Heimdallr said:
Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that he was interviewed while still in the hospital, with the attack still a fresh wound. A man is going to say a few stupid things about his attacker after nearly being killed by it, albeit through his own ignorance.
Perhaps, but it doesn't make what he said any less ignorant.
I also couldn't find anything that mentions black bear being an endangered species either in Ontario or Canada.
Sorry, my mistake, you're absolutely correct.... they're not on the endangered list.
{Mental note to self to check next time...just because I consider them all to be endangered, doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees with me
}
Although, their is a ton of discussion about its re-introduction in Ontario, where a lot of people feel that the moratorium ten years ago was a bad idea, and most of them have compelling arguments for that. There's a lively, and recent, discussion here - http://blogs.canoe.ca/outdoorsguy/uncategorized/cancellation-of-ontario-spring-bear-hunt/.
Gee, a whole list of people who consider trophy hunting fun and profitable.
Yes it is interesting. If I read it correctly they are saying that even though their own studies showed that the increase in black bear-human interaction was due to human encroachment into once remote bear habitat and they couldn't find
“any connection between the cancellation of the spring bear hunt and recent increases in nuisance [bear] activity” they still recommended reinstating the spring bear hunt for
MONEY.
In response to growing concerns regarding black bear–human conflicts, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) commissioned the Nuisance Bear Review Committee (NBRC) during 2003 to examine black bear–human interactions throughout Ontario. To some residents, the increasing human–bear interactions have resulted directly from the MSBBH. Yet, while the NBRC did not find “any connection between the cancellation of the spring bear hunt and recent increases in nuisance [bear] activity,” it did recommend that “a limited spring black bear hunt be re-instated for socioeconomic reasons, but under strict conditions” (Poulin et al. 2003)
What is now needed is greater visibility in the local media of successful bear–human conflict prevention projects that are funded by the Bear Wise program. In addition, Bear Wise and the OMNR should work in close conjunction with cities, municipalities, and First Nations to implement laws to prohibit both the intentional and unintentional feeding of bears (Peine 2001). These strategies, combined with the reintroduction of a limited spring bear hunt, may alleviate some of the perceived black bear–human conflicts (Cotton 2008). Although people’s perceptions may be inaccurate, their opinions are nevertheless important. Unless the benefits from the conservation of wildlife are obvious to people, there will be little incentive to manage natural resources sustainably (Newsome et al. 2005, Worthy and Foggin 2008).
"people’s perceptions may be inaccurate, their opinions are nevertheless important."
I think this concept is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. They might as well say "Since we haven't been able to convince the stupid people not to feed the bears, let's start killing the bears during their breeding season to make the stupid people feel better."
Heimdallr, from my perspective, your links make my point for me. The bears should not have to die because the humans are ignorant and self centered. IF wildlife populations NEED to be controlled (and there is no evidence of that in the case of these Black Bears) the weak, old and infirm members of the population should be culled as quickly and humanly as possible, and their meat used to feed the hungry.
Instead, drunken bubbas are allowed to terrorize entire populations (during their breeding season) chase them down with dogs, destroy their home with ATV's, and wound god only knows how many before they finally manage to kill one so they can hang its head on a wall and brag about their "hunting skills."
I just think that we should also be a little more compassionate towards the man who nearly was killed eaten alive by a bear, one of the worst ways I could think of to die and not something that anyone deserves to experience, no matter their ignorance.
But he didn't die...for whatever reason, the bear let him live. So how does he use the life bear gave him? Does he encourage people to exercise basic common sense in the woods? NO...instead he incites people to kill bears by falsely presenting the bears as a serious threat in need of extermination, and the people who will PROFIT from their extermination hop right on the band wagon.
I feel a lot of emotions regarding people such as these, but compassion is not one of them.
