Posted on 02/10/2005 7:59:36 AM PST by SmithL
Well I'll tell you what, you show me where I said a black bear couldn't tear the door off of a cabin and I'll apologize.
Until then, shut the hell up.
For reference this was your first post claiming I said as much.
"What's the problem? Are you afraid of a little bear that you claim cannot rip off a cabin door?"
Had you bothered to read you'd have made note of the fact that what I was questioning was their ability to tear off the closed and secured (locked) door of a car.
Don't worry, I don't expect you to reply and admit your mistake.
But .. why didn't they call a zoo or an animal rescue place, or what about Sea World - they have all kinds of equipment to help wild animals.
Sad - I can understand why they would want to destroy the animals - but it too bad they didn't know there were other avenues of getting rid of the bears.
sickening. And they use the general public's ignorance of animals and animal behavior to get their agenda raiilroaded through.
I mean, yeah, didn't they know the bears would eventually wake up and venture up to the kitchen for a midwinter snack or early spring breakfast?
Because they'd get the same runaround they get from animal control and the DNR. "just leave them alone and they'll go away." Have you *ever* tried to get someone to act on nuisance animals?
None quite as effective.
Awww! Ain't that special! I wonder how the bears would react if they woke up to find a human curled up in their den with them.
"I'd like to teach the world to sing... "
Who the H*ll cares???? AAAUGH!
Exactly, thank you.
"The threats of violence are ridiculous. But, these people didn't have the bears killed for anyone's safety, they had them killed so they could get the insurance people in there right away."
They were not going in the cabin. Their cabin (not the bears) because there were three bears in it! The insurance people didn't want to send someone over there. Was it because the bears were sitting on crucial material that they had to judge? I doubt it. It was because there were bears in it.
You don't mess with a momma bear (especially with cubs), and it's their home.
They shot the bears so they could SAFELY use the cabin again. The insurance people could wait, and the hoimeowners COULD wait, but why? They had a threat in their home. Should they abandon it, or get rid of the problem?
You don't want to "coax" a bear. Ever.
The tranquilizers might have been useful, but what if the bear learned that it's OK to go into cabins? All that would happen to it is it would get well fed, then wake up a few hundred yards away.
I'm just saying that that is iffy at best. It is a nice alternative, but would you be willing to take the chance?
If a burglar broke into your house, would you want him tranquilized and released? Or would you want him to learn not to do it again? Now dwell on that a minute, and imagine what it would take to teach a wild bear anything.
Well, that makes sense but was just thinking that perhaps that might have been a better road. I dont' know. It's just sad.
Well, that makes sense but was just thinking that perhaps that might have been a better road. I dont' know. It's just sad.
I hear ya.
I doubt the owners enjoyed having the bears shot.
I wouldn't have.
But I still would do it for my home.
They should have left the bears a "pick-a-nick" basket.
Well, hope I never have to be in that position. :(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.