newsminer.com

Posted on July 7 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correction: "23 years," in the second paragraph above, should've been "21 years." Sorry.

On Aggressive bear shot in Denali National Park and Preserve

Posted on July 7 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

realdeal,

What I read in the article (I didn't view the NPS site) stated it was a 'sub-adult black bear.'

When I used to hunt bear (long ago, as I've had no desire to shoot one in over 23 years, though I've recently requested a friend to donate a roast from either a black or grizzly bear when he can, for a corned meat recipe that I use for moose roasts), an illegal cub was considered to be an animal under 100 lbs.

I didn't say anything intentionally misleading here.

I know that the reference to the "1500 lb. bear" was an exageration, written for effect. There's no such thing. Not on this planet.

My first experience hunting racoons with .22's as a kid, resulted in witnessing a large, mature racoon (much smaller than a cub black bear) take an obscene number of .22 lr cartridges to vital areas. The problem was that the first several rounds didn't hit vital areas like the follow-up bullets did. The critter lived for a long time, hissing, crawling toward us, like a bad moment in a Hitchcock movie.

I saw the same phenomenon with snapping turtles we used to harvest when I was in Northern Michigan.

Once an animal is hit, if the initial round or two doesn't knock it down for good, then it's a coin-toss whether adrenaline and the central nervous system take over. I've seen it with racoons, turtles, even bunnies of various species.

That's the facts as I know 'em.

The last black bear that I shot was an 11 year-old 350-lb. boar, July 1987, out Chena Hot Springs Rd., near 39 mile. The one before that was a 150 lb. black bear that came into camp when we were smoking fish, a ways out of Haines, at an old cabin that we stayed at, opposite the Mosquito Lake side of the highway.

In both cases, the bears received either an initial or secondary terminal shot (either removing portions of spinal column, or travelling directly into the brain pan at close range).

I've had close contact with bears since then, including standing less than 15 ft. from a 400-lb. black bear on Prince of Wales Island, roughly 18 years ago. I sighted, but didn't shoot. (Didn't want to spend 2-3 days with a pressure canner and jars at that time; money changes perceived needs I guess..).

Even small animals can turn into the Energizer Bunny from Haites if they're given over to adrenaline and the autonomic central nervous system due to a poorly placed shot/impact.

Not trying to be argumentative, realdeal. Those are some of my observations involving critters.

And no, I don't believe that this went down according to NPS protocol. The decision to shoot may or may not have been arrived at according to policy, but if proper shooting procedure and adequate training were used, there wouldn't be a young bear, gut-shot, and us writing here about whether or not it might still be alive.

The result of an effective execution is a carcasse. That's lacking in this particular story. (Unless there's news on the NPS site I haven't travelled to yet..)

On Aggressive bear shot in Denali National Park and Preserve

Posted on July 7 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe that they said that they used their pepper spray, and that it proved ineffective (whether the aerosol pressure failed, the spray wasn't sufficiently offensive to the bear, or the bear liked the pepper flavor and requested some ground cumin seed and tomatoes to accompany it, isn't clear..). I've personally typically regarded the stuff as a form of condiment for serious carnivores. I like tobasco sauce on most things myself.. though not in my eyes.. ;^>)

A gut shot can kill in a matter of minutes, or it can take days.

During the Fireside, British Columbia fire in the early 80s, I was immediately behind a 2-1/2 ton flat-bed truck that was hauling support gear for fire fighters when the flat-bed hit a (roughly) 300 lb. black bear at a full-on 65 mph. The bear did multiple piroettes, air-born, into the ditch. I stopped my truck, and went back to what I presumed was a lifeless carcasse.

Lo and behold, the thing slowly got up, appropriately groaning in pain, one leg clearly injured, and another shattered ridiculously, and retracted, and began pulling himself off into the bush.

Bears, even young ones, can take a heck of a lickin' and keep on tickin', if it's not a lethal shot to start with.

I've used polymer 12 gauge projectiles on uncivil or rogue moose, but would never use one on a bear, unless I'd simply decided that I needed to give my life insurance policy pay-off to my wife, while murmuring, "Good-bye cruel world," in the process.... The range on rubber buck-shot and slugs is somewhat greater than polymer shotgun shell projectiles, and the impact is more substantial than with the polymer, but both stand to piss off a serious rogue bear..

But I'll be more than willing to watch someone else use those on bear all day long, providing that there's lots of distance between me and the shooter.. and that I'm not closer to the bear than they are. ;^>)

On Aggressive bear shot in Denali National Park and Preserve

Posted on July 7 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Dr. C. In my early morning reading and haste, I apparently missed that.

Yes, I had seen that there's a black bear frequenting the Ester Dome area.

FLIR can be an effective tool in tight brush, when it comes to locating warm-blooded critters.

In the last 26 years, I've slept in Denali park ZERO times, specifically because I don't sleep in the bush without a firearm. Preceding that, there were two instances in which I slept there. One of those was a snow storm-born road emergency in the middle of the night, during which nearly no vehicles, including chained tractor-trailer rigs, could negotiate the hills and banked corners, due to extremely slick icing.

