The Right to Arm Bears

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
You’re looking at the wrong reference, folks. According to TM-511 of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Section 5, subsection B. “Bear hauling. In some cases, the hauling of bears is permitted when they pose a threat to campers, hikers and others who may utilize public woodlands. Only trained, authorized personnel (as defined in subsection D) may haul bears in cages to other locations within the area in question or to another area if it is determined that the existing acreage and possible bear-human contact ratio exceeds 9 on the Schumann-Perkins scale (see Draft of Human-Bear Interactions and Safety by Phillips, revised, 2009).”

In the same manual, in Section 8, subsection G. “Bears with assault rifles. On occasion, criminals, gun enthusiasts, and others, lose or discard their assault rifles to avoid possible prosecution. This is especially true with the growers of marijuana in remote locations who are discovered by the DEA or other authorities. In over 30% of the cases, the safety on the weapon is set to the firing position. It is possible for any type of bear to discharge the weapon at least once, or multiple times to only a slightly lesser degree. In such cases, the locally assigned Bear Extraction And Removal team must be called in to deal with the threat.”

Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, your gonna be a tough act to follow. Anyone up to it :confused:
 
shipwrkd said:
Ed, your gonna be a tough act to follow. Anyone up to it :confused:
Click to expand...
I knew Phillips, before her unfortunate encounter with a bear. As a result, Phillips’ Draft is being revised by the noted Schrew-Driver, and so it will be called the Phillips-Schrew-Driver report whenever it is nailed down. The encounter was a 15 (“More than Uh-Oh and Oh-No TOGETHER”) on the Schumann-Perkins scale and on the new Mason-Dixon rating it will be a 45 “Skipping through the Woods Picking Wildflowers only to be Eaten by a Large and Angry Grizzly who Hates Ursinologists Skipping through the Woods Picking Wildflowers”. She definitely crossed the line there.

Phillips will be missed. But I do not know her opinions concerning weaponizing bears. She did, however, always have a kind and thoughtful attitude towards bears. Until she was eaten, that is.
I do not know if that changed her demeanor. She was rather stubborn about a lot of things.
 
Truthstalker said:
I knew Phillips, before her unfortunate encounter with a bear. As a result, Phillips’ Draft is being revised by the noted Schrew-Driver, and so it will be called the Phillips-Schrew-Driver report whenever it is nailed down. The encounter was a 15 (“More than Uh-Oh and Oh-No TOGETHER”) on the Schumann-Perkins scale and on the new Mason-Dixon rating it will be a 45 “Skipping through the Woods Picking Wildflowers only to be Eaten by a Large and Angry Grizzly who Hates Ursinologists Skipping through the Woods Picking Wildflowers”. She definitely crossed the line there.

Phillips will be missed. But I do not know her opinions concerning weaponizing bears. She did, however, always have a kind and thoughtful attitude towards bears. Until she was eaten, that is.
I do not know if that changed her demeanor. She was rather stubborn about a lot of things.
Click to expand...
Ed’s source seems to be fact based and therefore more credibal then your’s but the thread is still open…I’m sure due to the kindness of the moderator 🙂
 
shipwrkd said:
Ed’s source seems to be fact based and therefore more credibal then your’s but the thread is still open…I’m sure due to the kindness of the moderator 🙂
Click to expand...
My source does not exist. It’s all made up. I write fiction that seems plausible.

Peace 🙂

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
My source does not exist. It’s all made up. I write fiction that seems plausible.
Peace 🙂

Ed
Click to expand...
I demand documentation for this post. Not your previous post (that was well documented) but for this one.
 
edwest2 said:
My source does not exist. It’s all made up. I write fiction that seems plausible.

Peace 🙂

Ed
Click to expand...
The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be believable 👍
I demand documentation for this post. Not your previous post (that was well documented) but for this one.
Click to expand...
On the bare facts given, this bearly seems possible…:rolleyes:
 
edwest2 said:
My source does not exist. It’s all made up. I write fiction that seems plausible.
Click to expand...
Oh, I so miss InogoMontoya’s " wait… something shiny, sorry I have to run!" references that act as a reality check before chasing those plausible red herring lures. 😃 Ya got me, so just reel me in & club me senseless.
 
Zooey said:
This an important piece of information. It should be posted in any location where bears may be encountered.
Because humans have an innate need to know what kind of large mammal is eating them.
Click to expand...
People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.
Click to expand...
In order to know what scat tactic, one needs to know the type of bear before being eaten! 😃

A really good native American tracker can examine human droppings and know precisely what type of bear was chasing the human before being eaten because he chose the wrong “scat” tactic.
 
