Latest news from ADN - Bear shot in front of onlookers....
Latest news from ADN - Bear shot in front of onlookers....
as long as the bear was legal, no worries. used to know a guy that did the same thing with a caribou years ago. I sure hope it was legal, though, or this would look terrible.
Just to let you know, this has already been posted in the Global Discussions forum.
I noticed in the comments someone (flyfshak) stated the bear hide and skull had been seized but the reasons given were clearly incorrect. Then the article in the Reboubt stated that on that road Federal laws says 1/4 mile off the road before you can hunt. Can anyone verify either of these?
I don't think I would have taken it in front of all those people but I certainly would not have, if the article is true, shot the bear in the butt as it was going up the hill just to wound it so I would get a better shot at what was descriped as a subadult bear.
But that's just me.
Sounds to me like a legal kill with the troopers watching the entire scene unfold. Good on those guys for a successful kill.
From the Redoubt article:
Lewis also is president of the Kenai Peninsula Chapter of Safari Club International, and teaches hunter safety and ethics classes through Fish and Game and other venues. He said there isn’t a regulation against shooting in front of other people, but there are ethical principles that apply.
“That is an ethical concern. In our hunter education program and in our general dealings with hunters we try to discourage people from taking game in a manner that can disturb others,” Lewis said.
“It’s a public trust resource. Everyone enjoys wildlife in different ways. We try to discourage hunters from shooting game, even if it’s legal to take it, in such a way that might prove disturbing to others, such as to kill an animal that people are watching and photographing,” he said.
On the other side of the coin, though, there also is a hunter harassment law, where it is prohibited for a person to position themselves or something else in such a way as to prevent a hunter from taking game they are lawfully stalking.
“It works both ways,” Lewis said.
Agree it works both ways, but my take is that what the "hunters" did, regardless if it was technically legal or not, was pretty lame and sure doesn't paint the entire hunting community in a good light. Was up to them to know the Refuge boundaries too and the differing regs concerning how far off the road you need to be before shooting.
This isn't the best light for hunters to be exposed in. However IF the bear continued to frequent the highway the Possum Cops would have been called out to shoot the bear to protect the populace.
That would have made the press, as well.
NOW who is responseable for the bears safety, PETA ?
" Americans will never need the 2nd Amendment, until the government tries to take it away."
On the road of life..... Pot holes keep things interesting !
We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed
I'd like to hear the hunters' tell their own story. Truth or tall tales of surviving a charge. I bet next they'll be telling us it was the bullet's fault the bear didn't go down at the first shot. And that danged 338 just isn't enough gun for BIIIIG bears like this one.
The stories will have to be as stupid as their act. We all got a black eye on this one.
"But for those of us that HAD to witness this, our CHOICE was TAKEN AWAY.
We didn't WANT to be INVOLVED in this." Locke said....
Keep the car moving,
(but HAD to stop? Lockes CHOICE!)
close your eyes, (not while driving though)
'cussing' the Troopers??? = involvement.
'This Is Alaska"
I guess I do not have a solid opinion on what is what concerning whom may or may not be watching or what they think however I must state the person who decided to provide the details and or how the arcticle is written or to even why does leave more questions to be asked.
Quesiton one would be why would ADN write an arcticle covering the legal harvest of a Big Game Animal unless it has an agenda? i.e why is it news?
Question two why on earth would they write the arcticle to expand on the hunters clothing and than make the point that the person complaining has to state they could have worn clown outfitts? i.e. unless there was an agenda.
It might seem that between the person who is interviewed as well as the ADN might have a particilar agenda and might be using the devise i.e. the ADN to promote that agenda.
Yes I understand that maybe just maybe ethics could be involved however if the bear was harvested legally and although not a perfect situation in the eye of the extreme public why would it not be ethical to harvest the animal well within the limits of the law. That being said one would think that if in fact laws were not broken the ethics portion of the any comments might call for restraint.
I have more than likley said way to much and it more than likley makes some peoples go WTH but hey. If in fact the bear was harvested legally and although the timing was not grand then the ADN and the person complaining should both print public retractions and set the record straight. Not only did the hunters possibly make a poor choice IMO the person complaining and the news paper have as well.
but had it been some moose during the season.... there would have been 200 hunters sitting in that pull out waiting his turn at it.
Bears and Wolves are all fuzzy and cute, they are not eaten as a rule and have the plethora of public emotions attached to them.
the road goes through the wild. NONE of us have looked for game while driving... ????
so what. i think we should complain about the lady running her maw to the paper taking up valuable reading space
"If you are on a continuous search to be offended, you will always find what you are looking for; even when it isn't there."
meet on face book here
I'd be curious to know of the 1/4 mile regulation, anybody know that area and the rules regarding that?
As for shooting an animal in front of on-lookers, it sounds as if they had time to wait for the bear to come over the road. As soon as those people saw hunters with guns, they should have made their decision if they wanted to be involved or not. When the hunters were approached, they could have told them that if they don't want to see it happen, they might want to leave or turn away.
If they have a problem with a hunt in that area, they need to petition the board of game to make changes. Simple as that, otherwise, you live in Alaska, better be prepared for things like this.
