunters) would prefer to see statistics from bear harvests to determine whether making the effort to take up bear hunting or come to Maine for a visit and do some bear hunting is worthwhile. To a bear hunter, cute and cuddly bear cubs all snuggly-wuggly into the jacket of a bear biologist isn’t what excites a bear hunter.

So here’s a suggestion. To help generate a bit more interest in bear hunting, MDIFW could at least pretend they give two rat’s patooties about bear hunting and see if they could publish the bear harvest results for the previous bear hunting season before the next one begins. Maybe they could even run a few more bear hunting reports in those same newspapers they like to publish cute bear pictures in.

But now that MDIFW has announced that they are no longer all that concerned about game populations and will focus more on health, counting and producing data is a thing of the past. It’s also a convenient way of ensuring there is no accountability.

Well, here’s a thought. If MDIFW is pretending to be recruiting bear hunters (more precisely they are recruiting revenue to pay the retirement pensions) but at the same time changing their focus to the health of game herds instead of population numbers, then history tells us that soon MDIFW will have their hands full of taking up the chore of dealing with all the diseases that come from overpopulations of any animal.

Health focus they want? Health focus they will get!

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Bear Doing What a Bear Does

There are reports of a 71-year-old wheelchair-bound woman having an “encounter” with a bear in her home. Authorities are “…concerned the bear may have rabies.”

According to repeated “facts” about bears, they don’t bother people, they are more afraid of you than you are of them, all you need to do to “shoo” a bear away is make noise and “look big.”

Never it is stated that a hungry bear will do things like entering a home perhaps because of the smell of food. In this case, the excuse for a bear’s behavior is it is suspected of rabies.

Maybe it was Yogi the Bear and was looking for food for him and Boo Boo.

Share

We’re All Gonna Die! Interior Proposes End to Obama Era Ban on Hunting on Alaska Preserves

*Editor’s Note* – If you were to read and/or listen to the Press about this proposal, you’d think the end of the world has come. The Associated Press released a piece of lying, sensational, emotional drivel that is probably far from to the truth of what is really taking place.

In brief, the proposal repeals most of the bans Obama placed on hunting and methods of hunting on Alaska public lands. This proposal puts much more control of how wildlife is managed in Alaska back in the hands of state wildlife managers and out of the hands of bureaucratic morons in Washington and their Environmentalist buddies.

Generally speaking, state wildlife managers have a better idea of how their wildlife should be managed and they need tools available to them to do that. It doesn’t necessarily mean all those hunting and trapping methods become free range. To state otherwise is irresponsible, emotional, and borders on criminal.

However, below is the actual proposal as can be found in the Federal Register. Unlike the Press, who NEVER provide links to the actual resource out of fear you might read it and discover their lies, I am posting it below for you to read and decide for yourself if we are all gonna die.

Action

Proposed rule.

Summary

The National Park Service proposes to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This proposed rule would remove a regulatory provision issued by the National Park Service in 2015 that prohibited certain sport hunting practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. These proposed changes are consistent with Secretary of the Interior Orders 3347 and 3356.

Dates

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on July 23, 2018.

Addresses

You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE38, by either of the following methods:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
  • Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
  • Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must include the words “National Park Service” or “NPS” and must include the docket number or RIN (1024-AE38) for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information provided.
  • Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

For Further Information Contact

Herbert C. Frost, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644-3510. Email: AKR_Regulations@nps.gov.

Supplementary Information

Background

On October 23, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published a final rule (Final Rule) to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska (80 FR 64325). The Final Rule codified prohibitions on certain types of harvest practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. The practices are: Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; harvesting brown bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9); taking swimming caribou; taking caribou from motorboats under power; taking black bears over bait; and using dogs to hunt black bears. This rule is inconsistent with State of Alaska’s hunting regulations found at 5 AAC Part 85.

Since the publication of the Final Rule, the Secretary of the Interior issued two Secretarial Orders regarding how the Department of the Interior should manage recreational hunting and trapping in the lands and waters it administers, and directing greater collaboration with state, tribe, and territorial partners in doing so.

On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation. Part of the stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3347 is to increase outdoor recreation and improve the management of game species and their habitat. Secretarial Order 3347 directs the Department of the Interior to identify specific actions to (1) expand access significantly for recreational hunting and fishing on public lands; and (2) improve recreational hunting and fishing cooperation, consultation, and communication with state wildlife managers.

