Reply With QuoteSad.
But I'd imagine they had made the decision it was suffering too much and so killing was the best course of action. Shame they couldn't tranquillise it though.
R
And also angered me!! :evil: It wasn't the bears fault after all!! :evil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7534325.stm
F.T.F.A.
Sad.
But I'd imagine they had made the decision it was suffering too much and so killing was the best course of action. Shame they couldn't tranquillise it though.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Shame indeed.
We've had a similar case here in Austria:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 679722.ece
Wait, stole honey? FFS???REST in peace, Bruno. Germany is in mourning after hunters shot dead the young brown bear who had outwitted pursuers in a seven-week odyssey round the Alps, during which he killed dozens of sheep and rabbits, stole honey, strolled nonchalantly through mountain villages and squashed a guinea-pig.
He deserved it. He didn't even pay for it!!!
:x :x :x :evil:
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
It sounds like they tried to catch and tranquilize the bear, and I can understand why a hungry and thirsty bear would be a danger in a town, so perhaps they were justified in killing it.
Mind you, with a jar on his head! Dangerous still, but......Originally Posted by hogthrob
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Me too Magirus, whilst I understand safety concerns why did they not try to tranquillise it when it was in the town? Or would that take too long?
/vince ..
In 6 days they clearly managed to photograph the bear.It's jaws were immobilised, and it must have been getting pretty weak. I can't imagine why it couldn't have been netted and/or darted and removed, but I suppose there must heve been reasons.What really got me was the fact it was plastic garbage that led to the bear being in it's predicament. Bears were there long before the human pests.
So were Sharks.
These things make me mad.Between 26 million and 73 million sharks are killed each year for their fins according to a new paper published in the October 2006 edition of Ecology Letters. The estimates are three times higher than those projected by the United Nations.
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Ah, sharks. I remember them, you used to see them in the sea; lots of them. Now it's a big thing to see one.So were Sharks.
These things make me mad.Between 26 million and 73 million sharks are killed each year for their fins according to a new paper published in the October 2006 edition of Ecology Letters. The estimates are three times higher than those projected by the United Nations.
The seas are becoming very polluted with plastic garbage, non more so than carrier bags. :twisted:What really got me was the fact it was plastic garbage that led to the bear being in it's predicament. Bears were there long before the human pests.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Well I'm still hoping for an asteroid impact.
Two planets meet.
The first one asks: "How are you?"
"Not so well, I've got the humans."
"Don't worry, that won't last long."
There's hope :evil:
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
I deal with wounded animals all the time, as I am a Rehabber (Federal, and State Certified), one of the main reasons they probably did not use a tranquilizer in this case is in order for tranquilizers to be effective have to be administered in the correct dosage.
https://www.pneudart.com/other.php?page_id=11&link_id=9Field Dispensing of Drugs
The drugs used for animal immobilization may be dispensed in one of two ways. The choice of drugs and prevailing circumstances will be the deciding factors.
The first method consists of loading the darts after the target animal has been located and observed. The animal's weight is estimated and its physical and mental condition noted. Other factors which may influence the choice of drug dosage are age, sex, stress level, and aggressiveness. On this basis, the dosage is calculated and loaded in a dart of suitable volume capacity.
This is the safest method and provides the best control of dosage, induction time and level of immobilization. The disadvantages of this method are the time required to calculate the dosage and load the darts, and the problems of dispensing drugs and filling darts under difficult field conditions.
The second method consists of the use of darts loaded before the animal is located or observed.
This method can only be used for the central nervous system drugs, since their relatively wide safety margin makes accurate weight estimation less critical for dosage calculation. Darts can be preloaded by a veterinarian for a certain species and size of animal and given to the worker as may be required.
Too much, the animal dies, as it completely stops the central nervous system, stopping the respiratory system (main effect on animals is slow breathing), the animal dies.
Too little, and the tranquilizer has no effect. Sometimes, it can have the opposite effect and make the animal more dangerous (adrenaline induced).
The animal was already weak from dehydration, and lack of food, and tranquilizing him, would have more than likely resulted in asphyxiating him. Tranquilizers, when properly administered can take up to 30 minutes (depending on size, and animals physical condition) to take effect (sometimes longer). They are not instantaneous (unless they kill, heart attack), as most people think. A wounded bear can travel quite a distance in 30 minutes, aggravating the situation even more.
In addition, the margin of error in using them is slim, and as a result, many tranquilized animals even today…die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquilizer_dart
After you tranquilizer an animal in some cases you actually have to administer the anti-tranquilizer (stimulants). The problem with that is, that in some cases, and with some animals they need two to five times the normal dosage of Anti-Tranquillizer (stimulants) to bring them out of it, and it sometimes it only brings them out half-way, and the animal is more dangerous than before (drugged, adrenaline aggressive), and it still may die.
In addition, being in a residential area, the last thing you want to do is anger the bear to the points we he becomes dangerous to humans and other animals. Which is the same principle when lions, tigers, and other dangerous animals escape from zoo’s/circuses they usually kill them versus attempting to tranquillize, it to dangerous, and to risky.
As unfortunate as this is, the best thing for this bear was to put him down (kill him) as the risk(s) would outweigh the reward.
John
Bears coming into towns is a fairly regular thing in Canada and parts of the US. Wildlife services always do what they can to capture the bear alive, but they are not always successful. It is one thing to be able to film the bear and another to get a good shot at it with a dart gun -- everyone has cameras these days, but very few have dart guns....
It is very sad, though, that this bear met its fate due to human rubbish. It is a sad thing that so many bears have come to rely upon rubbish and rubbish tips (or, as we call them here, garbage dumps) for food.
Jay
This is all I meant. I shall bow out and let the wider debate continue.
8)
Did you see this?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07 ... rss_latest
This planet really would be better off without people....
why dont folks who hate humans so much walk up to the nearest well and jump in. That could be a good start to reducing human population :lol:
With the level of toxins in my body, I'd just end up polluting the ground water for generations... hehehe
With the level of toxins in my body, I'd just end up polluting the ground water for generations... hehehe
Good point. And a good reason why I should avoid being the next dinner for these beautiful wild animals. After all, they need to inherit the earth ( the meek shall etc) :lol: :lol:
Posting Permissions