If you don't think this sort of incident generates a lot of bad press for hunters in general, think again.
I posted a report about a similar incident http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=63697
here in the Yukon. This incident generated a firestorm of public opinion, negative public opinion that is, about it. All sorts of letters in the paper about banning hunting etc, and many letters from hunters expressing disgust about it.
Anyhoo, politicians being the creatures they are, see public opinion and gauge their actions off of it. And there are way more non hunters than hunters. Its easy to laugh it off and call the people complaining about it on the highway as a bunch of yuppies, however, its funny how sometimes all it takes is the right (or wrong) person to see something like this, and they happen to be in a position to change rules/regulations, or influence the people who do, and before you know it, things get changed. Whether the bear in question "might" have become a problem bear at some point, and had to be destroyed is beside the point.
Yes, both these hunts were legal, yes the hunters "got" their bear, but was it ethical? Is taking a sketchy shot in poor conditions at a moose legal? Yes, but is it ethical? One definition of ethics is evalutaing how your actions will impact other peoples rights. Imagine the family driving by the scene with some little kids looking out wondering whats going on. What do the parents tell them?
Anyway, i'm just trying to look at these and similar incidents objectively, trying to see it as someone who didn't hunt might, and man, i don't think it would look good.
Just my $.02 for what its worth.
Never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the Pig likes it.
Ah yes, and that's exactly how our hunting and trapping privileges get whittled away, due to these type of things, setting traps too close to suburban areas and/or roads, and shooting a grizzly being watched and photographed from right off a main road.If they have a problem with a hunt in that area, they need to petition the board of game to make changes.
The story is now in the LA Times. The Homer Tribune has a writeup, and I noted it delves into the issue of "respect" that is another thread currently on here. Here's an excerpt from the Tribune piece:
Where hunters and wildlife enthusiasts collide
When done as it should be, hunting is not horrifying. It is not disgusting. It is not unethical. It is messy and uncomfortable for some to watch, but it is – or, at least, should be – a meaningful and utilitarian endeavor that instills more respect for the food we eat than shopping at a grocery store ever will.
What happened Saturday was not that kind of hunting.
Taking each facet of the incident individually, some arguments could be made to support what the men are reported to have done.
For one thing, the bear is a bear. Just because it was entertaining afternoon wildlife watchers doesn’t make it any less a wild animal than is permissible to hunt with the proper permit in the proper area during the proper timeframe.
For another, hunters should be able to take advantage of an “easy” shot. If a hunter lucks into their prey with a minimal amount of effort, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t take the kill, as long as it is lawful to do so.
There is debate over whether the men were on the road or not when they shot. The matter is under investigation. Fish and Game regulations prohibit shooting from on or across a road. A state statute also prohibits discharging firearms within a state highway right-of-way, and a federal dictate covering that section of highway prohibits firing within a quarter mile on either side of the road.
It sounds as though the kill violates those regulations. But even if it was legal, it was not right.
Yes, a bear is a bear, and it is valuable as prey for hunters every bit as much as it is entertainment for wildlife viewers. But there are appropriate ways to draw the line between hunting with cameras and hunting with bullets, and this was not it.
This killing was disrespectful to the onlookers, created a dangerous situation for the crowd with the possibility of a wounded bear on the loose and created the possibility of a dangerous situation for traffic if the bear, the hunters or the onlookers ended up on the road.
What’s more, it was disrespectful to the bear....
I think the problem is not one of right or wrong, but of smart and stupid. Concerning the reason the story made the paper, it is an article that will generate interest in the ADN--regardless of the response it will promote the ADN.
Often we get caught up in the way the public should respond rather than the way the public will respond. It seems futile to simply yell louder at non hunters to mind your own business. I think that the future of hunting will ultimately succeed or fail with the ability of hunters to communicate the true nature of sport hunting through example. If you believe that shooting a grizzly near a public highway, a few steps from your vehicle is a testimony to the spirit of fair chase hunting I would appreciate hearing how. I am not saying it was illegal, but I do think it was a very poor, dare I say stupid, decision.
I had a chance to move to the K.P. beautiful place but the more times I went down there in the past summer's I said " self do you really want to deal with this"
The combat fishing, the tourists, the newcomers that want to get there piece of the last frontier, and then the people that don't have no respect for the place itself.
The attutide of some of the locals,( not all, I have some good friends down there) was hey if you don't like the way we do things , find another spot.
Sounds like a pretty good bunch of guys on here from down there, but I don't see myself in that kinda place when you have a crowd watching a scene like this play out.
And the most recent comment from the LA Times:
"Why would anyone go visit a state to see rare wildlife if the ignorant redneck population is allowed to shoot them? Grizzly bears have struggled to come back from the slaughter of the 19th and 20th centuries and they kill them for fun?
Besides, I was taught that you don't ever hunt anything you aren't going to eat. So why are they hunting such a rare animal at all?"
...and I just shake my head.
Pursue happiness with diligence.
as long as everything was legal, who cares what the tourists think. the ADN version is written obviously in a slanted manner as usual. what if it had been a black bear...or a rabbit ? would it still be a big deal? somehow, i doubt it. there's just way too many armchair quarterbacks in anchorage who worship bears like some sort of mental illness.