On September 15, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with State, Tribes, and Territories. Part of the stated purpose of Secretarial Order 3356 is to increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans in greater collaboration with state partners, including opportunities to hunt. Secretarial Order 3356 directs the NPS to (1) identify whether hunting opportunities on Department lands could be expanded; (2) work cooperatively with state wildlife agencies to enhance their access to Department lands for wildlife management actions; (3) work cooperatively with state wildlife agencies to ensure that hunting regulations for Department lands and waters complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters; and (4) work in close coordination and cooperation with the appropriate state wildlife agency to begin the necessary process to modify regulations in order to advance shared wildlife conservation goals/objectives that align predator management programs, seasons, and methods of take permitted on all Department-managed lands and waters with corresponding programs, seasons, and methods established by state wildlife management agencies.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to align sport hunting regulations in national preserves in Alaska with State of Alaska regulations and to enhance consistency with harvest regulations on surrounding non-federal lands and waters in furtherance of Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3356. The proposed rule would apply the State of Alaska’s hunting regulations to national preserve lands, with limited exceptions found elsewhere in NPS regulations. See, e.g., 36 CFR 13.42(d).

The 2015 Final Rule prohibits the hunting practices otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska because NPS found those practices: (1) To have intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics, and associated natural ecological processes for the purpose of increasing harvest of ungulates by man; (2) to adversely impact public safety; or (3) to be inconsistent with federal law authorizing sport hunting in national preserves in Alaska. However, states have primary jurisdiction to manage wildlife throughout their state. In addition, NPS has broad discretion in managing wildlife on national preserves under applicable laws, policies, and regulations.

Taking into account the Secretarial Orders described above, NPS has re-considered its earlier conclusions and determined that these previously prohibited practices can be allowed consistent with the goal of aligning its rules with those of the State. Allowing these practices is consistent with NPS Management Policy 4.4.3 which provides that NPS does not allow activities to reduce the numbers of native species for the purpose of increasing the numbers of harvested species. The discussion in the 2015 rule of an action’s “intent or potential” to manipulate predator dynamics goes beyond the plain language of section 4.4.3 of Management Policies. Additionally, the State of Alaska disputes that the hunting methods and seasons (allowed by the state but prohibited by current NPS regulations) are intended to function as a predator control program. Rather, the State asserts the hunting regulations are intended to provide opportunity for harvests of wolves, coyotes, bears, and other species as requested by the public. The State also maintains that any effects to the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife from implementing its regulations are likely negligible. As noted below, NPS will prepare an environmental assessment for this regulation to determine whether it will have any significant impacts on wildlife or other resources.

With respect to the practices that NPS previously determined to be inconsistent with federal law authorizing harvest for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska, no applicable federal law or regulation defines “sport hunting.” With regard to NPS’s statement in the 2015 rule that baiting poses an increased public safety risk, the State of Alaska’s position is that baiting does not cause bears to become food-conditioned, and therefore a greater safety concern.

Proposed Rule

For the above stated reasons, the NPS proposes to remove paragraphs (f) and (g) of 36 CFR 13.42. Paragraph (f) states that State of Alaska management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park areas if they are related to predator reduction efforts, which is defined as efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. Paragraph (g) sets forth a table of prohibited methods of taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska. Most of these prohibited methods are also prohibited by the State of Alaska. Some of them, however, conflict with authorizations by the State of Alaska as explained above. The NPS believes that removing paragraphs (f) and (g) would implement the directive announced in Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3356 by increasing hunting opportunities in national preserves and promoting consistency between federal regulations and state wildlife harvest regulations. In addition, the proposed rule would remove the definitions of “Big game”, “Cub bear”, “Fur animal”, and “Furbearer” from section 13.1 because those terms are only used in paragraphs (f) and (g).

Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation’s regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 13771)

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed Revisions to Sport Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves in Alaska” which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This proposed rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department Policy)

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department’s tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that the rule may have substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. The NPS has invited Alaska native tribes and corporations to consult on the proposed rule and has consulted with those tribes and corporations that have requested consultation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

NPS will prepare an environmental assessment to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

Clarity of This Rule

The NPS is required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule the NPS publishes must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that the NPS has not met these requirements, send the NPS comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help the NPS revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should identify the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Public Participation

It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the NPS in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the NPS cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

Part 13 National Park System Units in Alaska

1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:

Authority

16 U.S.C. 3124; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4240.

§ 13.1
[Amended]

2. In § 13.1 remove the definitions of “Big game”, “Cub bear”, “Fur animal”, and “Furbearer”.

§ 13.42
[Amended]

3. In § 13.42, remove and reserve paragraphs (f) and (g).

David L. Bernhardt,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-10735 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
Share

Dog owner during bear attack: ‘I stuck my finger right in its eye’

Forgetting to “look big” or believing that “bears are more afraid of you than you are of them,” and yet we are also repeatedly told how rare it is that a bear would attack anything…man or beast, yet one more “rare” bear attack. Regardless, a man stopped beside the road to let his dog take a pee. The report (linked to below) states that the man took his “11-month-old lab mix” about 50 feet into the woods and that’s where his dog was attacked and where he fought the bear off his dog. The event left the dog and the man with cuts and bruises but nothing life-threatening.

One has to wonder when you read the following nonsensical quips and quotes, what is this information being passed along based upon? – “This does not happen, except in freak instances…” and “Black bears, which rarely attack other animals…,” followed by, “The den was unusually close to a busy roadway, ‘but a younger one doesn’t necessarily know to go back into the woods’…”, and this, “I don’t want people to freak out and think they can’t go into the woods and without worrying about a bear nailing them.” and lastly, “Since the 1980s, fewer than a dozen Mainers have fended off a bear, and none have died.”

Granted, discovering a bear hibernating or otherwise next to the highway, in the dead of winter in Maine, right at the spot a man stops to “water” his dog, is a rarity. But let’s look a bit closer at the idiocy of this report.

The article, like a good echo chamber, states that black bears “rarely attack other animals.” Because this is extremely subjective, what does this actually mean? Later in the article, it reads that since the 1980s, “fewer than a dozen” Mainers (what about out-of-staters?) have fought off a bear attack. What about the many others that probably go unreported? Does everyone who encounters a bear call and report it to the Bangor Daily News? All of this brings us to the important point as to just how “rare” is it that bears attack animals? If the man did not have a dog with him when he entered the woods, would the bear have attacked the man? Would that have been okay…as in the man deserved it somehow? We know what the newspapers, prompted by the environmentalist-trained biologists and game wardens would say. Are we being responsible for continuously repeating black bears don’t attack people or animals?

We know that come Spring, black bears have learned where deer and moose go to calve their young. Attacking new-born calves is a very common thing…or is it a rare thing if you somehow feel the need to protect a predator even at the cost of human life?

I would like something more substantive from the press, and I know we’ll never get it, that supports their claims of the rarity.

I have admitted that it is unusual to find a bear semi-hibernating 50-feet off the highway, but aren’t we doing some projecting and placing human traits on an animal when we say things like, “but a younger one [black bear] doesn’t necessarily know to go back into the woods?” Many, so-called, scientists have studied varying species of animal to learn about their behavior. Seriously, have we reached a point that we now know what an animal “thinks” and why?” That is what we believe now…right? Maybe a lawsuit, on behalf of this young, improperly raised, and confused bear should be filed against the bear’s mother for abandoning it before it was mature enough to make good decisions, especially those based on weather conditions predicted in The Old Farmer’s Almanac. Or perhaps the MDOT should be sued for building a road where one day an immature, neglected, young bear decided to take a nap.

But more than anything else, the people should be sued because of Climate Change. That’s it. There’s no way this bear would have sacked out in this spot if it wasn’t for global warming. When will we ever learn?

The Maine Warden says he doesn’t want people to freak out and think they can’t go into the woods out of fear of “a bear nailing them.” I realize that we are all trained to believe that all people are incapable of making any kind of a decision without the direction of the State – and this is probably quite true – but which is being more responsible – telling people repeatedly bears won’t harm them or properly educating them on what might happen, even in one’s determination to never demonize a predator? If we should choose the education route to go, let’s find something better than telling a scared shitless, soon-to-be bear food victim to “look big.”

