This scared me a good bit

[MathGeek]

Comments like, "You better have some scratch marks if you let if fly" aptly demonstrate the folly of government employees in applying legitimate self-defense concerns to wildlife they begin to value more than people.

In most states, the threshold for use of force in self-defense (or defense of others) is that a reasonable man would be in fear of death or bodily harm if he failed to act. One need not sustain actual injuries to meet this criterion, and waiting until one has sustained this level of injury before applying force is foolish. However, be warned that overzealous government employees may attempt to shift the burden of proof to the party acting in self-defense or defense of others, especially if there is a perceived need to make an example of someone to dissuade other parties from acting similarly.

One need not be an expert in whether the behavior if a given species is genuinely threatening to be justified in self-defense (or defense of others). Once a "reasonable man" would perceive a threat, the use of force is justified. And the courts have consistently ruled that a "reasonable man" need not have specialized technical knowledge, but only need be acting on beliefs common in the general public.

For example, had the bear in the first video begun to climb the tree with the hunter in it or had there been a child in the truck pictured with the bear on the cab, most reasonable men would conclude that the bear likely was a threat to human life. But many unreasonable, idiotic government employees might insist that experts would not infer a threat from the behavior or that a higher burden of proof is needed regarding the threat.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Comments like, "You better have some scratch marks if you let if fly" aptly demonstrate the folly of government employees in applying legitimate self-defense concerns to wildlife they begin to value more than people.

In most states, the threshold for use of force in self-defense (or defense of others) is that a reasonable man would be in fear of death or bodily harm if he failed to act. One need not sustain actual injuries to meet this criterion, and waiting until one has sustained this level of injury before applying force is foolish. However, be warned that overzealous government employees may attempt to shift the burden of proof to the party acting in self-defense or defense of others, especially if there is a perceived need to make an example of someone to dissuade other parties from acting similarly.

One need not be an expert in whether the behavior if a given species is genuinely threatening to be justified in self-defense (or defense of others). Once a "reasonable man" would perceive a threat, the use of force is justified. And the courts have consistently ruled that a "reasonable man" need not have specialized technical knowledge, but only need be acting on beliefs common in the general public.

For example, had the bear in the first video begun to climb the tree with the hunter in it or had there been a child in the truck pictured with the bear on the cab, most reasonable men would conclude that the bear likely was a threat to human life. But many unreasonable, idiotic government employees might insist that experts would not infer a threat from the behavior or that a higher burden of proof is needed regarding the threat.

MG;dr

You have some serious issues with government man, serious issues. Rush and Fox News is warping your brain. How scared are you of ebola?

#draconiansanctions

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG;dr

You have some serious issues with government man, serious issues. Rush and Fox News is warping your brain.

In our professional and consulting work, we've personally seen a lot of the excesses. I haven't listened to Rush in years, and how can Fox News warp my brain if I don't even have a TV?

Here's a case of overzealous government employees killing the bears and trying to pin the felony charges on citizens:

http://www.wlos.com/news/features/to...l#.VD_l0PldUSY

The jury found the citizens not guilty of the felony charges, and investigations are ongoing into the officer misconduct.

[MathGeek]

A few more overzealous prosecutions for bear deaths:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/tr...hotos-1.284173

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-his-backyard/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/charges...eath-1.1808194

[Duck Butter]

we are talking about killing a protected animal that is not doing you any harm, not a couple of cases where law enforcement got 'overzealous'. You always tend to find the few outliers of everything. There are many incidents of people killing protected animals in Louisiana for no reason at all (many many black bears, several whooping cranes, several bald eagles, etc.)

Find me two incidents of a Louisiana black bear doing bodily harm to an individual. They tear up feeders and stands and camps occasionally but you are going to be hard pressed to find an incident with a Louisiana black bear harming an actual person. The Tensas population is the highest density of black bears per square mile in the continental US yet no one has been hurt despite thousands of hunters year in and year out in the woods there. Every one I have encountered has hauled tail after we saw one another except for this one which was a very old male and I think he was so old he couldn't see. Got 50 yards and saw me and got on out of there. Several encounters with females with cubs and they were even more skittish of humans

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Find me two incidents of a Louisiana black bear doing bodily harm to an individual.

