Radio Collared Bears

[tweedlap]

The collar on the bear I shot was a dirty dark brown and plenty tight.

I had a hard time getting a finger between the collar and the bear.

You couldn't see the collar at 10 yards.

tweed

[Muthagoose]

Actually the "blood spattered" comment came directly from Lynn and sue as they were doing the interveiw with the BBC at the office in tower.. Tom Rush told them he wanted nothing to do with the interview..

This is the statement from the the lilly and hope update.

"""We picked up her blood-spotted radio-collar from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources this morning. It had been turned in anonymously."""

Pretty cleaver people?

[Muthagoose]

Tweed I need to get a little more information from you..Its just that type of incident that needs to be brought to attention to the right people...

Drop me a email [email protected]

[bogwalker]

No, it was in the mid 90's.

[Muthagoose]

Bog,,, Thanks......

[pureinsanity]

Whoever shot the bear should go on facebook and post on the bears wall that she tasted great and helped feed a lot of hungry people

[kelly-p]

I came across this today.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Bears don't belong to anyone

Ely Echo Editorial

Saturday, September 11, 2010

A bear that was part of a research study involving Lynn Rogers and the North American Bear Center appears to have been legally killed by a hunter last week. The headline on the StarTribune HSOforum: "Researcher near Ely says hunter killed one of his bears."

We didn't find a quote attributed to local researcher Lynn Rogers, but it wouldn't be surprising if he did say the bear was his. That's where Rogers is wrong. Bears in the woods, collared or not, do not belong to anyone. Period.

There are three facts that need to be pointed out:

1. Bears are wild animals.

2. Bears belong to the state of Minnesota.

3. Bear hunting is a legal activity authorized by the state of Minnesota (including shooting collared bears).

We have researchers in the Ely area that have collars on animals in the woods besides bears, specifically moose, wolves and deer.

Yet, we have never heard the local deer researcher bemoan and whine about a collared deer being legally shot. We wouldn't expect that. Hunting is part of a wild animal's life in the woods.

But Rogers has pushed the limits of research. His methods are different from others. Some would say his ability to get close to bears and be able to follow them in the woods is groundbreaking. Others would say he is interfering with and altering the life pattern of the bear.

Our opinion on bears, research or otherwise, has been and continues to be bears should exist in the forest just like the moose, deer or even the wolf. There should be management of the population through hunting seasons. If there are too many, allow more hunting and if there are too few, lower the quotas or go without a hunting season.

If a collared animal is killed, the researcher should note the time, location and if known, the cause of death. Should the animal be killed legally by a hunter, the death would be noted the same as if it died after being hit by a car.

What we have in the case of the collared bear that made headlines this past week, is nature and man interacting. From information we've been able to gather, a hunter legally shot a collared bear and returned the collar to the DNR. The story should end with "and the researcher noted the date of death."

Instead we have Rogers and his supporters attacking a bear hunter who to this point is nameless. Did he/she know the bear was wearing a collar when it was shot? Unknown.

In addition to Rogers, the DNR also has collared bears. In fact, two of the DNR's collared bears have been shot this year.

According to the StarTribune, a DNR collared bear was shot last week by a 12-year-old girl hunting for the first time with her father. They saw the collar and decided to harvest the bear.

There was nothing unethical and nothing wrong with what this young hunter did. Bears are bears are bears. They don't belong to researchers, they belong to the state of Minnesota. They get hit by cars and even shot by hunters. They live and they die.

This bear that Rogers is upset about was one year old. The research time invested was minimal. In terms of one year old animals in the woods, it was young and unwise. Likely because of that it got shot. That should be part of the research.

Altering reality for economic gain is not part of science. If we have to choose between economic gains and keeping wild animals wild, the choice is simple.

We also heard a bit of advice that some may not take kindly to, but it holds true: If you don't want bears with names to get shot, stop naming bears.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Content © 2010 The Ely Echo

Software © 1998-2010 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved

[mrklean]

very nice would love to see that in the star trib

[jkcmj]

Have you guys heard of the new bear call out there. I heard it is very effective in certain parts of the state!