Perhaps the answer lies in the next to last paragraph of the article which states: “Since the 1980s, fewer than a dozen Mainers have fended off a bear, and none have died.” (emboldening added)

It is, therefore, to protect the bear, the tens of thousands of them, because attacks on animals (and people) are rare. The insane and perverse perspectives toward large predators are reinforced when we read that someone failing to get killed by a black bear justifies our ignorant and irresponsible actions.

Game Warden Shannon Fish confirmed that there were traces of a bear living in a small den where the attack occurred.

“This does not happen, except in freak instances, and Monday was a freak instance,” Fish said.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Animal Rights: Bunkum and Balderdash

Some people simply do not like hunting and trapping or the idea that other people do. Perhaps it’s time to get a life and get over it. There are many things in life that all of us don’t like, but does that mean we spend our time forcing our own idealism onto others? Evidently, that is true in some cases.

I have no issues with another who is opposed to hunting and trapping. I don’t try to get them to change their life over it. I only expect the same respect in return. Did I say respect? Pfffft!

What I do have an issue with is when ignorant and severely misguided excuses are given to defend one’s position on the dislike of the activity. Given the direction the American Society has taken in recent years, there is no guilt association with lying nor is there any need to present honest facts. This practice has become null and void and runs rampant throughout.

Recently two Letters to the Editor in Maine newspapers came from obvious despisers of hunting and trapping. As they go hand in hand, it is safe to say that these same people have a perverse perspective of the roles animals, both wild and domestic, play in man’s existence.

The first letter I’d like to address comes from someone who wants to stop the use of bait as a tool to harvest black bears. For the record, so would I. I don’t like baiting (I’ll save the reasons for another show). However, I can reasonably understand that without baiting the success rate for taking a bear would drop significantly, seriously hampering the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) ability to maintain the bear population at healthy levels.

But factual information is void in such conversations with animal lovers.

I’ve heard the argument before that baiting unnaturally over-feeds bears, causing a false increase in the number of offspring and that baiting habituates bears to human conditions, i.e. food and smells. The letter writer states: “One of the worst things that can be done to manage a bear population is to artificially increase the amount of available food in the environment and accustom them to human food and smells…”

Under different conditions, this may be true but I don’t think so in this case. If baiting was seriously widespread, in other words, that there actually is an artificial increase in food in the environment (not just at bait stations), throughout the entire habitat of Maine, artificially feeding bears would probably cause a problem.

According to the MDIFW’s website, bears in Maine number as high as 36,000: “Maine’s bear population remained fairly stable through 2005, but has been increasing over the last 5 years and our current estimate is between 24,000 and 36,000 bears.”

We also can find that in 2016 Maine’s bear harvest totaled 2,859. The same data tells us that 68% or 1,936 bears were taken over bait. From previous information found at various sources, it has been estimated that bear hunting success rate is around 30%. For Maine to have harvested 2,859, the number of licensed hunters probably approached 9,000. 62% of all bears harvested was done by out-of-state (guided) hunters.

How does all this translate into the number of bait piles and where they were located geographically? I dunno, but it would certainly appear that the process of baiting may have affected only a very small portion of the bear population, if at all, regardless of how one might fudge the numbers. Even if it were biologically correct to state that artificial feeding increases bear populations, baiting bears does not and cannot have any real effect on the growth of bears.

We also know that bears much prefer natural foods. During high-yield mast crop years, attracting bears to baiting stations is a difficult task to accomplish.

This is a poor argument to use against the use of bait for bears and is always simply a play on the emotions of readers.

The second letter is an excellent example of bunkum and balderdash. The diatribe begins with an attempt at likening bobcat hunting to an unfair advantage for the hunter over the animal because it doesn’t have a helmet, protective padding and shoes….or something.: “Most of us like some kind of sports by either following them, participating in them or both. Whatever ones we prefer, we expect that players or teams be more or less evenly matched in terms of skill and equipment.

We’d protest, for instance, if the tennis players we were rooting for were not allowed to use rackets, and we’d be in an uproar if the quarterbacks and linemen on our favorite team were denied helmets, protective padding and shoes.

Why? Because we require a level playing field and we believe in fairness, as well as giving those we contend against a sporting chance.”

Oh, my! This might deserve the Golden Horse Excrement Award.

