eric1978 Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Once again, the ASSume thing, you are swinging on a limb. "IF you read the article"... I read the article. I was just responding to your comment about how they are just a nuisance like otters, cute and furry and eating all the fish. I took that to mean you'd prefer they didn't make a comeback because they might bother your apiary friends. Maybe I misinterpreted, but I don't think so.
Al Agnew Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Troutfiend, you don't have to worry much about black bears in Yellowstone. The park has been very diligent about not allowing anyone to feed them for many years now, and it's quite rare to see one around a campground anymore. On the other hand, while there haven't been many grizzly attacks in Yellowstone, the griz in the lands surrounding the park have gotten more common and more aggressive in recent years. Most conflicts with humans, however, occur during the fall during elk hunting season. Some of the bears have decided that rifle shots are like dinner bells, and come to take the elk away from the hunters. Haven't heard about the past fall, but the autumn before there were 4 separate grizzly attacks on hunters in Montana. I've seen one Missouri black bear. Saw it near the Jacks Fork several years ago. But I've had several spooky encounters with black bears out west. Had a huge cinnamon-colored black bear come flying off the brushy bank of the Boulder River and splash into the water about 30 feet upstream from me while I was wading and flyfishing. Half-lunged, half-swam across the river, up the other bank, and disappeared. Had one chew our ATV to bits and pieces when we left it at the end of a road and backpacked up to the top of the plateau in western Colorado bowhunting. The seat, handlebars, and everything else chewable was demolished, and there were holes in a gas can sitting next to the ATV when we got back to it.
jdmidwest Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 I read the article. I was just responding to your comment about how they are just a nuisance like otters, cute and furry and eating all the fish. I took that to mean you'd prefer they didn't make a comeback because they might bother your apiary friends. Maybe I misinterpreted, but I don't think so. Personally, I don't think we should enhance their comeback, as a livestock farmer. They are an Alpha Predator if they establish a territory and develop a taste for livestock. Most Black Bear encounters are ones that have become "familiar" with human ways. They have feed on sources other than nature, like dog food, garbage, bird seed, honey, and livestock. It is just a trait of the bears, they are very opportunistic. The article was a warning about the dangers of Black Bear encounters. The link at the end of the story related to what Landowners and Livestock Owners have to deal with in case of a Black Bear problem. I believe in letting nature run its course for the most part. I have never agreed with the trading of one good animal for one most despise. For instance, Turkeys for Rattlesnakes. Otters, which MDC and everyone for the most part has been a bad decision. Bears were extinct in MO, like the Elk, Buffalo, and Mountain Lion since the 1800's and there have not been many movements to restore any of them for some reason or another. Whether the MDC has scattered some black bears or they have migrated, we will never know. If they stay in Wilderness Areas, then there should be no problems. Elk and Buffalo free roaming would create fencing and disease problems if brought back in. Then there is the Feral HOG, a bad mistake, most of them were eradicated with the fencing and livestock laws of earlier in this century. Farmers used to "Free Range" cattle and hogs. Now they are a problem that is still growing and competing with native, existing creatures. "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
eric1978 Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 I understand your concerns with the bears as a livestock farmer. But it's nature, and we have to take the bad with the good. It's not our place to manipulate which species and how many of each are "allowed" to inhabit their native habitat, depending on how "inconvenient" each species is...even though we do just that in many cases.