[post removed by request.]

Of course I am only joking... seriously

[HooknHorns]

The success rate will go up considerably now that you posted that. HA HA

[PEATMOSS]

We also heard a bit of advice that some may not take kindly to, but it holds true: If you don't want bears with names to get shot, stop naming bears.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Content © 2010 The Ely Echo

Software © 1998-2010 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved

Goodgawd, I wish I had come up with this quote!

[Bear55]

Go Ely Echo!

[InTheNorthwoods]

Sounds like the guy who wrote the editorial had been following my posts on the subject here. We think alot alike.

[CANOPY SAM]

Great post Kelly. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the folks who shot these two animals. I sure wouldn't want this kind of media attention just because I legally harvested an animal.

Only comment I might make is that a hunter killed, or car killed animal is definately not part of a wild animal's natural life cycle. It is indeed the end of their life, but it is not a natural death anymore than it would be for a human.

Not taking sides on the issue, but purely from a scientific standpoint, the human intervention element of this situation is outside of an unbiased study. The wording above, regarding the end of the study, is accurate though.

The story should end with, "And the researcher noted the date of death."

To me, it sounds as though this story is becoming far too personalized.

[jkcmj]

Wait a minute, humans aren't natural?? Not a part of nature???

I am guessing you either mean that human beings were created by God and so don't belong in the same group as the other species on this planet. Or wait, if you believe in Biblical creation, as I do, than you must know that God also created the beasts.

I guess I don't understand this "researcher" perspective. This is what appears to be the biggest flaw of all. Researchers believe humans are not considered a part of nature. Apparently biology class went wrong somewhere. We humans create an environment that benefits our own needs. Just as the beaver makes a dam, clears treas, etc, a bird makes a nest, a wood pecker drills into a tree, etc. All creatures affect the environment around them, and many times it is negative for other species in the area. Bears are a prey animal for humans, plain and simple. We are a natural preditor of bears. Why doesn't the scientific community understand this most basic of ideas?

[Bear55]

I agree jkcmj, we are a part of the food chain just like any other animal. I'm pretty sure we have been hunting for as long as we have been around so I would consider any death by hunting as natural. I car killed animal might be considered unnatural but that is kind of a gray area depending on how you look at it.

Now if you want to talk about our impact on the natural environment by clearing land to build homes and cities that's a whole new ballgame.

[Boar]

Stupid thumbs an large brain just keeps getting us in trouble with the same species that are sitting on large thumbs hiding some where an have smaller brains.

[CANOPY SAM]

Geez guys.... Some of you sure look for stuff to argue about.

My only point is that this scenario is not considered a "natural death" in regard to an animal's normal life-cycle. As I sit here typing, if I happen to catch a stray bullet in my "small brain", the coroner will not likely list my cause of death as, "Died of Natural Causes."

Although the statistics gathered from hunters and fisherman are valuable in managing game populations, I do not believe they are considered a factor in the natural ecosystem. When a particular species population is being threatened by overharvest we take away the human intervention element (hunting or fishing), and allow the population to rebuild, or often assist in it's success. It's an external, human controlled factor - not natural.

If a collared bear keels over from a massive coronary occlusion it's a natural death. If it freezes to death in it's winter den it's a natural death. These are "natural" ends to a normal life-cycle.

A car, or a bullet, are not "natural" parts of the environment in which wild animals live. They are certainly external factors that can influence an animals longevity, but they are not considered a determinate factor in the course of an animal's life.

Humans are part of the natural world, of course. I didn't say otherwise. But if you put me naked, in a fight vs. a large bear (level playing field), not only will it be an amusing sight (or perhaps better said - unpleasant site), but I will almost certainly lose. We're talking about two entirely different playing fields here.

jkcmj. When you decide to move outside permanently, never wear any clothing, build your shelter from sticks, leaves, and mud, and scavange all of your sustainance from the woods and water then I will accept that you are part of the "natural" world. I think I'll forego observing your natural behavior though, and leave that study to someone else.

