November 29, 2021

If People Just Didn’t Have Access to Flashlights

88-year-old, World War II veteran, Delbert Belton was beaten to death by two black, teenage thugs using big flashlights. Belton might be alive today if we just didn’t have access to flashlights.

On a rational note, it is disgusting that any human has to die, victim of a robbery, rape, beating, hatred, racism or any other reason. I pray the day will come in this country when we will, as a society, address the issue of why there exists enough hatred and disrespect for life, instead of attacking inanimate objects that have nothing to do with murder.


Wolves Kill 176 Sheep Belonging to Siddoway Sheep Company


176 sheep were killed early Saturday morning near Fogg Hill in the Pole Canyon area. Wildlife officials said only one animal seems to have been eaten in the attack. The other sheep died after it was believed the wolves had them running then they piled up on each other and died from suffocation.


Fallout From Holding States Liable for Animal Attacks and Damages

Two days ago I wrote about how the state of Utah can be held liable for the death of an 11-year-old boy by a black bear, according to a ruling in the Utah Supreme Court. In that ruling the Supreme Court stated that bears are not part of the “natural condition” one expects to find in the forests and fields. In addition, the same ruling declared that the State of Utah established a “special relationship” with the family of the 11-year-old boy and campers in general because the state was carrying out several things in order to protect the campers from bears. However, the State of Utah can now be sued by the family and may be charged with negligence in carrying out their duties to keep campers safe.

I spoke of the precedent such a ruling may carry in that it raises the question as to how far the courts will go in holding states liable for attacks on humans by wild animals and the damages they can create. What I did not talk about in this article was the negative fallout that may result from this ruling.

There are at least two ways of looking at how states may choose to react to this ruling in Utah. The more obvious side would be to err on the side of caution, perhaps even to the extreme, and quickly move to shut down any and all campsites, for example, when any reports surface of the presence of bears or any other large predator. We may be seeing that now as one report out of Colorado today reveals that officials at the James M. Robb Colorado River State Park, have banned all campers from sleeping in tents because of a reported bear in the area. Officials are attempting to trap the bear and if not successful, the campground will be closed.

Another example, one that doesn’t involve large predators, comes to us from California, where three campgrounds have been closed because squirrels have been found to be carrying bubonic plague.

A less obvious repercussion of the Utah court ruling could begin to appear should states attempt to ensure they are not establishing a “special relationship” with tax payers. If you may recall, the Utah Supreme Court granted the family of Sam Ives, the boy attacked and killed by the bear, standing to sue the State of Utah holding them also responsible for the boy’s death. That ruling was based on two things: one, that a black bear was not a “natural condition”, or an object that gave the state immunity from liability, and two, that the state had established a “special relationship” with the family.

This “special relationship”, at least how I understood the majority opinion, resulted in the state taking on the responsibility to ensure the safety of the campers and that officials had taken several steps to warn other campers and had spent several hours attempting to locate the bear that attacked the boy. Does this mean the state will not be liable if they do not establish a “special relationship?” How would that change the landscape when it comes to campers, hikers, etc.?

And what is not talked about in relation to this Utah incident is what becomes of the liability issue when the states participate in the introduction, reintroduction of moving of dangerous wild animals?


Those “Rare” Coyote Attacks We Always Hear About

Still puking out the ignorant mantra that coyotes don’t bother people, especially attack them, yet again we hear of a two-year-old girl in California who was attacked by a coyote and dragged away while the girl’s mother yelled and screamed and eventually run the coyote away.

And in Virginia, coyotes are a real nuisance and causing serious damage due to livestock losses.

I am reminded that it was nearly twenty years ago now that Dr. Valerius Geist told the Southeast Deer Study Group, as they complained about what to do about too many whitetail deer, to:

Enjoy your problem while it lasts, because the coyote is coming. Once he’s here, you’ll miss your deer problems.

It now appears the coyote has arrived.


Shhhhhhhh! I Think a Bear is About to Kill Me

As funny as this video may appear, there is actually SOME pretty good advice in there that MIGHT save your life. Bear attacks on humans are a very serious event and should never be presented in the media, as is ALWAYS done, as a rare occurrence. It matters not whether an attack is rare or not. If it happens to you, the last thing you are concerned about is whether it is rare or not.

The woman in this video and the producers of it deserve a degree of congratulations to have the intestinal fortitude to attempt a demonstration of what you might want to do should you retain the wherewithal to employ the tactics when you about to have your ass handed to you by an angry, attacking bear.


Police Shoot Bear That “Made an Agressive Movement”

Here we go again. In Colorado, a bear enters a family’s home. The police come. The bear moves outside and the police follow. A police officer says the bear, “made an aggressive movement” and so he shot twice with a shotgun and killed the bear.

Some people are upset and at the end of an article written at “The Gazette” people have left numerous comments, the majority of them ignorant. But here’s one I personally like:

So sad. Did the bear open the door and let itself in? And an aggressive movement? Gun happy cops. Remember what they did when the buffalo got out? They don’t seen to think in a situation that involves animals. Animals + cops = KILL (emboldening added)


Coyotes Attack Deer, Deer Fight Back


Bear Mauls 12-Year-Old Girl to Death

But this must be a lie. Bears don’t attack people. The Times of India even reports that, “At least 10 persons and two bears have been killed in bear-human being conflict in Kotpad forest range in past few weeks.” It must something the people are doing to piss off the bears and causing them to attack humans. Or are they blaming bears for 10 dead people because they ate poison mushrooms?

None of this is certainly the bears fault!


Coyote Attacks Little Dog – Rottweiler Attacks Coyote


Some of Those “Rare” Bear Attacks and Encounters

No, bears do not necessarily attack humans because they are threatening offspring or caught them by surprise. This 82-year-old woman was in bed sleeping when a 400 lb. bear broke into her house and beat her up some. So, what prompted that? She must have been encroaching on the bears.

In Minnesota, a woman had been seeing 4 bears in her yard. When she wanted to let her dog out, she looked around for the bears. Not seeing them she let the dog out. The bears were under her deck. Ultimately the woman was attacked by the mother bear. Take note of the idiocy in the article explaining the high level, rational thinking of bears when a DNR “specialist” says, “bears are very cautious of people and bears do not want to get themselves in a situation where they might have to attack a person.” This is akin to a pack of wolves huddled up having a discussion and pointing out which of the herd of elk are sick, lame and old, explaining to each other to only kill those animals because it is their responsibility to do so.