Log in:  

Register

Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

25 Aug 2015 11:42

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:Whichever way you look at it, in the end humans are on top of the food chain and animals who don't understand that and attack humans will learn that sooner or later. That's just how nature works.

animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

25 Aug 2015 12:08

sniper wrote:animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.


No what justifies killing the bear is that the experts apparently feel that there is a significant risk that it will kill humans again. But I'm with Alpe on this one, there's some unanswered questions here. So I'm not making a very firm judgement here, I'm just going by what the experts say.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,177
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

25 Aug 2015 12:14

Just for the record, we're not at the top of the food chain. We're similar to pigs with regards to that. Obligate carnivores and apex predators (which humans are not) are at the top of the food chain.
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,055
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

25 Aug 2015 12:18

Archibald wrote:Respect for nature - why is it that so hard to some people to work out? Why must we just destroy everything that may be 'dangerous' to us as individuals?

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." - Francis Bacon

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:The problem is that this bear did more than protect itself and its family. The ranger in the article actually said that a major reason for killing the bear was the fact did instead of just killing the hiker, it consumed his meat and took some to store for later.

I addressed this in my previous post. The article makes it seem as though killing the bear was the only option, but there were others, none of which were discussed in the article.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,703
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

25 Aug 2015 12:27

great FB quote
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re:

25 Aug 2015 12:28

BigMac wrote:Just for the record, we're not at the top of the food chain. We're similar to pigs with regards to that. Obligate carnivores and apex predators (which humans are not) are at the top of the food chain.


Yeah okay, I looked into it quickly and I guess I had a flawed popular understanding of what the food-chain is. So yeah, humans being omnivores aren't on top of the food chain. Nevertheless, it's clear that tigers have more to fear from humans hunting them than the other way around, even though tiger's might higher on the food chain. I think that humans consume more tigers than the other way around (which is terrible by the way, because tigers are threatened species in a lot of area's and they're only being hunted because of superstitious beliefs in traditional Asian 'medicine', where they believe tiger blood has healing powers and stuff like that).

So anyway, sorry 'bout that, forget about my rambling - it's clear I don't know enough about biology - nevertheless, I still don't object to killing animals for the sake of human safety and if the experts feel that it was necessary to kill this bear for the sake of protecting humans, than I don't have a problem with it.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,177
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

25 Aug 2015 16:58

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
sniper wrote:animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.


No what justifies killing the bear is that the experts apparently feel that there is a significant risk that it will kill humans again. But I'm with Alpe on this one, there's some unanswered questions here. So I'm not making a very firm judgement here, I'm just going by what the experts say.
cheers, fair enough.

there's just no animal justice.
I mean, who's going after King Carlos for instance for killing those elephants?
sniper
Veteran
 
Posts: 13,121
Joined: 15 Oct 2010 23:36

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

26 Aug 2015 03:37

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
sniper wrote:animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.


No what justifies killing the bear is that the experts apparently feel that there is a significant risk that it will kill humans again. But I'm with Alpe on this one, there's some unanswered questions here. So I'm not making a very firm judgement here, I'm just going by what the experts say.

I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...
Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food

Tricycle Rider wrote:
Archibald wrote:even closer to "home" [of the incident] is the situation with the gray wolves in the US.
This reminds me of the recent news that a pack of gray wolves (adult plus cubs) had been spotted in Northern California. Officially they had not been seen there since 1924!

Somebody rightfully commented that they may not last long, though, while they are on the endangered species list some overly enthusiastic hunters or poachers might kill them anyway.

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/shasta-pack-photos-show-new-wolves-in-northern-california/34826896

there's been an all out war on the wolves since obama's crew de-listed them.
Even prior to that, Palin n co have been killing them off as fast as they can go to clear the areas they want for oil

Considering the improvements to the ecologies and environments of the regions where they've been re-introduced, to remove them again is just madness
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

26 Aug 2015 04:26

Archibald wrote:
Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
sniper wrote:animals don't just 'learn'. that's why they're animals.
and even if we're on top of the food chain (which i guess is open to debate), that clearly doesn't mean it was justified to kill the bear.


No what justifies killing the bear is that the experts apparently feel that there is a significant risk that it will kill humans again. But I'm with Alpe on this one, there's some unanswered questions here. So I'm not making a very firm judgement here, I'm just going by what the experts say.

I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...
Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food

Tricycle Rider wrote:
Archibald wrote:even closer to "home" [of the incident] is the situation with the gray wolves in the US.
This reminds me of the recent news that a pack of gray wolves (adult plus cubs) had been spotted in Northern California. Officially they had not been seen there since 1924!

Somebody rightfully commented that they may not last long, though, while they are on the endangered species list some overly enthusiastic hunters or poachers might kill them anyway.