I think the "researcher flaw" you're refering to may hold true by what I've heard is being done at this Bear Research facility. The claim that these animals are "his" makes one question what is the true motivation behind the "research".

[BLACKJACK]

I can see both sides of the story.

If you're sitting by your bait and all you see is radio collared bears, and you like bear meat, I can see why you'd be tempted to shoot one.

On the other hand, biologists doing research on bears can only help hunters in the long run, why would you want to shoot a research bear? I'll bet moose hunters wish that they would have been doing more moose research 25 years ago before the population started plummeting!!

[jkcmj]

Here we go! Same token. Beaver should not build a lodge, not natural, should survive with just his hide right? Bird without a nest, should incubate them darn eggs on the rocks if he was any sort of natural creature. Bear without a den. Why do those silly whales stay in the water! Think they need extra protection than what nature gave them?? I bet that water helps them get around better, get food, and stay healthy. Why do wolves have to hunt in packs? Not tough enough to get a little meat on there own? Must be wimps to think they need to hunt in packs! Humans do the same thing. We use our surroundings for survival, same as other creatures.

Same token, wolf predation on deer should not be considered a natural death. Trees killed by beavers would then not be considered a natural death for the tree. Maybe these are not considered "natural" deaths in research studies, but it seems to me circle of life is as natural as it gets.

The "natural" food chain, of which we are part, is dependant on the taking of life. bacteria and insects eating everything breaking it down to the basics. Herbavors eating trees, grass, etc. insects eaten by bats. deer eaten by bears, wolves, people. Coyotes killed by wolves to protect food sources. bears killing other bears to protect territory. Lions killing offspring of other males to promote their own genetics when they take over a pride. wolves killed by humans to protect food sources. Bears eaten by humans to protect homes/food sources. Can ya see what I'm steppin in here! Any of the above sound like natural course of things?

[jkcmj]

By the way. My house is built of sticks and mud. Another member of my "pack" sawed the sticks into thinner boards for me while I was hunting for bear skins and meat to keep us fed and warm on the project. Another member of the pack dug up some mud to seal the cracks between the (drywall) boards to keep the wind off of me when I sleep and raise my young.

[HooknHorns]

I don't see every bear out there wearing collars. So I don't believe thats a natural part of their life either. If they were worried about numbers why dont they ask the hunters how many bears they saw at their bait even trail cams can show numbers to some extent. Heres a question, has any of you found a bear carcass that died of natural cause? Just curious.

[jkcmj]

I caused the natural death of half a dozen myself!

I suppose if you mean old age deaths, I have seen one, but it to may have been killed by predation by an internal organism such as viruses, protozoan, parasitic worm, etc. so can't even say that one was natural I guess.

[pureinsanity]

Yogi bear has to be dead by natural causes by now. He even sported a collar...

His first debut was in 1958 as a supporting character in The Huckleberry Hound Show. In January 1961 he was given his own show, The Yogi Bear Show!

Yogi was one of several Hanna-Barbera characters to have a collar, which allowed the body to be kept static and to redraw just the head in each frame when he was speaking, thus reducing the number of drawings needed for a seven-minute cartoon from 14,000 to around 2000.

Now there is some collared bear facts!

[HooknHorns]

Yogi bear has to be dead by natural causes by now. He even sported a collar...

His first debut was in 1958 as a supporting character in The Huckleberry Hound Show. In January 1961 he was given his own show, The Yogi Bear Show!

Yogi was one of several Hanna-Barbera characters to have a collar, which allowed the body to be kept static and to redraw just the head in each frame when he was speaking, thus reducing the number of drawings needed for a seven-minute cartoon from 14,000 to around 2000.

Now there is some collared bear facts!

Learn something new everyday