Quote:
Originally posted by arsenal+Sep 8 2005, 08:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Sep 8 2005, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jonesy@Sep 8 2005, 01:38 PM
No conflict for me, humans >>> animals.
we are all sitting in our houses, offices in areas that were at one time the domain of animals.# to say some poor sot hiking in banff deserves it,# since he is encroaching on the bears is hyporcritical.
and i like bears.
|
I don't think anyone is saying that a hiker in Banff deserves to get mauled for just minding their own busy, enjoying the back country. But if the hiker does happen to encounter a bear, with cubs on the trail, chances are very good, that they will get attacked, and possibly killed.
Do I think that the bear should then be destroyed? No. The bear was just doing what any parent would do. Protect their young. You can't fault a bear for that.
If a bear is going out of its way to attack humans, then yes, I would consider that a problem bear, and would agree if the Rangers deemed it needed to be destroyed.
But there are risks associated with travelling in the back country. Running into a bear is one of them. [/b][/quote]
Isn't the reason because the bear has had a taste for human blood, and they don't want to risk the bear seeking out humans to hunt? That's the reason why they have to put it down I was told.