Let’s put it this way. If the letter writer wants a “level playing field” wouldn’t that mean that each team would have an even chance, 50-50, of winning? This sounds more like “each participant gets a trophy.” How is it a level playing field when MDIFW has determined that a better than average chance at a bobcat hunter being successful, i.e. winning, runs at not much better than 9%?

But we soon discover the real reason for the whining and complaining: “…we believe that the consequence of defeat should not be the forfeiture of life itself.” Okay, so everyone DOES get a trophy. As I said, I don’t have an issue with people who don’t like to see animals die. I understand this but they don’t understand that the perpetuation of life insists that something must die in order for life to continue. But I digress.

The writer then goes on questioning the MDIFW’s bobcat management practices of which I have no problem. After all, I spend a great deal of time questioning their wildlife management practices. The letter writer states that MDIFW has no idea how many bobcats are in the state of Maine. This may be somewhat true but they do have a system, although it may be antiquated (I haven’t studied the plans and formulas used), where bobcat populations are estimated (like every other game species) and harvest requirements formulated from that information. See the plan here.

(Note: The writer honestly doesn’t see any difference between hunters and trappers legally taking wild animals for various reasons and MDIFW’s prohibition on hunters and trappers killing domestic animals. Where does one go from here?)

Then the writer gets back to the real meat and potatoes as to why he wants bobcat hunting to end: “Hunting bobcats is cruel and abusive.” And let’s not forget it’s “inhumane.”

What the writer rambles on about at this point is mostly pointless to discuss as it becomes obvious the writer places animals at an existence equal to or greater than that of man, giving them the attributes of man: “The word humane is derived from the world [word?] humanity, but until that connection is understood and practiced, what we have is really nothing less than state-sanctioned cruelty…”

The word “humanity” (an Evolution term) first appears in the late 14th century. All definitions and attributes are given to the existence of man…not animals. “Human” and “humane” were used interchangeably for centuries all in reference to characteristics of man…not animals.

Few know that “humane societies” were first established to save drowning people.

Any sense of humaneness pertaining to animals should only be derived from a value-weighted perception of the man toward the animal. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not an animal thinks, acts, and feels the same as a man. It is when we project our own “human” qualities onto animals, we get into some real serious issues.

I really do not understand what the author is saying when he says that “until that connection is understood.” Assuming he means a connection between human and humanity, I fail to see any connection that pertains to the existence of animals.

Not that many animal lovers would care to learn from the Scriptures, but perhaps I can give a better understanding of the role our Creator intended between man and beast (all animals, i.e. birds, fish, mammals, etc.). Genesis 1:26 tells us at the time in which He was going to “create man in our image,” “and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.”

In verse 28, Yaweh instructs Adam to “Bring forth fruit, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over every beast that moveth upon the earth.”

After the Great Flood, Yaweh once again gave Noah and his sons the same instructions. We find them in Genesis 9: 1-5: Also the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heaven, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.

Everything that moveth and liveth, shall be meat for you: as the green herb, have I given you all things.”

Clearly, the role of the animal toward man’s existence is clearly defined. An animal, of any kind, is not and does not have the same existence as that of man. It was intended for food, the same as plants.

Unfortunately, these verses and others are too often taken out of context to mean that man can do anything he wishes to an animal. Proverbs 12:10 tells us: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The original Hebrew word for “regardeth” is “yada.” It carries many meanings, mostly in reference to acknowledging “the life of the beast.” It also carries the meaning “to respect.”

Yaweh gave us all the plants and animals of the Earth. After the flood, He told Noah and his sons that animals “shall be meat (food) for you.” His Scripture also tells us to be knowledgeable about the beasts and give them respect. Obviously, this didn’t mean to the point that animals are protected beyond that which might ensure their existence or to the detriment of man.

My advice to the animal lovers and those who hate hunting and trapping, tell us how upset you are because someone is killing an animal, but save the bunkum and balderdash about equal playing fields and “inhumane” treatment of animals.

As an aside: The author quotes someone who says, “Bobcats are worth more for wildlife watching and tracking opportunities than they are as pelts.” Wildlife watching? Tracking? Seriously? I have lived in Maine for going on 66 years. I have “wildlife watched” a bobcat once in my life and that was while visiting a park in Florida. It would appear that this person places little value on the life of a bobcat. Shame.

 

Share