Sarah the research bear killed by hunter

• the hunter should be tied up with ribbons and shot and i would like to do it, the bastard

• Just read bits and pieces of the blog. Wiley Fox, your comment was hilarious!!! I'm not sure if you are just joking around, but regardless, whichever way you meant it was gut wrenching funny.

• Is Cal another innocent victim or just another random bear of a population of 20 some thousand bears? Cal just happened to be wearing a pretty gov. issue collar. (story at top of page) http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/09/cal_ther_resear.php

• No you can't actually, Tarzan.

• Hunting should be outlawed. You can buy the same food in the grocery store.

• I have studied wildlife for some time now and have a BSc and a MSc in Ecology and Wildlife Management. I am well aware of the expense and necessity of every bit of data (e.g. the bear) and the value that it provides for the success of the research being done. Having said this, I am an avid hunter and currently in the midst of bear season here in Michigan. I think these people need to stop treating this bear as it was their beloved pet and realize that it was harvested during a legal hunting season. I will have to agree with the others that it is hard to distinguish various colors at low light, even hot pink flagging. The final 5 to 10 minutes of shooting hours you are usually trying to make out where the vitals are on a bear, not if it has a necklace on... On behalf of us hunters and the scientific community (which always plan on the unexpected during data collection, hence replication) my condolences on the bear. At least you got the collar back... PS: A wonderful read for you bear lovers (hunters, scientists, and PETA alike) is Walking with Bears by Terry DeBruyn. Very educational.

• Also, Bears get into "Stuff" all the time. I've seen video and pictures of bears and other animals that got plastic bag handles stuck around their neck. Picture frames, drop cloth/ plastic, etc. Jars stuck on their feet, head, etc. That ribon looks a lot like trail marker ribon. The kind of ribon I use in my yard to mark off new grass. Had I not been firmiliar with this bear, I would have though it had just gotten into something. Maybe that ribon was cutting off it's circulation, causing it a slow painful death. I mean if it's something he couldn't get off himself, it must be on pretty tight. First time I saw this bear on TV, I honestly thought it was cruel that someone would purposfully make a wild animal stand out so much. Or have something on them that would drive them crazy because they couldn't get it off. Tracking devices should be small and as little intrusion as possible. To make a bear look like a clown is just plain mean to me.

• I respect your level headed response. Just don't assume all responses are directed at you, vs. the collection of other posters. Like I said, not likely, but very possible the ribbons were not seen by the hunter. Only a hunter would know that. A target shooter would not. You target practice in broad daylight. As an avid hunter, I know that bear hit their bait, or are otherwise most active when it is dark out, or dawn. As my timmers always hit at 1-2AM. Absolutly never during day lite. If this bear hit at dawn? (The most likely time a bear hits a bait other than night) A time in which is very dark, especially in the woods. A time in which color, not even blaze orange head to toe is distinguishable up close, let alone 50-100 yards away. Your targets are well lite and right in front of you with no obstructions. In the woods, even if it is just as well lite, there is often a bush completely covering the animals head. I have shot many o' deer that I never saw the head. It's the woods, there is always much of the animal covered. And you often only have one chance at a shot. I always thought that when I was a hunter, I was the preditor looking to kill an animal to eat and provide for my family and the animal was my prey. Thought that was the relationship. Just like a wolf. Guess I'm wrong? Wounder what this relationship is then? I do question the point that there were more bear for him to chose from? It's extreamly rare to see a single bear here in MN, even at the bait. Maybe things are different on the norther boarder? But anywhere else, it's extreamly rare. I know other states do without baiting. But you might want to talk to the hunter there before assuming that could work here, or how it works there through their words. As I have mentioned, I've been in the woods hunting a very long time. In prime bear area, and never seen one. I rarely hear of any other hunter who has. To say if when hunting bear, that I would pass one up for what ever reason for the next one? The most logical reality is there won't be a next one. Possibly for the rest of my life. That would mean that banning baiting would unequivically mean though it can be done here, it probably would lead to an end of bear hunting to 90% of bear hunters. Yes, there would still be hunting. As there still is in other states. But hunters do weight the chances they will see what they are hunting for before going. Must hunters would give it up.

