Letter: Bears shootings 'a despicable cruelty'

John Y Cannuck

John Y Cannuck

RichPoorMan<br>Super Moderator
Moderating Team
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Location
The Conservative part of Ontario
From the CFD:


Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 08:29:56 -0600 (CST)
From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User)
Subject: Letter: Bears shootings 'a despicable cruelty'

PUBLICATION: The Whitehorse Star
DATE: 2006.05.05
SECTION: Opinion
PAGE: 20
COLUMN: Letters to the editor
WORD COUNT: 707

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

Bears shootings 'a despicable cruelty'

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

This letter will be an angry one and may not be suitable for some readers.

This latest grizzly bear kill (Star, May 1, 2) is one of the most
despicable and obvious acts of animal cruelty I have ever come across.

My heart goes out to Mr. Pagé's family in regards to his tragic death
but the deaths of those bears are a crime, and somebody ought to do the
time.

I knew him and liked him. He would not agree with your action. Everyone
involved should be charged under the Wildlife Act. This policy, if there
is one, needs to be reviewed.

Conservation officers: while the mother bear was acting instinctive, you
clowns acted extinctive.

The only difference between you people and a poacher is your actions are
sanctioned by some other micro-manager in an office.

I wonder what the main criterion is for getting through a job
competition for your line of work in this territory. Could it be not
having the ability to think independently?

I have blogged all over the world over the past couple of nights and
posted the Star's story on this matter and every response by others in
this field has been the same. Outrage; even your peers think you're
idiots, so I am not alone here by any means.

One responder asked if you people had any education or were you hired
right off the street? I did not have an answer.

There was simply no justifiable reason to kill these animals. I openly
challenge any of you so-called "experts" to a public debate to prove
otherwise.

I wager half of you with guns cannot even bait your own hooks.

Your credibility is now officially shot. You allow bears to feed freely
at the dump. Then it's fenced, and you kill 16.

You kill a bear that wanders into Dawson City for no reason. You then
slaughter about 15 wolves in the Mary Lake area because of stupid dog
owners.

You sneak around like a thief in the night and slaughter pet reindeer.
You kill beavers that a citizen was willing to capture live and move.
Now this.

Your logic in all these matters is always the same and shaped like a
pretzel. You're drunk with power. You people live in a bubble. Your idea
of nature is a picnic at Rotary Peace Park.

Why did you not dart the bear, retrieve the body and leave nature where
it is? In fact, why is this alternative never used?

She was not feeding on him. She exited the den once again because of
your approach and again to protect here cubs.

You people make me sick. You represent everything wrong with our species.

You're a hack with a fancy office and a cell phone who has no idea of
what's around you.

I ask you: what you have "conserved" of late? What have you done, say,
to protect and conserve?

Produce the goods. Any goods.

You are a trained robot with a badge and a bogus title; an ignoramus
without equal.

You are people who seem to be either philosophically and/or physically
incapable of dealing with that which is your mandate. Your entire office
is unqualified for the tasks deemed your responsibility.

In reporter Chuck Tobin's report on May 1, it states it is standard
policy to search and kill bears that have mauled or killed an
individual. So, in essence, you have no clue about nature and how it
operates? Where are we living - Banff?

This was an established 25-year-old mother with two babies probably no
bigger than a bread box. Twenty-five years without incident and your
only option was to kill her and her cubs.

Explain to me why this was done and I will back off.

The facts in this case are pretty clear, as was evident in radio
interviews and the Star. This was overkill, and no amounts of
double-speak or semantics change this.

The RCMP and the "con" officer use words like "dispatched". What's that
- - a buzz word picked up at a power point presentation?

Oh, and "officer safety"; you must really think we are stupid. This was
a slaughter, and the public is not going to buy your cow pie version.

You killed an animal for no reason other than being what she was. Doing
as they have done for thousands of years. You never gave her newborns
even a chance.

You really are a pathetic group. Sending the carcass in for an autopsy
as if there was something wrong with her.

I'll ask again: why did you not dart the animal and leave it at that?
Why the need to kill?

