On Sep 14, 6:33 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:20:24 -0800, (Floyd L.
The fact is that an *intelligent* human *can* reason out
the fact that the bear is now very likely to be a
significant danger to humans. The only safe action for
humans is to kill that particular bear.

BS. If you are so smart, you should be able to figure out that ALL
bears are dangerous, and so you should stay out of their habitat. DUH!

Sure. Why didn't we already think of that? I guess we should all
start by vacating all of Yosemite, Yellowstone. Move people out of
their rural homes in Idaho, the Sierras, the Cascades, etc. I'll
probably should never go to Lake Tahoe again, since "bears are
dangerous". I guess the American Indians had it all wrong not getting
the heck out of areas where bears lived, which includes the Berkeley
Hills (where I live) and even as far as San Francisco in the early
1900's.

Heck - several black bears came into Reno, Nevada on occasion and
started raiding trash cans. I guess that's their habitat now. Better
move people out.

Seriously though (for people who can reason better than Vandeman) -
bears aren't statistically dangerous. It's the rare case where bears
have the potential to cause harm to people. Black bears have
coexisted alongside people in North America for thousands of years,
and there's not going to be some massive die-off because an animal is
alongside a human presence. It's respect that should minimize
potential harm to humans and bears, and not a separation of the
habitats of humans and bears. Fact is - people are living and
visiting in areas where bears live, and nothing is going to change
that. Most of the time, it's not an issue. In the rare case where a
bear does show the propensity to injure a person, I have no problem if
it is put down. I respect bears, but I don't romanticize them as some
noble creature that must be preserved at all costs.