Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 7:15:23 GMT -5
I think they just came down out of Perry and Juniata. All in one year? Muab Had bears in Mt Holly, north edge of MSF, 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 27, 2019 7:29:59 GMT -5
Just finished mowing and was standing on the front porch and here comes Junior walking up the road and starts up the driveway. Sees me standing there and turns around back to the road walks up another 15 feet and cuts up parallel with the driveway in the woods. I planned on going fishing tomorrow with the kayak guess I'll be stopping at the landfill first with the garbage I'm certain to be picking up in the AM. No worrys... used to it. I was sitting on the porch last evening trying to snag a good shot of an orchard oriole when this guy wandered toward the house with bird feeder intentions. He's been around the neighborhood for several weeks. The picture is at the moment when he caught a whiff of me and decided to retreat.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 27, 2019 7:33:20 GMT -5
I agree it's called dispersal, and my point is, expanded dispersal is caused by expanded population. Brilliant! Yes as populations expand, their territory expands commensurate with the population growth. That does not mean that the new territory isn't suited or a place that isn't bear habitat. Now on the fourth grade.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 27, 2019 7:41:50 GMT -5
Where did I say not to pursue illegally killed situations? I did NOT. I said it isn't worth the money they are spending to maybe catch a couple more poachers. They can still randomly check reported harvests and alot of poaching prosecutions comes from tips they receive. If getting rid of check stations causes a few more bears to be illegally taken then who really cares. The population is higher than it needs to be and it won't be detrimental to the long term goals. There are plenty bears that get poached every year as it is now.. They can still collect data from harvested bears, but as shown with deer they don't need to check every one to get it. I don't believe that the PGC hires our contractors for deer pickup. That is done by PennDOT and the county. Please show me where I griped about a surplus in their budget??? "catch a couple more poachers" is pursuing illegally killed situations. You could be correct on the road-killed deer contractors being hired by the state. No matter, they don't do a very good job. I did not say that "you" griped about surplus in their budget. I said; "Nope, the same ones who gripe about a surplus in their budget will gripe about them spending money...........?" My point is that they are a law enforcement agency along with wildlife management. Bears are much more sought after than the commonplace whitetail deer. I have never been one to suggest law enforcement stand aside and allow minor crimes to go unchecked because it costs money, and especially if the agency has surplus funds to apply. In my old fashioned way of thing, it is stupid to send a message to potential violators that "we aren't going to check on your activity" because we have a lot of bears. I'll clarify that my points are not aimed at any individual but there is a very obvious anti-pgc sentiment with some folks who bitch about anything the pgc does no matter how insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 27, 2019 7:51:17 GMT -5
Yes as populations expand, their territory expands commensurate with the population growth. That does not mean that the new territory isn't suited or a place that isn't bear habitat. . The problem is Bow, and many have said it here in this thread, is they are dispersing into territories that the PGC doesn't want them and the people don't want them. This expanding range is due to the significant increase in bear population from where the biologists said was max capacity years ago. Bears are now not just "passing through" these areas, they are setting up residence.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 27, 2019 8:12:52 GMT -5
Yes as populations expand, their territory expands commensurate with the population growth. That does not mean that the new territory isn't suited or a place that isn't bear habitat. . The problem is Bow, and many have said it here in this thread, is they are dispersing into territories that the PGC doesn't want them and the people don't want them. This expanding range is due to the significant increase in bear population from where the biologists said was max capacity years ago. Bears are now not just "passing through" these areas, they are setting up residence. Yes, agreed, 100 percent. Urban environments and places that are not socially acceptable for bear residency are seeing bears moving in. This discussion started about the pgc going to "great lengths" in dealing with bears. I think picking up road-kill bears was mentioned, and law enforcement/investigation were part of that claim. My position was to support investigation of "ANY" game law violations or potential violations, regardless of population densities. I questioned stroupy on what specifically were those "great lengths" but never got an answer, and then the thread morphed into all sorts of other concerns. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by redarrow on Jun 27, 2019 8:14:39 GMT -5
From Bb;"I'll clarify that my points are not aimed at any individual but there is a very obvious anti-pgc sentiment with some folks who bitch about anything the pgc does no matter how insignificant"
It certainly seems that way sometimes, and that seems to be the case with at least half the hunters I know. I suppose we have become a country of whiners and haters when it come to most things-shouldn't be surprised when it come to hunters too.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 27, 2019 8:44:59 GMT -5
Well,we never had any coyotes until a tractor trailer full of them broke down on I80.Crazy enough,every single year after that,at least one every year broke down within 10 miles..There you have it. So...Are you responding to my post? And if so, what are you implying? You want the truth... just call the PGC and ask them if they've transplanted any bear into Michaux St. Forest over the last 5 -8 years. There you have it.... Muab Not responding to you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 9:02:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Jun 27, 2019 13:28:25 GMT -5
Because that is how a bully operates, yet, he thinks his behavior is perfectly fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 14:07:38 GMT -5
Gee Bowbum call in a cub by itself and call in anything else not a raptor and see what response you get from the agency. They jump through hoops for bear. Anyone can seek out any wild animal and keep it or do whatever else with it but that doesnt make the PGC jump for a opossum.