Your band of brothers need some education to go along with your training.

I will now enter the name "conservation officer" into that special
folder on my desk top entitled oxymoron. You people disgust me in every
way possible. Your meagre and lame attempts to explain this just add
fuel to my fire.

An ironic footnote: Last year, the same pair of seagulls came back to
where I work to nest once again. They had one baby.

One day, I heard magpies going crazy outside my door and went out to
discover their baby almost dead from an attack. The parents abandoned it
and I brought it inside.

I called the responsible department and it sent one of its officers who
I won't name. His concerns for the animal were genuine and he was a good
guy.

Talk about dedicated; he took the bird home with him and his entire
family nursed it back to health.

When he brought the bird back and showed me, I was awestruck. Had to
fight back the tears.

He took it to the preserve and it was released at the end of the season
to fly south. I say this because I'm sure not every officer thinks like
these people did.

Just compare the two scenarios.

------------------------------
 
what a twit my god is she totaly retarded? does she not relize that bears are teratorial specific animals and even if they dart it to get the body they still have the problem of people having to go there again should they be allowed to be killed by said bear ............ arrrgggghhhhhhhhh i cant stand these cuddly wuddly hug everything and if it hurts us just smile about it people anymore
 
She (how do we know it's a she?) is using this to vent her blinding anger that the liberals are done and history.

She's the kind of Canadian that I wouldn't piss on to put her out, if she was on fire. I'd be hard pressed not to punch her (him) in the mouth if we were in the same room.
 
Typical response, leaning heavily on a disneyesque' veiw of wild animals. I do however agree with her. The responsiblity to shoot this bear was Mr. Page's not the CO's
 
a bear that has killed once is more likely to kill again, the only reason i need
i hope its not my tax dollars paying for a guy to come and rescure baby seagulls. i would call them flying rats if the pigeons hadnt taken it first
 
We've had similar discussions around here - without the emotional drama. Those responsible for public safety - the RCMP and the CO's - will tell you that an animal attack on a human being shows a willingness on the part of that animal - which is able to choose between fight or flight - to act violently towards people and therefore no other responsible action exists but to destroy that animal. Further an animal should not and cannot have the same rights under the law as a human being - meaning that under the law a human being can kill in self defence, however that right is of coarse not extended to animals.

My view is somewhat different, and perhaps different from the majority who would post here. Also these opinions apply only to bears in wilderness settings, not dump bears, or bears which wander into town or mining sites, nor would it apply to National Parks where one is prevented from carrying adaquate protection.

In my opinion, anyone who ventures into bear country must assume a certain degree of risk. This risk is mitigated by learning about bear behavior, by being armed with a firearm, and by training with that firearm until you have reached a minimum level of competance. If you travel into a wilderness area you will encounter wildlife. We have the right to defend ourselves against attacks by wildlife, and that should be enough. I disagree with the premise that calls for the destruction of a bear which has attacked someone. He might attack someone else you say...so what! Bears are dangerous - if you kill every bear that might act aggressively towards people there would be none left, so why is it important to kill that one bear which has ambushed a hiker and had him for dinner - that's just life. We can hunt the bears in season, and we can shoot bears when we feel threatened by them out of season. When I skirt a stand of willows my adrenalin races because I don't know if death waits there or not....and to me that is an important ingredient of the wilderness experience. In the mountain parks they close hiking trails when a bear incident has been reported, and this is equally stupid. Of coarse in those parks they expect people to travel those trails with dinner bells hung around their necks - so common sence does not prevail in our National Parks System in any case. I should point out that locals here can apply for a permit which allows them to carry a firearm and hunt in Wapusk...I have mine, but I am at a loss to understand why this permit is not extended to the mountain parks. One can only surmise that this policy is a result of the "death to problem bears" philosophy which when taken to the extreme means that you don't need a gun in this park because all the problem bears are dead. At one time a firearm could be sealed and carried in the park. Upon leaving the park if the seal was broken the individual had some explaining to do. That to me is more logical than killing a bear after the fact.
 