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/shasta-pack-photos-show-new-wolves-in-northern-california/34826896

there's been an all out war on the wolves since obama's crew de-listed them.
Even prior to that, Palin n co have been killing them off as fast as they can go to clear the areas they want for oil

Considering the improvements to the ecologies and environments of the regions where they've been re-introduced, to remove them again is just madness


What is considered man's natural habitat?
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,584
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

26 Aug 2015 08:58

Archibald wrote:I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...


Uhmmm I'm no expert on bear behaviour, but to be honest I'm sure that this is incorrect. I've always been told that bears are normally very shy and avoid human contact and rarely engage; only when a human startles them, and especially if they have cubs. I think it's very uncommon for bears to hunt humans as prey..........
Last edited by Maaaaaaaarten on 26 Aug 2015 13:19, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,177
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

26 Aug 2015 12:13

That has been my experience, and the experience of most forest rangers I have talked to.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Administrator
 
Posts: 9,703
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

27 Aug 2015 04:30

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
Archibald wrote:I'd be wary of "experts". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...


Uhmmm I'm no expert on bear behaviour, but to be honest I'm sure that this is incorrect. I've always been told that bears are normally very shy and avoid human contact and rarely engage; only when a human startles them, and especially if they have cubs. I think it's very uncommon for bears to hunt humans as prey..........

courtesy of the Smithsonian...
A recent study in the Journal of Wildlife Management documented 59 fatal black bear attacks, resulting in 63 human deaths, in the United States and Canada from 1900 through 2009. And the scientists learned that many of our assumptions about bear dangers are wrong. The most important finding is that it is lone, hungry males—not mothers with young—who are most often the killers.

These [Black] bears silently stalk their prey, sometimes for hours, before quickly rushing to attack.


Brown bears are different - that is more likely the mother protecting her young.

Anyway, while there is a risk (as i mentioned), it's interesting that there's only been 63 fatalities in over 100years from black bears. A good presumption would be that there'd be a lower figure from the more docile and 'shy' Brown bears...
Apparently there's a greater risk of being killed by a cow - at approx 22 per year - so, you can really see why killing one grizzly is so pertinent in reducing the risk to humans...

Jspear wrote:What is considered man's natural habitat?

As a species, I don't think we're particularly "natural" any more, and we believe that we're above the natural world. We don't really fit in with nature, we destroy it and build our own habitat...
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

27 Aug 2015 10:06

Archibald wrote:courtesy of the Smithsonian...
A recent study in the Journal of Wildlife Management documented 59 fatal black bear attacks, resulting in 63 human deaths, in the United States and Canada from 1900 through 2009. And the scientists learned that many of our assumptions about bear dangers are wrong. The most important finding is that it is lone, hungry males—not mothers with young—who are most often the killers.

These [Black] bears silently stalk their prey, sometimes for hours, before quickly rushing to attack.


Brown bears are different - that is more likely the mother protecting her young.

Anyway, while there is a risk (as i mentioned), it's interesting that there's only been 63 fatalities in over 100years from black bears. A good presumption would be that there'd be a lower figure from the more docile and 'shy' Brown bears...
Apparently there's a greater risk of being killed by a cow - at approx 22 per year - so, you can really see why killing one grizzly is so pertinent in reducing the risk to humans...


If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right? Doesn't that confirm the point I was making that bears don't normally hunt humans for food? Even for black bears it apparently only happened a handful of times in over a 100 years.

Furthermore, the bear in this case was a brown bear.

So the point remains that we have a brown bear that has attacked and eaten a human, which is very uncommon, especially the eating and storing human meat as food. Considering this bear apparently roamed in an area popular for hiking, I can see why it is considered a risk.

Now maybe like Alpe suggested there were other measures that could have been taken to avoid the risk of further human deaths, that might be, I don't know much about managing bear populations. But I do know that bears and especially brown bears don't normally eat humans so we shouldn't pretend that this bear did something perfectly normal because he sees us like prey just like he would a deer or a fish.........
User avatar Maaaaaaaarten
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,177
Joined: 23 Oct 2011 17:47

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

30 Aug 2015 14:46

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right?...

Not necessarily. It also could mean that humans only extremely rarely offer themselves to black bears to be eaten.
User avatar StyrbjornSterki
Member
 
Posts: 782
Joined: 18 Jul 2010 22:00

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

31 Aug 2015 02:01

StyrbjornSterki wrote:
Maaaaaaaarten wrote:If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right?...

Not necessarily. It also could mean that humans only extremely rarely offer themselves to black bears to be eaten.


Nailed.