Past track record of Denali-area bears not withstanding, I refuse to leave myself more vulnerable than I have to in order to sight-see or camp.

If a person's shooting at a 100 lb. target at a distance of 20 feet, and is unable to make a terminal shot, then I'd wager that either their adrenaline isn't under control, or they haven't achieved proper qualification with the weapon that they're toting. That, or this was a very 'mobile' young bear.

On Aggressive bear shot in Denali National Park and Preserve

Posted on July 7 at 2:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't leave a gut-shot bear in the bush, especially where others are apt to be hiking.

Unless they're willing to close off that area of the park to hikers, then they need to find that bear. Use dogs, FLIR, what ever..

Front shoulder/brisket shots work miracles on arresting a bear's mobility. Gut ("mid-section") shots are, as often than not, less than effective and somewhat cruel, unless the spine's hit.

On Aggressive bear shot in Denali National Park and Preserve

Posted on June 27 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I suppose that if nothing else, the last volley clarifies weaknesses in perceptions, the complexities of plain spoken/written language, etc.. Tenor, intent, degree, etc., are all up for grabs.

No, I didn't perceive humor, which doesn't mean that it's not there. Just as you mistook the statement that I made about 'reading into things' as applying specifically to the comments that I'd already acknowledged as being made by Dove.

Yes, for the third time, I attributed statements to you that were, in fact, made by another. I'm currently whipping myself with a cat-o-nine-tails and rolling in ashen sack cloth, simultaneously.

Consider us kissed and made up, though now I'll have to admit this to my wife; that's o.k. She's pretty tolerant of my routine peace-making and apologies.

I frequently steal catch phrases. I have a whole collection of them that I market far away from my home turf, so that no one else will recognize them from the local area when I sell them to shady users of others' catch phrases.

On Supreme Court says Americans have right to own guns, strikes down D.C. ban

Posted on June 27 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry ChristinA,

I acknowledged mistakenly responding to Dove's comments as though they were yours. No defensiveness in that.

Your snarkiness is yours, regardless of the sense that it evokes in others. No you didn't raise any real defensiveness in me. Just ideas of who you are as a person and as an attorney.

It was your last line in the second to the last post that uncloaked your ego-centricism. No defensiveness on my part. Certainly none that prevented me from acknowledging my mistakes. I did it. Guilty as charged.

The rest of the reply from you is indicative of lots more than mere genius, though..

You also seem to heavily read into things that which may not be so clear.

"Deal with it."

On Supreme Court says Americans have right to own guns, strikes down D.C. ban

Posted on June 27 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You're correct re. my comments as they pertain to the Mujahideen, et al., as I was meaning to refer to Dove's comments re. 'things changing in 200 years' etc.

Your snarkiness is typical legalese for the expression of your superior intellect that I worship.

'Plain meaning' can be as open ended as terms like 'common sense.' The english language 200 years ago frequently held different meanings than some current usage. Therefore there's significant value in re. to inquiring as to what the reference points and beliefs were of the folks who -wrote- the documents. (They were often clear in other writings as to what they regarded as their beliefs..)

As to 'reading into what's written,' isn't that what this whole debate, as well as the inherent weaknesses of language, are all about?

Glad to know that there's no leeway for mistaken meaning in your world. Perhaps we can all catch a view of that place some time. With your permission, of course..

On Supreme Court says Americans have right to own guns, strikes down D.C. ban

Posted on June 27 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't call you anything, Chief. I said that you have the right to thump all the bibles that you want. There's a difference. It had specifically to do with your apparent defense of another, and my stating that you could do what ever you liked. Please check what I wrote.

For clarification, my reference to the all-encompassing 'you,' such as the beginning of the third paragraph, is a generic term, such as 'one'. It's a relatively common usage, albeit not traditional proper english.

I don't know you, nor do I know if you're a bible thumper or not. My point was that it doesn't even matter to me, providing I'm not opperssed by the faux righteous 'Gad commandeth you...' nonsense from another's (metaphysical) belief system(s).

And yes, smaller government, particularly in re. to those aspects which -intrude- into private lives, self-determination, etc., is preferred. There's no free lunch. When Goliath gives, He/She/It typically wants something back in return. Often more valuable than what they gave, though perhaps different.

On the other hand, when Goliath merely acts as a piggy bank for the revenues which belong to the People, then the taking doesn't create a debt to Goliath, as much as the People make use (perhaps even better use) of their own resources.

I hope that clears up my intentions from the previous postings.

On Terrorism reality

Posted on June 27 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YMBC,

I don't see Obama, McCain, Bush, Hillary, or any other random choices of 'beige vs. slightly more beige' straighteneing out what has been a power grab, in defiance of the constitution, by both parties. Some have been quicker in their disassembly of unalienable rights, and taken advantage of dire circumstances, but BOTH of the primary political parties in this country have contributed to it.

The public, in their perpetual state of fear and indebted quasi-comfort, have permitted this; left and right. (Pun intended, though there's little real left and right anymore...)

To quote the Joker from Batman; "This (country) needs an enema!!"

Now I'm back to chores...

On Terrorism reality