• We typically don't engage in debate on the internet, and certainly are not out to stifle anyone's legal rights. We are compelled to reply to Mr K though. If someone is caught poaching, they have violated the law and basic moral ethics of proper hunting. There are a great deal of financial resources and labor involved in calculating populations of wildlife by various state and federal agencies. I think most good hunters realize that poaching is more than illegal, it is unethical. This writer does not hunt, but lives in a very remote area of the USA, surrounded by wilderness. It's not like I am posting here from New York City. The people that (sparsely) populate our area are avid hunters, and hunt bear (without baiting). Although I don't hunt, I enjoy target shooting and am quite proficient with rifle, shotgun and pistol. I prefer bare steel sights over a scope, for the challenge. I average 85+ out of a 100, shooting clay pigeons with a 12 gauge. I am a reasonably good shot, and even use to shoot competition pistol. The bear that was shot had numerous pink ribbons sticking out in every direction. I am certain I could have recognized it was not just dressing that up way to look pretty. Whoever shot that bear was either blind, or didn't care. Either way, that was not an ethical shot and I question that hunter's reasoning and/or eyesight. They not only disrupted important conservation data, they removed an animal that was investment in for important research. A prior collared bear that was shot was described as "looking like a clown" with all the trappings to easily ID it as a research bear. So please don't describe me as wanting to "make a criminal out of hunters". Your logic of a wolf killing a bear is rather nonsensical if you are familiar with the predator prey relationships (unless it's a cub bear). Also, does my previous post truly sound like I was getting "so worked up"? I felt like my post was fair, logical and calmly presented. A collar on allowable hunted animals are clearly visible on species with short hair, and heavy furred animals have ID trappings all over the collar (for a purpose). If shooting research animals were made illegal, but a thick furred animal's collar was not visible, that would be very defensible, but this is/was not the case. I am quite certain that these clearly marked bears were shot knowing they were research subjects, and also the knowledge that it's legal to shoot them. If it was illegal to shoot them, maybe the hunters who did kill them, would have held their shot, and moved on for legal prey. Or, maybe not. If it was illegal to kill a research subject, and a hunter is unable to distinguish a bear with pink ribbons sticking out in every direction (or "looks like a clown") and/or shoots it anyway, then I question whether that hunter should even be granted a license. There are also a number of states that allow bear hunting, but not over bait (baiting can create "nuisance bears") and hunters still get their prey. So, the statement that bears can only be taken over bait is not quite true. Well, with the exception of bad shots and/or lazy hunters. We stand by our advocacy of "no bear baiting" and no taking of "visibly and clearly marked" research wildlife. Those hunters who want "easy" should fill a barrel up with water, add fish, and shoot them. ;)

• Lets make criminals out of hunters. Lets make sure they can't hunt out of fear they will be thrown in jail because they might not see the collar. (Most collars on animals are undetectable by hunters). If your going to make it illegal to shoot an animal with a tracking system on it, just know that is defacto making hunting illegal for many Americans. I completely understand the loss in future data. But to think it's not natural to kill an animal? That's data too. If a wolf had killed this bear for food, would you have been so worked up? Of course not, it's nature. Just like it's nature in this case. People forget that people are nature too. I see this as no different.

• National Wildlife Humane Society feels there is something intrinsically wrong in shooting a collared wild research animal, legal or not. While NWHS is not directly opposed to ethical hunting for food gathering, and realizes that there is value in hunting for population control in over-populated species, this was by NO means an ethical "kill". We are deeply saddened by the loss of Sarah. Readers must realize that nonprofits are having a difficult time operating in this current harsh economic climate, and are dependent on donations to maintain their valuable work. Killing wildlife that is the subject of an expensive research project not only costs the nonprofit dwindling funding, it also sets back their research program. It also robs the donors who have graciously donated to support their hard work. NWHS advocates legislation to protect wildlife that is involved in research studies. These studies provide the conservation community with valuable wildlife data, and in the long run even benefit hunters (data that can be used for garnering numbers and travel paths, that can be used for consideration by the DNR). If simple ethics cannot guide hunters in their choice of specific prey, then legislation is required to fill this lapse in hunter ethics.

• I do think it's funny how baiting is getting brought to attention when it's irrelevant in this situation. I am fascinated that CLC is saying how valuable the research is and how she debates hunting practices in Colorado. It's okay, she can't help it. Is Wiley Fox threatening children over this random bear? WOW. Really? Sad, so sad.

• wow, i got nothin'. too funny,

• Well ok then, Just know that your radical extremists view to impose your uninformed, closed minded beliefs upon others is in my opinion about as shamful as it gets. I respect your rights to think you should be able to tell others how to live their lives. Please respect my right to beilieve that mind set is selfish, greedy, heartless, hateful and unethical.

• Many GREEDY hunters shoot bears for gall bladders, etc. for Asians who apparently don't buy Viagra!!! Maybe the kid that killed this bear will enjoy bait on her playground! Or maybe this family will get smart and homeschool!!!...this may be her last day of popularity of other schoolchildren who love Lily and her friends...she might get other idiot hunter children to speak to her... shun this family!!!! Maybe they'll get a message??????

• Why don't we just make it illegal for research bears to hit a hunters bait? Otherwise, make a law that says a hunter has to put up a sign at each bait station that the bait is for non-research bears only? Do you honestly think the hunter was purposfully baiting a research bear? that's not how that works. A hunter would never know until they see it in their scope. And though not likely, very possible they didn't see the ribons. Something I wouldn't expect a non hunter to understand. You can't see color at dusk or dawn, especially at any distance. Trees and shrubs always cover a portion of the bear as well. Not likely, but very possible the hunter didn't know. Ethics has absolutly nothing to do with the baiting methods of a hunter. Zip. All the bears they could have shot? They don't roam in packs. If you were a hunter, you would know that even as a hunter it's very very rare to see a single bear. Let alone have a choice of bears. I hunted bear for 3 years and many other animals for 20. I've never seen a bear in the wild. And honestly wouldn't ever expect too. That's why they have to be baited.

• I am in 100% agreement with Deborah...there is NO SPORT in baiting bears...it's simply like shooting fish in a barrel. For me, the bigger issue--I do not think hunters should be allowed to shoot the Radio Collared Resarch Bears...the reserach is too invaluable!! I think we need to get this legislated ASAP and I think there should be a huge fine and perhaps taking the rifle! For T.O. believe it or not, but there ARE other ways to hunt bear! In Colorado, baiting is not allowed. I read an article earlier today about "Ground Hunting" bear in Alaska, so be sure to have your facts straight before you start espousing your views. By the way...I don't mean to sound ornery, but unethical behavior by anyone absolutely disgusts me! Shame on those hunters who ignore the pleas of the DNR, NABC, and others to leave the radio collared bears alone. Karma...that's all I'll say!

• http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/event/article/id/170514/publisher_ID/36/

• The North American Bear Center has 13 scratch that, 12 research bears now. If hunters are only waiting for a law that makes it illegal to bait a research bear, they need a class in ethics. It is not ethical, but may be legal to bait a research bear. The information that could have been gathered is now lost forever. Legislators -- hear this! Make it illegal to kill research bears. Of all the bears in Minnesota hunters could have shot they shot a research bear. I say, "shame on you!" -- Leave the other 12 alone!

• well said K. we may disagree on pink ribbon or no pink ribbon but I respect your view and I agree with your post.

• Agreed T.O. There simply is no other way to hunt bear than to bait them. That's how it's done. I personally don't think I would have shot a bear with pink ribons on it? But it doesn't make someone a coward to do exactly what it is they are there to do. If you don't understand hunting, don't comment on specifics. It just makes you look ignorant. Be against hunting if you wish, I understand that at least. But if your going to lambast a person for doing exactly what hunters do, exactly how it's supposed to be done, for no other apparent valid reason than you liked the "Pet" aspect of this bear. then you are lambasting all hunters. And I look down on you as a coward for that.

• Wow, no hunters in the bunch? If you are lucky enough to get a bear to come to your bait pile and it has a collar you shoot it and return the collar. I love the the way this is written, "a bear named Gracie was GUNNED DOWN"... If it is illegal to shoot a collared bear than fine, it's illegal, if it is not than shoot the bear. Is it a pet because the DNR is tracking it? If it is critical then get your little lobists and make it illegal. Oh, and bear meat is geasy but TASTY. To compare deer hunting and bear hunting is like apples and oranges. you bait bear for a reason. If you are a bear hunter than you know what i am talking about. If not (like the folks above) than you really dont understand and can just sit there and continue to judge from your coffee shop hot spot.

• Hunter,no you are not a hunter, you are a piece of crap and a coward, that killed Sarah bear. Do you feel good about yourself now. There are so many other bears but no, you had to shoot a research bear who was a yearling. She had all her ribbons on. May you not have a restful night again, and I hope they find you so that everyone will know exactly what a coward looks like.

• I think so many of the hunters out there will talk a big game when speaking of preserving wildlife. Behavior like this puts them all in a bad light, but I think it's justified to a very large degree. There are a ton of them just out there to kill something in order to feel like a tough guy, and they couldn't give a fuck about our wilderness.

• I am a bear lover, Lily and Hope Fan and also a biologist by training and have worked in many fields related to animal and human health and safety and research. In this case, one needs to understand the value of these bears to science is not through their death but by keeping them alive. There is money and time and effort spent on these bears, just like any research animal but here, the actual beauty in discovery is in understanding "bear behavior"! Bear behavior stops when it dies and whatever could be learned from that bear is lost. This was a horrible act done by someone that may hunt but should not call himself one....All the hunters I know respect life and the value of information these animals provide....

• http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/bear/index.html Look at the photos --- Obviously it was NOT difficult to see this was a research bear..... Shot by a weak, cowardly non-hunter.....

• Baiting should be illegal, period. Hunting is sport, & there is nothing "sporting" about baiting. We bait animals/pest to trap/kill them, we don't do it for sport. Also, whoever shot Sarah does'nt want too much trouble about shooting a research bear. They left the radio tracking collar in the DNR mailbox in Tower, & then split the scene. It's not like the person who killed her turned the collar in personally. Whoever shot her is a coward, on several levels.

• people are terrible. end of story

TotalComments: 28