Oh and yeah, there's no such thing as men's natural habitat. We're outside of the natural spectrum as Archibald suggested. Hence also why we can't justify certain of our actions as 'natural', but that' another topic.
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,055
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

31 Aug 2015 04:04

Maaaaaaaarten wrote:
Archibald wrote:courtesy of the Smithsonian...
A recent study in the Journal of Wildlife Management documented 59 fatal black bear attacks, resulting in 63 human deaths, in the United States and Canada from 1900 through 2009. And the scientists learned that many of our assumptions about bear dangers are wrong. The most important finding is that it is lone, hungry males—not mothers with young—who are most often the killers.

These [Black] bears silently stalk their prey, sometimes for hours, before quickly rushing to attack.


Brown bears are different - that is more likely the mother protecting her young.

Anyway, while there is a risk (as i mentioned), it's interesting that there's only been 63 fatalities in over 100years from black bears. A good presumption would be that there'd be a lower figure from the more docile and 'shy' Brown bears...
Apparently there's a greater risk of being killed by a cow - at approx 22 per year - so, you can really see why killing one grizzly is so pertinent in reducing the risk to humans...


If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right? Doesn't that confirm the point I was making that bears don't normally hunt humans for food? Even for black bears it apparently only happened a handful of times in over a 100 years.

Furthermore, the bear in this case was a brown bear.

So the point remains that we have a brown bear that has attacked and eaten a human, which is very uncommon, especially the eating and storing human meat as food. Considering this bear apparently roamed in an area popular for hiking, I can see why it is considered a risk.

Now maybe like Alpe suggested there were other measures that could have been taken to avoid the risk of further human deaths, that might be, I don't know much about managing bear populations. But I do know that bears and especially brown bears don't normally eat humans so we shouldn't pretend that this bear did something perfectly normal because he sees us like prey just like he would a deer or a fish.........

yeah, but naah...

1. "If over more than a hundred years there were only 59 lethal bear attacks from black bears, that means it's extremely rare even for black bears to attack humans for food right? "
the key here is the word "lethal" - 59 attacks that resulted in a human death. Don't confuse this with the total number of attacks on humans where they survived.
The point I was making was about bears hunting, which the evidence presented said, 'yes, black bears hunt humans' - the Smithsonian even described how they do it...

2. "Furthermore, the bear in this case was a brown bear."I mentioned brown bears, as did the Smithsonian, and the reasoning as to why they'd attack a human...

3. "Considering this bear apparently roamed in an area popular for hiking, I can see why it is considered a risk." You're logic is backwards here - the area is the bear's natural habitat. It's where the bear actually lives. Meanwhile, hikers like to go into this area. They need to do so 'at their own risk'... That is why it is risky for hikers.
It's not like the bear waltzed into the hiker's backyard...
Let's put it forwards: The hiker roamed into the bear's area. And that is why it should be considered a risk.
I think this could be a key difference in our points of view.

As to the severity of that risk, look again at the Smithsonian's stats, which as I mentioned would be even lower for fatalities from brown bear incidents. Brown bears defending their young are the main 'offenders'. Very rare, so logic dictates that a repeat occurrence should be quite rare too - don't disturb them and you won't get attacked.
It doesn't take Einstein to work out that during the seasonal time for baby bears to be born and shortly there after as they grow, all hikers should be extra aware of the dangers when venturing into that region... It's a simple deal really - during that time, the "momma" bears will defend their young, and should the opportunity be there for them to feed those cubs too, then they'll take it. (I notice there's no mention of whether only the "momma" bear partook of the "eating".)
Apparently, though, this means we should kill the offending bear for being itself?? Rather than maybe suggest either areas that are safer for hikers, or close the park for a brief time during the year...
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

31 Aug 2015 18:27

Archibald wrote:I'd be wary of "experts".


Why? Seems to require some explanation. The experts are the people who know the most on the topic and who live and work in the area we're discussing. Surely to be "wary" of their judgements, we'd need a compelling reason?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...


Except that deer and fish are staple foods for them and humans aren't. Fairly major and substantive difference.

Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food.


These are good questions.

"At your own risk" applies here. There is no way the park management can or should attempt to guarantee safety of those using the park, no matter what management strategies they take, short of eliminating the wildlife or removing visitors. So there is inherent risk even in the case where park managers decide to eliminate a bear who has demonstrated unusual behavior which significantly increases risk to park visitors. There is a substantive risk whether they kill the bear or not, as it's certain that given enough time, other bears will in time exhibit this behavior.

I also think it's fair to say there is a massive difference between some nitwit entering a tiger cage at a zoo and a family or individual taking a walk in a National Park. There is a fairly massive difference in the expectation of safety, even though both contain some risk. One would be an extremely low-risk, moderate reward activity almost anyone would participate in, and one is the act of a lunatic or drug-addled maniac. So that comparison is wholly convincing.

