radio collared bear killed

Discussion in 'Big Game Hunting' started by bobvonb, Sep 7, 2010.

  1. bobvonb

    bobvonb G&G Evangelist

    dang it. it's going around Facebook now. Apparently in Minnesota a radio collared bear, sporting pink ribbons no less, was killed and the collar turned in anonymously. Apparently legal too. The bear was part of a study and it was hoped the radio collared bears would be spared. all the anti-hunter posts you'd never want to see are popping up. The bear had a name. Pink ribbons. It was unafraid of humans. disney-itis strikes again.

    I checked Snopes and didn't find anything on this before I posted. I'd love to find out this was a hoax.
     
  2. sell33

    sell33 G&G Enthusiast

    What kind of dumbasses let a tame bear back into the wild anyways?
     

  3. lefty o

    lefty o G&G Evangelist

    9,224
    61
    mn
    just because someone gives an animal a name does not mean its not a wild animal. if a nice animal walks past me, and i have a tag to legally shoot it, its going to die, collar or no collar. i suppose guys that shoot waterfowl that have leg bands on them are bad guys too?
     
  4. bobvonb

    bobvonb G&G Evangelist

    ^ oh, i agree. there are procedures in place for returning collars, etc. It was perfectly legal. they were studying it as a wild animal after all.
     
  5. lefty o

    lefty o G&G Evangelist

    9,224
    61
    mn
    the best part i like was in your first post, "it was unafraid of humans". a wild animal that is not afraid of people, is a dangerous animal. its really too bad that the anti's/tree huggers just dont have a clue.
     
  6. bobvonb

    bobvonb G&G Evangelist

    here was the actual quote:

    Sarah was a gentle, trusting, and trustworthy bear with the calm personality that allows a person to accompany her and be ignored.

    yet they were trying to study wild bears. curious mix of lab, zoo, and field work done in an area open to hunting.
     
  7. 99dragon99

    99dragon99 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    In Minnesota, it is legal to shoot collared bears. When you get a bear license you have to go to a workshop and you get a cd and manual. The manual say that you should not shoot the collared bears but if you do turn in the collar.

    Even if you consider it ok to shoot a collared bear... it was only a yearling. Barely enough meat to make a sandwich. That is pretty bad...
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2010
  8. Palladin8

    Palladin8 G&G Evangelist

    are collared bears related to collard pecary? and do they eat collard greens?
     
  9. sell33

    sell33 G&G Enthusiast

    That is what I was referring to. If it was unafraid of humans I don't think it was smart to return it to the wild because there would obviously be a much greater chance of it hurting someone or doing some damage. I don't blame the guy for shooting it at all. If the people that let it go didn't want it getting shot they shouldn't have released it.
     
  10. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    15,235
    36
    Yepper,our taxpayers dollars at work.Out there trying to find a reason to shut hunting down. ,,,sam.
     
  11. Wild West

    Wild West G&G Addict

    It is all about perception. The antis are trying to get more anti hunting buddies so use every story, weather true or not, to bash hunting and gun use. If they can create a situation that will get emotions and the press going they do it.
     
  12. jason1965

    jason1965 mil-surp collector Forum Contributor

    I think what the person should have done was to some how ship the collar to all 50 states.
    That would have blown there minds.
     
  13. cold queso

    cold queso G&G Regular

    Sam, I'm a DNR Safety Instructor up here and can tell you that our DNR has greatly enhanced bear hunting over the past 30 years. Until around 1980, there was a BOUNTY on bears and they were treated as varmints. The game animal study began in 1981 and we now have over 20,000 bears in Minnesota. Hunting has to be closely monitored, because as with all large predators, hunting mortality approaches 80% with bears.

    There are continuous studies occuring for bears, moose, elk, turkey, grouse, waterfowl, sandhill cranes, etc.... We are also at the forefront of studies the effects of global warming on transitional areas, as our conifer northwoods are invaded by oak savannas, which may be causing the reduction in our moose population.

    Minnesota DNR continues to expand hunting opportunities, create more land access for hunting, and train and recruit young hunters. We reintroduced turkeys to Minnesota and grouse to Missouri with an innovate trap-trade-transplant program, continually monitor the advance of CWD... and the list goes on and on.

    MDNR has also let the fight AGAINST the antis recently as we opened a dove hunting season, and actively educated both hunters and the general population on the actual dangers of lead in wild game(countering the same pitch that was occuring in California regarding lead bullets).

    I'm proud of the work this state agency does, and happy to assist them in a small way by safely introducing new hunters to the outdoors.
     