Guys!!! don’t you watch the Colbert report!!! bears are the #1 threat to our national security!!!
 
wynnejj said:
In order to know what scat tactic, one needs to know the type of bear before being eaten! 😃

A really good native American tracker can examine human droppings and know precisely what type of bear was chasing the human before being eaten because he chose the wrong “scat” tactic.
Click to expand...
A really good Native American can tell how hard the winter will be by looking ant how much firewood the white man has stacked. I think they call it the “stack” tactic.
 
datritle said:
Guys!!! don’t you watch the Colbert report!!! bears are the #1 threat to our national security!!!
Click to expand...
Exactly, that’s why we need to disarm them. A bear with no arms is a much lesser theat.
Oh, I so miss InogoMontoya’s " wait… something shiny, sorry I have to run!" references that act as a reality check before chasing those plausible red herring lures. Ya got me, so just reel me in & club me senseless.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Ain’t that the truth.
 
datritle said:
Guys!!! don’t you watch the Colbert report!!! bears are the #1 threat to our national security!!!
Click to expand...
Arctophobia! Wikipedia’s “The Colbert Report”
Despite his bluster, Colbert’s character suffers from “arctophobia”, the fear of bears, which he refers to as “giant, marauding, godless killing machines”. This bear phobia was inspired by Colbert’s real-life fear of bears as a child. Colbert refers to Bill O’Reilly as “Papa Bear”, a title with a double meaning, considering Colbert’s fear of bears. Colbert displays fear and suspicion of nearly any animal and is quick to declare they are “training” to attack humanity.
Click to expand...
Why should we arm bears? Arctophobia!

Yep, MSM entertainment with its biased reporting has the bears up in arms!

Look at how they are being misrepresented on the entertainment news media networks:
Stephen Colbert: #1 Threat to Bears

If we don’t give bears the right to vote, a proper education, food, free health care and social security … by God, if we don’t give them the same rights as illegal aliens … expect guerrilla warfare … remember the lessons of Mighty Joe Young … wait, gotta go, just saw something shiny.
 
Top ten reasons not to arm the bears with automatic weapons & ammo:
  1. Fast food shortens life expectancy of already overweight bears.
  2. Karelian bear dogs, trained to harass bears out of an area, will have to skip the warning shots.
  3. Give guns to bears and they’ll sell to wolves on the black market.
  4. Momma bears with cubs simply won’t allow them in the den.
  5. Target practice keeps the other woodland creatures up all night.
  6. Takes all the sport out of salmon fishing.
  7. Winnie the Pooh won’t be so cute when there are gun shots.
  8. Moose, elk & deer simply won’t stand for being treated like just another gun rack.
  9. Shaw’s rifle “Lorraine” is no match for Boog’s “Arctophobia” when “Open Season” declared.
  10. Useless! There’s never enough firepower when honey bees attack!
 
wynnejj said:
Top ten reasons not to arm the bears with automatic weapons & ammo:
  1. Fast food shortens life expectancy of already overweight bears.
  2. Karelian bear dogs, trained to harass bears out of an area, will have to skip the warning shots.
  3. Give guns to bears and they’ll sell to wolves on the black market.
  4. Momma bears with cubs simply won’t allow them in the den.
  5. Target practice keeps the other woodland creatures up all night.
  6. Takes all the sport out of salmon fishing.
  7. Winnie the Pooh won’t be so cute when there are gun shots.
  8. Moose, elk & deer simply won’t stand for being treated like just another gun rack.
  9. Shaw’s rifle “Lorraine” is no match for Boog’s “Arctophobia” when “Open Season” declared.
  10. Useless! There’s never enough firepower when honey bees attack!
Click to expand...
You make a good point (ten of them). This is obviously a much deeper subject then originally anticipated (WhatMeWorry may have to trade her hip boots for chest waders). I suppose those bears close to the Canadian border will run into trouble with the Royal Canadian Bear Police because of Canada’s strict control. I think I just saw that shinny thing go by again…😉
 
If someone announced to you that they were traveling to Alaska to pass out M-16s and ammo to the Kodiak browns, what would you tell them? DO they have a right to do this?
 
Truthstalker said:
If someone announced to you that they were traveling to Alaska to pass out M-16s and ammo to the Kodiak browns, what would you tell them? DO they have a right to do this?
Click to expand...
Preposterous question calling for preposterous answers. The only way that I can make sense of your question is to break it down to its essence, and that is to ask if it is OK to help animals defend themselves at the expense of the potential death of many persons. The animal side of me says YES, but the spiritual side says NO. That is to say, I have empathy for animal that defends its own … in fact, to me it is honorable. The spiritual side says that human life is sacred over and above other animals by virtue of Our Lord becoming man. Therefore, I could never aid an animal in killing human life, any more than I could let a man-eating lion out of a cage. If you ever saw the movie “The Bear” though, one could sure feel inclined to disarm humans, though not to the point of arming the bears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top