Last edited:
"Um....... let the griz do what comes naturally, but interfere with the magpies??

The writer undid their own arguement!!" from nairbg

My opinion exactly, it's all or nothing....Lee
 
The letter writer is an idiot, that is clear.

But I tend to agree with Lazy Ike and Boomer.

The bear wasn't doing anythign wrong, it was actually being a good mother.

As said, froma public safety standpoint, I see the reason to kill the bear. If it was left to live, and kills someone else, there will be alot of fingerpointing.

But as said, if you go into bear country, you shoudl beprepared, and the persone responsible for killing that bear was the victim, not the CO's.

Although rumour has it that the bears had claimed the corpse, and I suppose that Peace officers have some sort of duty to retrieve it, or at least ascertian that he was not still alive, and it's pretty hard to shoo away a grizzly that has claimed a kill wihtout using a firearm.
 
Nothing pisses me off more than people who beleive an animal is more important then a human...... Even though i know a few animals i respect more than some humans ;) eg. Liberal Government

Also i wouldn't be investigating the area with a Mother and to cubs near, either they have to be gone or removed.

But i agree with it is your responsbility to avoid contact when possiable.
 
Last edited:
Let's not pillory Mr. Page for the death of that sow. He paid payed for it with his young life.

Mr. Page was working at staking mineral claims. He was probably clearing and blazing the claim boundary. It is not easy to run the line at the correct azimuth over very uneven terrain and at the same time, hip chain and slope correct the proper distance between claim posts.

Remember that when you hike, hunt or otherwise bush bash, you can and usually do, avoid bad terrain whenever possible. When you are staking, the line you are clearing has to be straight, so you have no choice regarding avoiding cliffs, gullies etc. The job can be very physically demanding.

During this strenous activity, you are trying to do it as quickly as you can as you are often in competition with other groups. So you naturally try to minimize the load that you carry in order to move as quickly as possible.

I don't know whether or not Mr. Page was armed. Perhaps he didn't carry a firearm in order to reduce the weight he was packing. Or perhaps he was armed but for some reason was not able to get a shot off.

I believe that we should be saddened by the horrible death of a hard working young man. We should not be blaming him for his own death or the eventual death of the sow.
 
Geologist -

I just reread my post and I can see how you might have interpreted it as being directed to the specific case of which you obviously have personal knowledge. This was not my intent. Rather I was speaking generically of how I believe predators in wilderness areas should be treated in human - animal conflicts, as those beliefs differ to not only the letter originally posted, but also differs from what I believe is the point of view of many if not most people in response to such an incident.

I have spent a few days in the bush myself, and I fully appreciate the obstacles when cutting line - I did it throughout Manitoba, in all seasons when I was much tougher than I am today. I can only imagine the difficulty this work would entail in mountainous terrain. Three of us could cut and chain about a mile a day. This was often reduced when we had to do large lake or river traverses - easier in the winter - harder in the summer.

My opinions as posted are based on how I believe things should be, from my own experience and my own sense of right and wrong. Back when I was working on that survey crew, sometimes I took a gun along - not always, but I never had access to it except when we were in camp. We were not in grizzly country, and in those days I was not concerned about "just black bears" - but knowing what I know now, I would not put myself in that situation today.
 
Nicely put, Boomer. But one needs a certain level of education to be able to articulate what you wrote and pass that woman's letter as nothing more but lack of communication between the different organs and cognitive stimules in her body.
 
She sees the world through rose-coloured glasses...

:rolleyes:

Okay, let's put things in perspective:

Several thousand years ago, homo sapiens were in tough to survive. Why? Because we were physically weak. What did we have? A really good brain. It thought things out. It mastered fire. It invented. It adapted. It learned. It taught. It developed common sense. It perfected hunting! It developed ways of surviving against all odds. That's why we're still here.

So:

We became us.

The day we start putting the value of the lives of animals that would kill us (without discretion) above our own lives is the day that we begin our decline...

Tree huggers are a bane to the human race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom