Killing bears in Maryland to cut population!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
OAKLAND, Maryland (AP) -- A freelance outdoors writer bagged an 84-pound female black bear Monday, the first bear legally killed by a hunter in Maryland in 51 years
Baiting was prohibited during the tightly regulated six-day hunt, intended to cull a growing bear population but opposed by animal rights groups. Instead of waiting near a pile of jelly doughnuts or lighting up a smoky, sweet-smelling lure, participants must go where the bears are.

www.cnn.com...

Despite the relatively young age and small size of the first bear killed, both Ciekot and DNR officials were satisfied with the kill.

"This is the next step in bear management in Maryland," said Harry Spiker, DNR's black bear project manager.

I don't agree with this at all! I think the hunters that participate in this just want the bears as trophy's and the official that allow it are worse! They should let nature decide! Hunting to put food on the table is one thing, but to kill them because they are a nuisance to residents is just wrong!




posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I don't really like it, but you've got to look at it this way-

The bear population gets too big, and they start going near populated areas for food. The worst happens, and some kid is mauled to death. Now, instead of a few bears being killed, you've basically got open season on the 'bloodthirsty monsters'. Not only that, but one for more innocent humans get seriously injured/killed. I put human life above an animal's.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
This isn't a case of kill or be killed! The bears may never have attacked a single person, they are only allowed to kill 30 out of the 500. It will reduce the poplulation, but not eliminate it! If a bear wants to go into a populated area this won't change anything! I put human life above animals too, but there is no legitimate reason for this!



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well you do need to think of over population of wild life as a "nuisance". When they start looking for food neighborhoods that were never part of their habitat in the first place, its a problem. The only reason they part ways with the forest is because they are starving due to overpopulation.

This is especially true with white tail deer. They are so overpopulated that they are eating everything in sight, running rampant and causing A LOT of car accidents by moving where they normaly would not go. There are more white tail in Virginia now than there were when Jamestown opened for business. At our farm in Missouri the season opened to does, get em, bag em tag em as fast as you can. They have litteraly become a giant rat. Digging in trash, gardens, flowers etc. Not to mention people get really hurt when one decides he want to become a hood ornament for a car. Then of course chronic wasting disease becomes a problem.

Now will 30 bear kills help? I don't think so. Kind of silly if you ask me. But when I do hit George Washington Natl Forest. I ALWAYS carry my pistol.

JB



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
If overpopulation happened in a bears natural habitat (eg. without human trash to rummage through and live off), the bear population will sort itself out. Due to a constant presence of food, whether it be through landfills or peoples trash in yards, these bears will live, they won't die off due to increased competition.

'nuisance' bears have proved troublesome to address. There have been reports of officials moving them hundreds of miles away, only to have the same bear reappear in the very same place.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. And I can't see any reason for hunting bear for reasons other than a trophy - I think bear meat tastes like absolute crap no matter what you do with it.

I think it's preferable than a proposed idea in NJ a few years back so long as the meat is being consumed, and the hide is kept. Environmentalists and animal rights people wanted to begin to sterilize the bear population which I think could be more dangerous than outright killing them.

link



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
OLD
There have always been bears within Maryland, and the problem isn't as widespread as everyone expects to believe, besides I live in Maryland; I should know.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Well I live in McLean Virginia and I HAVE seen bears in Sterling and Manassas. What's your point anyway?



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I don't like the idea of killing the bears...
Why don't they start a relocation program? Capture and transport bears to other locations in the country that aren't so populace with bears? Or take them to a national park maybe.
It would cost too much? It's shame. I think bears are magnificent animals and I never approve of trophy hunting.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Let the population go till its overlflowing, then when people start hitting the bears on roads or having their precious manicured poodles eaten then maybe they will realize that population control is necessary.

I don't think a relocation system would be that hot of an idea for many reasons. Every time you handle wild animals you put yourself at risk, especially large one such as bear. Then theres the cost of tranq'ing the bear, loading it into a container, driving it to whatever place to release it, etc. I hate to say it but shooting the bear, processing the meat and putting it to use feeding homeless or low-income families is a far more acceptable solution IMHO. Controlled hunts have proven effective in the past, I don't see why they wont work now.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
This thread reminds me of a trip I made a few weeks ago to the Cherokee Indian reservation in North carolina.
One place we stopped at had a couple of grizzlies and some black bears in in captivity. The areas they were held in were kind've small and they looked so miserable. Almost like they'd rather be dead than trapped in those cages. I felt very sorry for them. I'm not like the other tourists who throw the bears food and laugh at their antics. There was something about the bear's eyes that struck me as being sad.
I WILL agree that perhaps it is better to "thin" the population than to subject such a large wild animal to captivity like what I saw. I just wish there was an alternative.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
I don't like the idea of killing the bears...
Why don't they start a relocation program? Capture and transport bears to other locations in the country that aren't so populace with bears? Or take them to a national park maybe.
It would cost too much? It's shame. I think bears are magnificent animals and I never approve of trophy hunting.


Where do you think they are coming from? Does the Shenandoah National Park or George Washington National Forest ring a bell? The bears habitat is not shrinking. There are just to many of them. 30 Bears may not sound like a lot, but a bears territory is huge.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Perhaps the situation of the bears in your state will be to the positive- the hunt itself may increase the public awareness and interest in their plight.
My first thought, however is that overpopulation is not a factor.Our encroachment onto their territory is where the problem lies.
Read about the plight of the black bear in my state.We have legal bear baiting here, and I am not in support of it.
Quote from article-

"...Ban backers argued that baiting is unethical, as well as unnecessary. Alaska has an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 black bears, of which about 2,400 a year are killed by hunters. Of those, about 600 are shot at bait stations."

Source www.adn.com...

But...what about aerial wolf hunts? Yep, it is happening also. And I also am against this practice.
Check this out www.kerwoodwolf.com... Quite a story behind this situation.
The wolves are so beautiful-





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join