TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:Any third party could have been feeding the bears. As we know, animals that are fed "treats" become irate when they don't get what they want. This is annoying enough with cats and small dogs. It's dangerous when the animal can tear your throat out or knock you down and stomp you.

This is one reason I put "animal lovers" in quotes. Their misguided efforts often result in dead animals.

- Jim

Oldgringo wrote:

Tamie wrote:According to the state Department of Fish and Game and the Placer County sheriff, the cub broke into a man's house last Friday night.

Investigators said the man scared the animal away, but it came back. At that point, the man shot the bear, authorities said.

Yeah, right

Which part of that do you not believe? I understand that you don't condone the shooting of bears, but are you disputing the facts as reported, or are you disagreeing with the owner's response to those facts? It is hard to tell.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Tamie wrote:According to the state Department of Fish and Game and the Placer County sheriff, the cub broke into a man's house last Friday night.

Investigators said the man scared the animal away, but it came back. At that point, the man shot the bear, authorities said.

Yeah, right

Which part of that do you not believe? I understand that you don't condone the shooting of bears, but are you disputing the facts as reported, or are you disagreeing with the owner's response to those facts? It is hard to tell.

Yes.

LOL. Oldgringo is just being himself!

I can't speak for Oldgringo, but he and I sometimes think alike.

Let's stipulate the following facts:

• The man fatally shot the bear.
• The man did not dispose of the carcass or inform authorities in the manner required by law.
• The man is charged with offenses related to said actions.

Let's further stipulate that at least one bear broke into the man's residence shortly before the shooting. Whether the deceased bear was the culprit is undetermined (to my satisfaction) and probably never will be determined.

The legal and moral question is whether shooting the bear was necessary and justified.

As usual, the media provide an incomplete and inconsistent picture. For example, the first report that I ran across said nothing about a break-in.

This is why we have jury trials and all the legal process that goes with them, to judge the facts.

The reason that I post these accounts is to ask whether there was a point where a minimum of deterrent action could have avoided a risky and expensive legal episode.

- Jim

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Tamie wrote:According to the state Department of Fish and Game and the Placer County sheriff, the cub broke into a man's house last Friday night.

Investigators said the man scared the animal away, but it came back. At that point, the man shot the bear, authorities said.

Yeah, right

Which part of that do you not believe? I understand that you don't condone the shooting of bears, but are you disputing the facts as reported, or are you disagreeing with the owner's response to those facts? It is hard to tell.

Yes.

Yes, what? I was asking with all due respect, not challenging you. Your answer doesn't clarify or grant me the same respect. If you don't want to clarify, that's fine, and if you don't want to answer with due respect, that's fine too, but then I don't want to waste any more of my time trying to figure out your point.

Have a good day.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Tamie wrote:According to the state Department of Fish and Game and the Placer County sheriff, the cub broke into a man's house last Friday night.

Investigators said the man scared the animal away, but it came back. At that point, the man shot the bear, authorities said.

Yeah, right

Which part of that do you not believe? I understand that you don't condone the shooting of bears, but are you disputing the facts as reported, or are you disagreeing with the owner's response to those facts? It is hard to tell.

Yes.

Yes, what? I was asking with all due respect, not challenging you. Your answer doesn't clarify or grant me the same respect. If you don't want to clarify, that's fine, and if you don't want to answer with due respect, that's fine too, but then I don't want to waste any more of my time trying to figure out your point.

Have a good day.

There is no point, there are only questions. Good day to you, sir

I think he meant yes to both questions.

Fangs wrote:I think he meant yes to both questions.

Thank you, Fangs. That is exactly what I intended.

I am not inclined to become involved in a lengthy and contentious debate over the questionable murder of a juvenile ursine creature at the hands of a presumably adult, and much larger, tailess-biped with a gun.

Good night to all.

Oldgringo wrote:

Fangs wrote:I think he meant yes to both questions.

Thank you, Fangs. That is exactly what I intended.

I am not inclined to become involved in a lengthy and contentious debate over the questionable murder of a juvenile ursine creature at the hands of a presumably adult, and much larger, tailess-biped with a gun.

Good night to all.

//poke >>> Oldgringo

Oldgringo wrote:

Fangs wrote:I think he meant yes to both questions.

Thank you, Fangs. That is exactly what I intended.

I am not inclined to become involved in a lengthy and contentious debate over the questionable murder of a juvenile ursine creature at the hands of a presumably adult, and much larger, tailess-biped with a gun.

Good night to all.

Oldgringo, I was not trying to debate you. Not one bit. As I explained in my original post to you, I fully understand your position regarding the killing of bears, particularly cubs. Please go back and re-read what I posted above about it. Your original "Yeah, right" comment indicated that, additionally to your disagreement about shooting young bears about which I have no particular opinion at this point, that you also thought that either A) the reporter was not reporting the facts truthfully; or B) the man who shot the bear was lying to the reporter; or C) they were both lying, intentionally.

I had no argument with you. I was merely trying to clarify for myself whether it was A, B, or C. In my fevered little brain, A and B are mutually exclusive propositions, which makes C virtually impossible. To me, anyway... because it would require that the reporter cynically knew the shooter to be lying, and then cynically and knowingly repeated the lie as truth... which is different from repeating a lie which you do not know to be a lie and which you believe to be true. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I have a high regard for your logic capabilities, and the last thing I wanted to do was to offend you. So when you essentially answered C, it confused me. Thus I asked for your clarification - not as a challenge, but because I merely seek clarity. When your answer seemed to dismiss that clarity as irrelevant to you, I bowed out of the conversation at that point. I re-entered, temporarily, at this point, because I thought it appropriate to explain myself. I was not trying to pick any kind of fight. I am now officially finished with this thread, and I apologize to one and all if my participation in it was cause for conflict.

Go in peace.

My dear TAM,

There was no offense taken and there is no need for any apology whatsoever on your behalf. If anyone should apologize, it should me for my churlist response and I hereby do so.

I am skeptical of the reports surrounding this incident near Lake Tahoe. We've had similar incidents of alleged "bear attacks" in our summer "hidey-place" in Colorado. After the music stopped and the smoke cleared, the facts revealed that the bear was enticed into the property with food and then shot in an act of macho bravado. Inasmuch as there is only one surviving witness, this tale must stand on its own merits...until proven otherwise.

Yes, while maintaing my interest in the shooting sports, I have lost nearly all interest in hunting bears or any other birds or animals as a sport (prairie dogs excepted). While hunting is legal and in some instances necessary, it is no longer my cup of tea. BTW, my fishing is C-P-R (catch-photo-release).

Thank you for your interest and concern. Please accept my apologies for being such a lout.

Greg

Oldgringo wrote:for my churlist response

OK - I'm all about learning new words...what's churlist mean, my google-fu turned up nothing...?

BTW - it's getting all warm and fuzzy in here...no bear hugs please!

PUCKER wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:for my churlist response

OK - I'm all about learning new words...what's churlist mean, my google-fu turned up nothing...?

BTW - it's getting all warm and fuzzy in here...no bear hugs please!

Thank you, Pucker.

My vision was blurred and I did not catch the mispelling of:



Main Entry: churl·ish
Pronunciation: \ˈchər-lish\
Function: adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : of, resembling, or characteristic of a churl : vulgar
2 : marked by a lack of civility or graciousness : surly
3 : difficult to work with or deal with : intractable <churlish soil>

synonyms see boorish

— churl·ish·ly adverb

— churl·ish·ness noun

Very good, thank you.