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 27, 2019 14:57:24 GMT -5
Because that is how a bully operates, yet, he thinks his behavior is perfectly fine. You must have missed the below from TK on page 3 when he responded to Bowbum? Or maybe you missed it purposely cause you don't like Bow? Keep teaching 3rd grade, that's all you can handle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 16:17:39 GMT -5
Because that is how a bully operates, yet, he thinks his behavior is perfectly fine. You must have missed the below from TK on page 3 when he responded to Bowbum? Or maybe you missed it purposely cause you don't like Bow? Keep teaching 3rd grade, that's all you can handle Toucbe" Nothing against Bowbum or anyone else. Just get tired of adults acting like school kids jabbing at each other.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 27, 2019 16:21:44 GMT -5
To somewhat answer Stroupy's original post.The PGC responds to wildlife calls all of the time.Some WCO's are better than others at it.If they respond to a call concerning any vector species,they off the animal.Bears are cool animals so they try to save the one's they can.As to why they kill fawns,I've never heard a rational answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by turkeykiller on Jun 27, 2019 16:55:37 GMT -5
Because that is how a bully operates, yet, he thinks his behavior is perfectly fine. You must have missed the below from TK on page 3 when he responded to Bowbum? Or maybe you missed it purposely cause you don't like Bow? Keep teaching 3rd grade, that's all you can handle You must have missed BB's post on page 2 Jun 24 7:37 PM. I was countering his remark
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 27, 2019 17:01:18 GMT -5
TK,you ignorant slut lol.
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 27, 2019 17:55:41 GMT -5
You must have missed BB's post on page 2 Jun 24 7:37 PM. I was countering his remark Didn't miss it at all. In fact, he wasn't even responding to you. My point was selective criticism of posts.
|
|
|
Post by turkeykiller on Jun 27, 2019 18:05:30 GMT -5
You must have missed BB's post on page 2 Jun 24 7:37 PM. I was countering his remark Didn't miss it at all. In fact, he wasn't even responding to you. My point was selective criticism of posts. LOL
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 28, 2019 7:18:43 GMT -5
That's an easy question to answer. It is in response to someone suggesting I keep teaching 3rd grade because that is what I am capable of. (paraphrased). If it is "jabs" you are curious about you need not look far back on this thread to find many.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 28, 2019 7:26:25 GMT -5
There really is no need for any of the jabs or responsive jabs. I sometimes have to remind myself of that.
So, in the sense of responding to Stroupy's topic I'll pose this question and see how folks feel about it;
Someone, maybe Stroupy, posted that a bear was hit by a vehicle and the pgc came and tried to track it down. That was presented as a criticism of the pgc in that they don't do that for deer but only for bears. I responded that there was likely a concern for a injured bear and that if that bear were not tracked and attacked someone then the pgc-bashers would be out in all their glory.
I noticed that topic died immediately and I sensed the bashers realized there wasn't a valid way to support Stroupy's criticism. Comments on that post?
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Jun 28, 2019 7:56:27 GMT -5
I noticed that topic died immediately and I sensed the bashers realized there wasn't a valid way to support Stroupy's criticism. Comments on that post? I would agree with you Bow that a bear that is hit by a car, then runs off, and is reported to the PGC may become a priority to them depending on the area where it was reportedly hit. If it were in an area that is relatively developed, there is a risk to the public if someone happens upon an injured bear. If we had moose in this state, same issue. They would probably follow up on bull elk as well for the same reason. If a bear were hit in a very remote area, it may not be a priority. With all of that said, the PGC does generally treat bears as a threatened species here. I could understand that mentality 40-50 years ago when our population was much smaller and still expanding. They are well established here and there is no need for the level of study that continues to go on with bears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 11:18:22 GMT -5
I have not changed my opinion about it simply because you cant admit that bears get special treatment.
|
|
|
Post by bowbum on Jun 28, 2019 16:13:06 GMT -5
I have not changed my opinion about it simply because you cant admit that bears get special treatment. Opinions are cheap if you don't support them with facts. Here it is so you can get it clear; "Yes" bears "do" receive different treatment than rabbits, groundhogs, deer or squirrels. They are a different, less populated, more in demand and more illegally harvested than the percentage of other game animals. That should not come as a surprise to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with wildlife management. They're sought after for claws, teeth, hides and often baited. But how about that looking for an injured bear? Any comment on that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 16:29:21 GMT -5
I have not changed my opinion about it simply because you cant admit that bears get special treatment. Opinions are cheap if you don't support them with facts. Here it is so you can get it clear; "Yes" bears "do" receive different treatment than rabbits, groundhogs, deer or squirrels. They are a different, less populated, more in demand and more illegally harvested than the percentage of other game animals. That should not come as a surprise to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with wildlife management. They're sought after for claws, teeth, hides and often baited. But how about that looking for an injured bear? Any comment on that? lol you demand facts from me but present none to support your argument. As for the injured bear you are grasping at straws.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2019 16:32:39 GMT -5
Bow you are also the one who said the PGC would come for a faen but my dad would laugh at you for that one.
|
|