Perhaps the good citizens of Louisiana are quicker and better shots than the citizens of Florida where black bear attacks on humans have recently increased greatly and are averaging about two per year.

It is easier to believe that Louisiana citizens are better shots than that Louisiana black bears are less of a threat.

I have not had any encounters with bears in LA yet, but I did have a few with bears in CO. They were in garages and yards and frequently very close to children. I wouldn't have blamed a neighbor for a second had he shot a bear that approached his children in the yard while they played on a trampoline.

Bears are large predators. When they fulfill the motive, ability, and opportunity criteria for the use of force, who can blame a reasonable man for using that force. Who wants to be the first LA casualty to a bear?

[swampman46]

Duck, Just because there is no documented incident, doesn't meant the harmful/deadly potential isn't there. That's the problem today-it takes a tragedy to make a change. You may feel differently if it were you up a tree with a bear climbing towards you, or if you were unfortunate enough to have a face-to-face encounter when you least expected it. Let's not even think about what would happen if a person encounters a bear with cubs.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by swampman46

Duck, Just because there is no documented incident, doesn't meant the harmful/deadly potential isn't there. That's the problem today-it takes a tragedy to make a change. You may feel differently if it were you up a tree with a bear climbing towards you, or if you were unfortunate enough to have a face-to-face encounter when you least expected it. Let's not even think about what would happen if a person encounters a bear with cubs.

there is potential for danger every minute of every day. If we all got scared of what COULD happen we would never leave the house

You have a much bigger chance of getting hurt just driving to your hunting lease or by falling out of your tree than you have of getting attacked by a bear in Louisiana. Hunters are killed every year in Louisiana by a number of things and very few of them are inflicted by wildlife. When was the last time someone was killed by a wild animal in Louisiana?

for the record, if a bear gets up in the tree with me and acts aggressive, he is getting shot That bear was not being aggressive, only curious.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Perhaps the good citizens of Louisiana are quicker and better shots than the citizens of Florida where black bear attacks on humans have recently increased greatly and are averaging about two per year.

It is easier to believe that Louisiana citizens are better shots than that Louisiana black bears are less of a threat.

I have not had any encounters with bears in LA yet, but I did have a few with bears in CO. They were in garages and yards and frequently very close to children. I wouldn't have blamed a neighbor for a second had he shot a bear that approached his children in the yard while they played on a trampoline.

Bears are large predators. When they fulfill the motive, ability, and opportunity criteria for the use of force, who can blame a reasonable man for using that force. Who wants to be the first LA casualty to a bear?

Again - thousands of people go into the woods inthe most densely populated area for bears in the continental US every year and not one scratch from a bear has been reported. You have a better chance of being killed by honeybees or a spider bite or falling out of your tree or getting hit by a 'brush shot' from t-boys 30-30

[1fastmerc]

Wasn't there two bear attacks just recently in the news one being fatal. If I'm not mistaken one or both was in areas that have never had any problems with bears.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[tboy]

'brush shot' from t-boys 30-30

Hey now, how'd I get drug into this?!?!

[1fastmerc]

Originally Posted by tboy

'brush shot' from t-boys 30-30

Hey now, how'd I get drug into this?!?!

Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again - thousands of people go into the woods inthe most densely populated area for bears in the continental US every year and not one scratch from a bear has been reported. You have a better chance of being killed by honeybees or a spider bite or falling out of your tree or getting hit by a 'brush shot' from t-boys 30-30

Yes, and due care is advisable in all those circumstances. I avoided tree stands after my first try feeling that they just were not acceptably safe. I avoid hunting on public land after having a few projectiles whizzing past. I keep a safe distance from t-boy's 30-30. But none of this changes the rules of engagement when dealing with wildlife capable of great bodily harm. We don't even bring rays or sharks into the boat.

We take all due precautions to avoid negative interactions with bears. But if a bear threatens, all those precautions become moot, and it is time to do what most other reasonable citizens would do in that situation if they have thoughtfully provided themselves the means of defense.