The problem is that if you have a bear which is showing signs that it is unusually willing to attack humans for food, you kind of need to address it in a park which has millions of visitors a year. They need to maintain some kind of balance between human use, reasonable safety, and the welfare of the animal population as a whole. Allowing man-killing bears to remain in the park is bad policy, bad PR, and bad park management. Could they have moved the bear elsewhere? I don't know. I'll bet they're not over-funded or flush with extra equipment and manpower. I don't know if it directly relates to this situation, but from speaking with a good friend who works for Lassen and Rainier NP, they're not exactly getting what they think they need in terms of funding.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,367
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

01 Sep 2015 04:10

red_flanders wrote:
Archibald wrote:I'd be wary of "experts".


Why? Seems to require some explanation. The experts are the people who know the most on the topic and who live and work in the area we're discussing. Surely to be "wary" of their judgements, we'd need a compelling reason?

"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that there's a risk of humans being killed by bears. They view us like they'd view a deer or fish - only we're slower and easier to catch...


Except that deer and fish are staple foods for them and humans aren't. Fairly major and substantive difference.

To a degree, sure. However, humans are still considered edible to any bear - they just don't encounter humans as often as the deer or fish.
Yogi likes a picnic basket, but he doesn't encounter many ;) (yeah, okay, so the average bear isn't exactly thinking of eating humans in the same way Yogi thinks of the contents of picnic baskets)

Why exactly should any animal in it's own natural habitat be killed because some humans wish to venture into that habitat?
"At your own risk" is something that seems to be overlooked by modern society. We laugh at some nitwit who climbs into the lion's enclosure at a zoo and wonders why he gets eaten. Same with climbing into a shark tank.
There's no difference with the bear at Yellowstone - it's just a larger 'enclosure' and the bear isn't fed by keeps, so must source it's own food.


These are good questions.

"At your own risk" applies here. There is no way the park management can or should attempt to guarantee safety of those using the park, no matter what management strategies they take, short of eliminating the wildlife or removing visitors. So there is inherent risk even in the case where park managers decide to eliminate a bear who has demonstrated unusual behavior which significantly increases risk to park visitors. There is a substantive risk whether they kill the bear or not, as it's certain that given enough time, other bears will in time exhibit this behavior.

I also think it's fair to say there is a massive difference between some nitwit entering a tiger cage at a zoo and a family or individual taking a walk in a National Park. There is a fairly massive difference in the expectation of safety, even though both contain some risk. One would be an extremely low-risk, moderate reward activity almost anyone would participate in, and one is the act of a lunatic or drug-addled maniac. So that comparison is wholly convincing.

The problem is that if you have a bear which is showing signs that it is unusually willing to attack humans for food, you kind of need to address it in a park which has millions of visitors a year. They need to maintain some kind of balance between human use, reasonable safety, and the welfare of the animal population as a whole. Allowing man-killing bears to remain in the park is bad policy, bad PR, and bad park management. Could they have moved the bear elsewhere? I don't know. I'll bet they're not over-funded or flush with extra equipment and manpower. I don't know if it directly relates to this situation, but from speaking with a good friend who works for Lassen and Rainier NP, they're not exactly getting what they think they need in terms of funding.

'guarantee of safety' - completely agree that the NP can't provide this, unfortunately, we're now in a world where those visiting the NP expect this. The risk is always there...

NP versus zoo enclosure - this is the difference in risk and exposure. Small enclosure, then the chance of encountering the inhabiting creature(s) is VERY high. Larger enclosure, then the lower the chance of encountering the inhabiting creature(s). The risk is still there, but the exposure reduces as the enclosure size goes up.

Now, did the bear exhibit unusual behaviour when you consider the situation of brown bears protecting their young? And following that, did the bear in question make the attack "willingly" and "for food", as you mention?
Mother bears with a couple of cubs are pretty hard pushed to hunt for food in general while caring/protecting their young, so when opportunity knocks... I'd be pretty sure they'd take it. As intimated previously; was it just the adult bear doing the feeding or did the young partake as well?

Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

01 Sep 2015 12:52

" Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"..."

That's the point I brought up a few days ago. The experts made their decision based on politics not science.
jmdirt
Member
 
Posts: 1,661
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

01 Sep 2015 14:46

Since I know zero about managing large animals that can come into contact with humans regularly, I'm going to have to give the rangers a pass here. Sometimes you have to assume that people know what they're doing and they're making the right call. Anything I've ever seen about Wildlife Rangers has made me think protecting the wildlife is very important to them. I'm sure it wasn't a decision they took lightly.
Son of Amsterhammer
Junior Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Jun 2015 18:58

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 5 guests

Back to top