This scared me a good bit

[MattMigues]

Originally Posted by MarshRat89

No nugier. He's a salesman for process



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk mmm

I don't know him, he may be in the lease that the bridge crossing Intercoastal is under, it's a pretty big lease ad really close to where i hunt.

[mr crab]

That's an awesome video

[specktator]

Mike,
Try and find out around where you were if you can, please. I'd like to know where this was just to see how close they are to me.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!