Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I do not approve of this man's actions, they were well-intentioned as opposed to malevolent.
Depending on his history, a warning and admonition or a fine of some sort would be sufficient (and I doubt he's some sort of serially-offending wildlife rehabilitator). And let's be honest - for every man who incorrectly hauls an animal out of the woods out of concern, there's another ten who are killing them out of season or taking them in an illegal manner or otherwise abusing wildlife in the guise of being a 'sportsman'.
PS - People who insist on using the word 'prison' when discussing what possible punishment those who disapprove of what he did are suggesting sound even more clueless than the guy.
Hey, look---this guy was acting from kindness, not out of meanness. Perhaps an appropriate "punishment" would be some sort of deferred adjudication----otherwise he would have a charge of animal cruelty on his record. Perhaps have him volunteer in an animal shelter or at a ranger station, maybe take a class in treatment of wild animals---if such a thing is available--perhaps a fine which could be waived if he donated to ASCPA or some similar group----just don't treat him like a criminal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
While I do not approve of this man's actions, they were well-intentioned as opposed to malevolent.
Depending on his history, a warning and admonition or a fine of some sort would be sufficient (and I doubt he's some sort of serially-offending wildlife rehabilitator). And let's be honest - for every man who incorrectly hauls an animal out of the woods out of concern, there's another ten who are killing them out of season or taking them in an illegal manner or otherwise abusing wildlife in the guise of being a 'sportsman'.
Well said! I just wanted to add something to comment on the last part of the post from Unsettomati: there are hunters out there who are very conscientious conservationists. I am not a hunter but do some conservation work and some (not all) hunters work closely with land managers and ecologists, and abide by ethical guidelines. There are certainly knuckleheads out there, but they stand in contrast to some hunters who do an honest part in wildlife conservation. I acknowledge that Unsettomati's post was directed towards unethical hunting/collection, but there are some who don't differentiate the unethical hunters from the ethical. I wanted to comment on their behalf.
Last edited by NJmmadude; 03-31-2017 at 07:10 AM..
Oh well. They'd just have to charge me. Human nature is to help those in trouble. Like the bear with his head stuck in a container. There's a great video of that out there right now. People wouldn't stop until they had freed that bear. It would have died. Is that what we're supposed to do? Let stuff die when we can possibly help it?
One of the problems is we have become so distanced from the land and nature, lots of people just don't realize these things. They have good intentions and want to be "compassionate" and "save a life."
Ok, here's a public service announcement.
Wildlife is wild, DON'T interfere with a wild animal. Call/contact authorities.
One of the problems is we have become so distanced from the land and nature, lots of people just don't realize these things. They have good intentions and want to be "compassionate" and "save a life."
Ok, here's a public service announcement.
Wildlife is wild, DON'T interfere with a wild animal. Call/contact authorities.
unless of course you got the hankering to shoot one
It is not showing caring and compassion to pick up baby wildlife and carry it away. The forest is not a set for a Disney movie. The forest has it's own laws and they are not human laws.
The guy is lucky he wasn't mauled to death by an enraged mother bear.
All of you who think that interfering with wildlife is showing caring and compassion, next time you find an "abandoned" baby animal, do not touch it. You can call the local rangers and report the location if you feel you absolutely must do something.
That baby bear is going to end up euthanized. Once it has been fed by humans, it won't be safe to return it to the wild and no zoo is going to take another common black bear. It is not suitable to go into a pet home. There is no place for it, so it will be destroyed.
It's beyond me how some city slicker out in the woods would even be able to tell whether or not a baby animal was in distress. The cub might have very well been in normal condition for the time of year and the area.
While the bear cub may very well be destroyed I would rather it gets euthanized than starves to death or gets killed by other animals.
While the bear cub may very well be destroyed I would rather it gets euthanized than starves to death or gets killed by other animals.
Now, this I'd have to disagree with. When most scientists euthanize an animal, they probably bury it or cremate it afterwards. Which takes it out of the nature's life cycle. If you kill an animal that you're not going to eat, it's better to leave it on the ground where other animals can eat it.
You know, this reminds me of an Aesop's fable (or maybe a variation of it):
A sheep was running away from a hungry wolf. It saw a temple, and ran inside to seek safety.
"What are you doing?!" the wolf shouted, "A priest will kill you for a sacrifice if you go in there."
"I don't care." said the sheep, "Whether a priest kills me or you eat me, it's all the same."
"No, it's not!" said the wolf, "To me, it's a big difference."
Oh well. They'd just have to charge me. Human nature is to help those in trouble. Like the bear with his head stuck in a container. There's a great video of that out there right now. People wouldn't stop until they had freed that bear. It would have died. Is that what we're supposed to do? Let stuff die when we can possibly help it?
Perfect example of why the guy should be charged.
Pound it through the thick headed that what he did is NOT the right thing to do, regardless of how well intentioned he was.
The fact that the bear was picked up by him.. If the mother is still out there, he's created an orphan. And an animal that won't learn essential survival skills, so. He created a zoo animal.
The headline is misleading, meant to provoke outrage and exactly the sort of reactions that are happening here.
Sure, it's factually possible he *could* be charged, but nobody is saying he will be. The article talks about what he does and then talks about the law, but there's no content regarding him being charged officials talking about charging him, or anyone saying he *should* be charged. Police "contacted him and reminded him of the law".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