  14. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    15,235
    36
    I find the DNR/fish and game etc usually do ok.It is some of the other supposed research I object to.Sounds like you people are doing fine.I really object to the kind of research that shuts down a needed road or something for a bug or fish no one ever heard of and never will after. ,,,sam.
     
  15. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    15,235
    36
    I should have tried to explain a little better what goes on in most states.The state I am talking about shall remain nameless so some do-gooder can't use anything against the game and fish dept.Anyway Some hunters/trappers volunteered their time and knowledge to help on research and this is how I know about the "SH*T" DNR/F&G goes through.This state like so many states was half political and half game and fish.The people of this state voted the political half out so it was strictly G&F regulated.They asked for strictly volunteers to assist in programs/projects and several did it,strictly unpaid.Everything was going fine and programs were gaining in good shape.But you may vote politicians out of power but they still control the tax money intended to fund these projects.All they have to do is take the millions taken in from taxes on every thing we buy in the hunting/fishing field and put it in "general fund".On cnce that happens DNR/F&G has to go to them for money to operate.Even tho voted out of power,they are "THE" power.So trading is done.Like "give me your research on certain facets and we will try to find some money".Sufice it to say since the state gov controls the money and more voters are anti-hunting than pro-hunting,guess where the politician stands.The state I am talking about is doing a lot of good,but they fight tooth and claw to get funds for anything.The last I knew they never got the funding for 28 more officers,but with some volunteer help they are getting by,altho the extra officers would have been a realy big help to hunting and fishing.By the way,shortage of officers is a problem in every state I know anything about. They are a great bunch of men and women and don't get near the credit they desreve. ,,,sam.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2010
  16. Cyrano

    Cyrano Resident Curmudgeon Forum Contributor

    33,602
    35,492
    New York
    That's at least one thing we've managed to do right here in New York, sam. All the money raised by taxes on guns, ammo, fishing gear, and the assorted lincenses required for hunting and fishing does NOT go into the General Fund. It goes straight into a fund that bankrolls wildlife activities like fish hatcheries, pheasant farms, hunter education, acquisition of the occasional piece of land to keep it out of the hands of anti-hunters, and lots more outdoor activity-related things.

    By the way, the politicians and the anti-hunters and anti-gunners HATE that. Hunters, shooters and fishermen aren't happy about the size of the taxes, but because we know we as a group are actually getting something back for those tax dollars, we don't do more than grumble. That is, until the useless politicians in Albany start casting covetous eyes over the Fish & Wildlife Fund, as they do every couple of years, wanting to take it into the General Fund to blow on useless leftist projects. Then we start screaming and picketing, and the political a$$holes back off for awhile.
     
  17. cold queso

    cold queso G&G Regular

    Sam and Cyrano,

    you guys are so right about the funding issues and the tree-hugging zealots that would totally close off access to the outdoors.

    Luckily, both Minnesota and Wisconsin have a great heritage of hunting and fishing and cooperative work between legislators, DNR, and advocacy groups.

    That being said, I can rattle off a long list of issues I disagree with them on, including our deer regulations, changes in youth certificates, wolf management, denial of mountain lion population, etc.... But the good outweighs the bad and we just have to continue to lean on them to do the right thing.
     
  18. bobvonb

    bobvonb G&G Evangelist

    Can you provide some numbers of bears etc. before the DNR efforts? It would be good to be able to cite some numbers when talking to the anti's.

    Bob
     
  19. cold queso

    cold queso G&G Regular

    There were no population estimates available when the bounties ended in 1965. everyone agrees they were overhunted. The DNR today aims for the 20,000 population level and adjusts the tags accordingly. Unfortunately, we COULD carry more animals but the incidence of human contact would be too high - and then you have to kill nusiance bears. They show up all the time here in the east metro area, indicating dispersal from the north central forests.

    On the shooting of the collared bear, it's a travesty. The NABC that radiocollared her (Sarah), has done so much to create an ethical hunt up here. I'd like a few moments with the slob hunter that did this.
     
  20. lefty o

    lefty o G&G Evangelist

    9,224
    61
    mn
    what makes the guy a slob hunter? he was licensed, and took a legal animal. quite honestly, if this bear had little fear of humans, this hunter did us a favor. a wild animal with a lack of fear of humans is a DANGEROUS animal. if you want to throw the word ethical around, what do you think of a guy who says give him a few moments with the guy, when the hunter was within his legal rights. personally i think that is pretty **** poor! luv internet tough guys!