Louisiana bears are not fundamentally different from bears in other states. They are large predators capable of great harm to humans. Given enough time and habitat overlap and sufficient bear populations, negative interactions will eventually occur, and I'm rooting for the humans.

[swampman46]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again - thousands of people go into the woods inthe most densely populated area for bears in the continental US every year and not one scratch from a bear has been reported. You have a better chance of being killed by honeybees or a spider bite or falling out of your tree or getting hit by a 'brush shot' from t-boys 30-30

Yeah but the laws aren't heavily favoring honeybees, spiders or trees either.

[bjhooper82]

Another thing some people need to keep in mind is when we hunters enter the woods, we are going into the animals' home. They're not coming into our house and attacking us for no reason. I am a hunter and I understand the risk I take when I am in the wild where dangerous animals might be. That being said, if a wild bear or any other animal acts aggressively towards me I will put some hot lead in his head!

[ike84]

Were you wearing some sort of sweet cover scent?

Has anyone ever been killed by a louisiana black bear?

We have one that lives on our property. That one had a sweet white pach on its chest. As long as they dont start associating people with food, they wont eat you. Same with gators.

[swampman46]

Originally Posted by ike84

We have one that lives on our property. That one had a sweet white pach on its chest. As long as they dont start associating people with food, they wont eat you. Same with gators.

I'm sure he was adorable. And with any luck...he might not associate anyone with food. But if he does...oooops! A black bear never did that before in Louisiana!

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by ike84

Were you wearing some sort of sweet cover scent?

Has anyone ever been killed by a louisiana black bear?

We have one that lives on our property. That one had a sweet white pach on its chest. As long as they dont start associating people with food, they wont eat you. Same with gators.

No one has ever been killed by a black bear in Louisiana.

Every season, tens of thousands of hunters go into the woods with black bears, cottonmouths, rattlesnakes, copperheads, coyotes, etc. and the number one accident is human induced (tboys 30-30, tree stands, ATVs, etc). Rarely ever hear of anyone getting killed by wildlife in Louisiana (better chance of getting killed by t-boys pitbull/curdog mix).

Every day people go fishing and swimming in waters with alligators, sharks, stingrays, gafftops, cottonmouths, and the number one thing that you need to worry about is human induced (boating accidents number one, lightning, etc.)

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

No one has ever been killed by a black bear in Louisiana.

A fatal attack may not have occurred yet, but given that black bears are large carnivores, LDWF realizes that attacks are foreseeable. Thus they have published guidance:

Even those hunters that follow all of the proper precautions can
occasionally encounter a bear while hunting. Although bears are
generally shy and for the most part try to avoid humans, hunting
places humans in close proximity to bears. When a surprise encounter
occurs, the best course of action is to detour around where the bear is
feeding or resting. Go back the way you came and access your
intended destination from another direction. If you unintentionally
encounter a bear at close range, raise your hands above your head to
appear larger than you are. Speak in a normal voice to allow the bear
to identify you as human. Back away until it is safe to turn and WALK
(DO NOT RUN) away. Bears have poor vision, but have a keen sense
of smell. They will sometimes stand on their hind legs when faced
with something they can't identify. They are trying to catch your scent
to determine what they are encountering. If an attack occurs, DO NOT
PLAY DEAD. That is a technique used for grizzly bears. Fight back
with anything available. Black bear attacks have often times been
stopped when the person fought back violently.

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/d...newsletter.pdf

"Fight back with anything available" certainly includes use of arms, if one has has the foresight to be prepared.

[Smalls]

I guess there are some unreasonable men in the world, MG, cause I've seen more than a couple videos of guys not hauling off and shooting bears because they thought they were a "threat to human life".

Act with reasonable respect to wildlife, and there is a good chance you will be just fine. On the off chance that you do have a potentially dangerous encounter, act accordingly. Just be ready to face consequences.

I don't think anyone is going to blame someone for defending themselves, but the government isn't "anyone", and the bear is a protecting species. I'm not saying a bear's life should be valued over a man's life, but I think its very easy to claim self defense with no witnesses. And the way people shoot without identifying their target, its a great excuse when you kill one on accident.