stub, do I have to rewrite my old posts so you understand where i am coming from. Of course all the facts need to be known. From what I have read so far, only ONE of the bears was shot legally. So, why are all the "good" outdoorspeople collecting for the illegal kill. The native shot it legally.( according to the officers) If a non-native shot a bear "legally" there would be no uproar at all. I know 2 fellows that shot 2 grizz bear that were "charging" them. They killed the bears and were "heroes". No one will ever know if the charges were bluffs or not. I don't remember ANYONE suggesting they be charged with an offense, They were light skinned also.
Grizzly shooting causes outrage
- Thread starter sheephunter
- Start date
Until the court case is over,you do not know if either of the bears was killed illegally.
The collection was being taken to help pay for the legal costs for the court case to determine if the bear was shot legally.
Why would anyone take a collection to pay for court costs for the recent bear killer,if the person was not charged and does not have to hire a lawyer and go to court?
And unless you care to dispute the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty in Canada,you might want to stop referring to the other kill as "illegal" until the court case decides whether it was legal or illegal..
That is a meaningless statement,since there is no legal way that a non native can shoot a grizzly in Alberta just because it wandered close enough to cause a dog to bark.If a non native did that,he would have been charged,and he would be on his way to court.
You are trying very hard to make the two incidents appear to be very similar when in fact the only similarity is that in both cases,a grizzly was killed.The situations under which the bears were killed were very different.In one case the grizzly demonstrated aggressive behavior,while there is no mention of aggressive behavior at all in the other case,so self defense may apply in one case.The laws governing both people are very different due to Canada's legislated racism,and so one person was charged and the bear seized,while the other person was not charged and was able to keep the bears hide as a trophy.The situations are very different despite your effort to make them appear to be similar.
Last edited:
One person has been charged. I would assume that would mean that a wildlife officer thought he did something illegal.
stub's quote
"The collection was being taken to help pay for the legal costs for the court case to determine if the bear was shot legally."
Total BULL####. The collection was taken to help the accused fight the charge.
"And unless you care to dispute the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty in Canada,you might want to stop referring to the other kill as "illegal" until the court case decides whether it was legal or illegal..
If you want to believe the first part of your statement , you go right ahead. It was an illegal kill in someones eyes, or he wouldn't have been charged. Now he has to go to court to prove he is innocent.
Totally off the subject...diamondk is trying to communicate with you.
stub's quote
"The collection was being taken to help pay for the legal costs for the court case to determine if the bear was shot legally."
Total BULL####. The collection was taken to help the accused fight the charge.
"And unless you care to dispute the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty in Canada,you might want to stop referring to the other kill as "illegal" until the court case decides whether it was legal or illegal..
If you want to believe the first part of your statement , you go right ahead. It was an illegal kill in someones eyes, or he wouldn't have been charged. Now he has to go to court to prove he is innocent.
Totally off the subject...diamondk is trying to communicate with you.
The collection was being taken to help the accused pay the legal fees to go to court .The court trial is to determine if the bear was shot legally.Just as I posted previously with the statement below.
Charged is not convicted.
And I can't help but laugh when I look back at your posts complaining about people judging the native that killed the grizzly,then I see your recent posts referring to the "illegal " shooting by the non native.You are posting as though he is already convicted.That is hypocrisy at it's finest.
As for Diamond K,I have been recovering from one surgery for over a month now,and am awaiting a second surgery,but I will contact him when I am coming through town.He can call me if he wants to know more.
I say illegal because the guy got charged. A person (normally)doesn't get charged for doing something legally. I don't know if he is guilty or not.
I don't know diamondk. He just started a topic on A.O. wondering how to get in contact with you.
What I don't get is how the population of grizzlies in Alberta can be identified as being "at risk", "endangered" or any such thing. I'll grant that the continental divide is a real physical barrier, and that grizzlies on the Alberta/Arctic watershed side should probably be considered a distinct population from those on the BC/Pacific watershed side, but the border with Montana is entirely political and isn't really paid attention to by all that many bears.
As much as I support legitimate conservation, I just have this hunch that someone might be fiddling with some definitions to cause trouble for folks who feel the need to defend themselves from grizzlies (and all this treaty noise is just clouding the issue).
As much as I support legitimate conservation, I just have this hunch that someone might be fiddling with some definitions to cause trouble for folks who feel the need to defend themselves from grizzlies (and all this treaty noise is just clouding the issue).
Do you live in a different world. Did I not explain that normally people don't get charged for doing something thats legal!!!!! When you read, let it sink in. WOW!!! Sheeesh!!!
OK, this is my last post on this subject. Otherwise my name might turn pink. If you see a sign on the hiway and it says speed limit 110 k/h and you drive 120 k/h you are doing something illegal. You may not be proven guilty, but, you are still doing something illegal. That is a fact, not a judgment.That should be about as clear as mud to you.
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
Hey mods...how can I get BANNED under my name?? Seems popular in this thread....
Just got an email from a buddy of mine he lives year round in Northern BC with his native wife in a tiny log cabin that he built himself they have no running water and their only power is a generator.
He did set up with a sattalite phone and internet connection lately but all of a sudden a few weeks ago all contact with them disappeared.
Turns out a grizzly ripped his entire sattelite dish system down...
A few nights later he heard a noise outside so he took a flashlight and his old 303 rifle stuck his head out of his main cabin door and there was a grizzly pushing it's way in from the other side.
From what I understand he shot it right thru his front door...
He has grizzly troubles every year but this is the first one that he had to shoot.
He did set up with a sattalite phone and internet connection lately but all of a sudden a few weeks ago all contact with them disappeared.
Turns out a grizzly ripped his entire sattelite dish system down...
A few nights later he heard a noise outside so he took a flashlight and his old 303 rifle stuck his head out of his main cabin door and there was a grizzly pushing it's way in from the other side.
From what I understand he shot it right thru his front door...
He has grizzly troubles every year but this is the first one that he had to shoot.
A couple of points:
It could be possible that those Indians did not know it was a grizzly since they apparently shot it in the dark.
They did do the right thing to follow it up afterwards and finish it off I think. I'm assuming it must have been badly wounded.
Somebody asked what would be the reaction if this had been done by a non-Native. I am certain that everybody on this board would be outraged. This issue is simply about the apparent waste of a grizzly.
But now this:
And this is why this subject pisses me off so much.
On the road in to our gas plant, one morning some years back, we came upon 3 dead moose in the ditch. It was late Aug/early Sept; one was a young bull along with, a cow and calf. Moose hunting season was not open yet so we called F&W to report it.
The officer came out, the moose were still there and nobody around so he picked up a few of us and we drove back out with him.
We get there and there were 4-5 Indians BUTCHERING the carcasses. I doubt that any of you have ever seen such terrible work to gut and clean animals.
There was s**t and guts all over through the meat. We were shocked at how they were hacking them up and the disregard for clean, proper meat handling. To this day I remain convinced that those animals were not shot for their consumption. I cannot believe anybody could be that careless/stupid.
I am certain that those animals were killed to be sold for money.
About a month ago we went on a quad ride and we ran into a group of other riders; 2 Indians and a white guy. We bulls**tted for a bit and then each group continued on, we went up the trail these guys had just come out.
All of a sudden we ran in to fresh blood on the trail. It only took a minute to track it to a black bear that had just been shot, and in that remote location there could be no doubt as to the fact that those guys had done it.
Not saying it was the Indians either, the white guy coulda been the shooter right?
They had covered the bear with branches and stuff to hide it.
The front claws had been removed.
That particular incident did not bother me one bit, since black bears are thick as fleas up there etc. And what they did was save a few moose calves actually...
It could be possible that those Indians did not know it was a grizzly since they apparently shot it in the dark.
They did do the right thing to follow it up afterwards and finish it off I think. I'm assuming it must have been badly wounded.
Somebody asked what would be the reaction if this had been done by a non-Native. I am certain that everybody on this board would be outraged. This issue is simply about the apparent waste of a grizzly.
But now this:
And this is why this subject pisses me off so much.
On the road in to our gas plant, one morning some years back, we came upon 3 dead moose in the ditch. It was late Aug/early Sept; one was a young bull along with, a cow and calf. Moose hunting season was not open yet so we called F&W to report it.
The officer came out, the moose were still there and nobody around so he picked up a few of us and we drove back out with him.
We get there and there were 4-5 Indians BUTCHERING the carcasses. I doubt that any of you have ever seen such terrible work to gut and clean animals.
There was s**t and guts all over through the meat. We were shocked at how they were hacking them up and the disregard for clean, proper meat handling. To this day I remain convinced that those animals were not shot for their consumption. I cannot believe anybody could be that careless/stupid.
I am certain that those animals were killed to be sold for money.
About a month ago we went on a quad ride and we ran into a group of other riders; 2 Indians and a white guy. We bulls**tted for a bit and then each group continued on, we went up the trail these guys had just come out.
All of a sudden we ran in to fresh blood on the trail. It only took a minute to track it to a black bear that had just been shot, and in that remote location there could be no doubt as to the fact that those guys had done it.
Not saying it was the Indians either, the white guy coulda been the shooter right?
They had covered the bear with branches and stuff to hide it.
The front claws had been removed.
That particular incident did not bother me one bit, since black bears are thick as fleas up there etc. And what they did was save a few moose calves actually...
Last edited:
The fact is Natives are allowed to do things that no one else is allowed to do in this country. I'm sure most do not abuse this privilege but some do. The fact is there's probably equal amounts of both natives and non-natives who would act in this way, the only difference is one would goto court for such an act, the other would not. Both should goto court for such an act, no matter of race, in a an ideal world.
I'm not any more mad a Native who acts this way then I would be at a non-native.
What I am more upset at, is the government who allows it continue, and in fact helped it to become this way in the first place. Knowing there is no chance of punishment encourages this type of behaviour.
That is how I feel about it anyways.
I'm not any more mad a Native who acts this way then I would be at a non-native.
What I am more upset at, is the government who allows it continue, and in fact helped it to become this way in the first place. Knowing there is no chance of punishment encourages this type of behaviour.
That is how I feel about it anyways.
Last edited:
Yes, that my understanding too. Social, cerimonial or food. Not sure how this bear fits into any of those. Interestingly though, he got to keep the hide and in self-defence kills you do not get to keep the hide so that arguement is pretty well moot!