SKMO Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 I have never agreed with the trading of one good animal for one most despise. For instance, Turkeys for Rattlesnakes. Do you actually believe this, that rattlesnakes were traded for turkeys and stocked? I have heard this for 40 years and among all the ridiculous "Urban Legends"(in this case a rural legend)this one remains near the top. Makes for a good conspiracy theory though, the govt and MDC doing all kind of covert stuff they don't want us to know about. Of course everyone knows someone whose cousin's next-door neighbor's baby-sitter actually SAW them being dropped from the helicoptor, or knows the employee first hand who did the stocking. So it's gotta be true. SKMO "A True Fisherman with a Rod in His hand, and a Tug on the Line, would not Trade His Position for the Throne of Any King"
Chief Grey Bear Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Its a lost cause eric. We had this same conversation about a year or so ago. And the same crap is being spread again. But I do appriciate you and SKMO bringing some truth to the conversation. An avid outdoorsman for 40+ years would know better. But that is just my point of view and one certainly has the right not to agree. Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors
jdmidwest Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Do you actually believe this, that rattlesnakes were traded for turkeys and stocked? I have heard this for 40 years and among all the ridiculous "Urban Legends"(in this case a rural legend)this one remains near the top. Makes for a good conspiracy theory though, the govt and MDC doing all kind of covert stuff they don't want us to know about. Of course everyone knows someone whose cousin's next-door neighbor's baby-sitter actually SAW them being dropped from the helicoptor, or knows the employee first hand who did the stocking. So it's gotta be true. MDC has traded turkeys for grouse, pheasants, prairie chickens, bass, striped bass, muskies, otters, seeds, etc. Who in the MDC would admit to the trade of timber rattlers for turkeys, but it could have happened. If it is a species that MDC wants to reintroduce back in to the wild, they will trade a turkey for it. That is the real basis for the legend. The general theory is, if MDC thinks it is endangered or wants to reintroduce it into the state, they will trade a turkey for it, as they have historically proved. It always makes for a good excuse this time of year when turkeys are hard to find. This pdf contains alot of history on Turkey Trading. Do a search for the word Turkey. MDC pdf 2067 But the MDC constantly denies it. Newpaper Articles from 1990 regarding rattlesnake trade "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
troutfiend1985 Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Turkeys for rattlesnakes huh? Wow. I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that no, the MDC didn't trade turkeys for rattlesnakes. This theory doesn't make sense on any level, turkey, which have appeal to the hunters for rattle snakes, who are 1) snakes, 2) venomous 3) feared by most people in the community, and 4)pose no real commercial value. We could believe this theory of trading snakes for turkeys, or we could believe that animals migrate and make their ways into areas of less competition. Look at the armadillo, did MDC trade a turkey for that(I can't believe I'm asking if MDC would trade a turkey for an Armadillo). Most likely the black bear, just like armadillos and the infamous rattle snake, migrated. Arkansas has a seemingly large population of black bears, and the climate/terrain of southern missouri is compatible to northern arkansas. Animals don't know state borders, they migrate. Also, I didn't read the MDC article as saying that black bears are only dangerous. The article informed people that bears are making a comeback, and it did inform people that the MDC would rather people try to avoid human-bear contacts. Yes, bears like any wild animal can be dangerous. But in missouri, I would be more worried about encountering an animal with rabies etc. because of the sheer lack of a bear population. For farmers, the story may be different. But really, how many animals have you lost from a bear attack? Compare that number with the amount of animals lost to hawks, coyotes, fox's etc. and you can see that the fear is not justified by the facts. I'm not for MDC to reintroduce species, but I don't think that is what has happened here. Just my point of view. “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
flytyer57 Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 On the news last nite, they were warning people about the bears. They were saying that if you go out in the forests, to take along some protection "like a gun or pepper spray." Now I can just see the headlines; "Hiker Shot In Mark Twain National Forrest" with the report saying some clown with a gun thought the hiker was a bear Let's face it. Black bears are no real threat to humans unless provoked. If you're hiking through the woods and encounter a bear, drop that fish you're planning on taking home to show your buddies and slowly back away. The bear don't want you, it wants the fish. Are you willing to die for a lousy 12" fish? I didn't think so. (At least I hope you wouldn't.) The bears are migrating and there's no way to stop them without killing them all. This was their home long before any man set foot here and like it or not, they're coming back home. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Al Agnew Posted May 1, 2010 Posted May 1, 2010 Why in the world would anyone seriously believe MDC traded turkeys for rattlesnakes? Timber rattlesnakes have never been endangered in MO. They would have had no need to bring some in...there have always been viable populations of timber rattlers in localized areas throughout the Ozarks. One of the places where they have been relatively common for many years is in and around the Forest 44, Lone Elk Park area along I-44 just west of the St. Louis area. They have also been common in the area around Wappapello Lake in southeast MO. They are very scarce in some counties because of habitat loss and persecution, but there enough of them statewide to have few worries about their populations. You don't usually see many rattlesnakes because they are the reptilian equivalent of an apex predator, they have fairly specific habitat requirements, and they are usually very shy and difficult to spot. They will never be really abundant except in a few localized areas. The pigmy rattlesnake is either endangered or threatened, but that's pretty much all over its range, not just in MO. Don't think that many other states would be willing or able to capture enough pigmy rattlers to trade for turkeys, even if they needed turkeys. I sure get tired of MDC getting blamed for things they haven't done. They are far from perfect, but they don't own any black UN helicopters.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now