I just got off the phone (for at least an hour) with my friend Dr. Lynn Rogers, after I received the following e-mail from him this morning. He gave me permission to post that e-mail here.
He makes his point quite well.
(quote)
TR,
Hi, no wonder you didn't return my call. It's the wrong number. We currently have 9 bears radio-collared. Some removed their radio-collars in their dens as they lost weight or because we put them on too loose. We're trying to get them re-collared as opportunities arise. With luck, we'll have 12-15 radio-collared by fall. All are females and all are part of the single clan we are studying.
I know some hunters and the Commissioner like to say that hunting mortality should be part of our study. They say that because they don't understand that we are studying bear life, not death, and the fact that a very few of the radio-collared bears trust us and will ignore us and go about their lives opens the door to answering many questions that cannot be answered if a person cannot see the bears. We have studied the mortality part of bear life for years. Now we moved on to studying their lives.
Our small sample size would not give meaningful information on hunting mortality rates, and the information would be meaningless because the DNR and we, ask hunters not to shoot radio-collared bears. So results would be skewed and meaningless. The only values these bears have is alive and showing us how they live. You know all that. I see what you write and you get it. I would love it if you came here and met the bears. It would be fun to meet you and hear more about your research and get your thoughts.
For years, responsible hunters have been telling us to make it illegal to shoot radio-collared bears. They have been telling us that they, too, want to know what these bears can teach us. They say that when they comply with DNR requests not to shoot them, they hate it when less responsible hunters go ahead and legally shoot the trophy they passed up so they could learn. Many hunters say they want the radio-collared bears protected so that people who shoot them are called lawbreakers, not hunters.
I can't believe how some hunters are shooting themselves in the foot on protection. They should be the first to want to learn, to represent their sport well. They should be at the forefront for protection. But to many, any restriction is regarded as anti-hunting. In our modern society with hunter numbers falling, they should be proactive in representing their sport and showing care about their prey.
We strongly support bear-hunting. I was one of the two leaders who worked with the legislature to elevate black bears from varmints to big game animals back in 1971, and I wrote the initial bear-hunting regulations at the request of the DNR. When the legislature had a bill to eliminate baiting back in 1975, the natural resources somehow missed me on the list to testify and voted to eliminate baiting before I could speak. Then they recognized that I was supposed to speak. They gave me five minutes. I pointed out the baiting reduces wounding loss and is needed. They re-voted almost unanimously to keep baiting, and we still have it today. I know baiting is not very sporting, but the more sport there is in bear hunting the higher the wounding loss.
The way I looked at it when I introduced the controversial idea of baiting in Minnesota was that the goal of the hunt was to control the population to the level that people would accept. My idea in introducing baiting was to achieve that control as humanely as possible to avoid unnecessary suffering and to better know how many were killed. That means avoiding wounding loss. We can regulate the number killed by regulating season length and number of hunters. At the same time, I worked with hunters and the legislature to get regulated bear hunting underway back in 1971. I was dedicating myself to educating the public about bears so people could live more peaceably with them and stop wasting them through rampant gut-shooting which was common back then.
Through good hunting management and education, Minnesota's population has about quadrupled. With that in mind, it is extremely disappointing to see that some hunters want all bears to be legal to kill and can't tolerate sparing a dozen radio-collared bears. It takes someone who knows research and hunting and thinking about the future of hunting to see the whole picture like you do.
I hope you can come up and meet a couple of the study bears one of these days. I hope your health permits getting out in the woods. It would be great to meet you no matter what.
Lynn
(end quote)
I told Lynn it would be great to come up there, and "Walk with a Bear"as he suggested I do.
SO - I've got a new "cause". My cause will be to get an initiative passed to get Lynn's research bears protected from hunting. Anyone care to help? If e-mail me at TRMichels@yahoo.com
Look out, the last time I had a cause, it resulted in a $200 million a year corporation (Scent Lok), being charged with FRAUD by the Minnesota Supreme Court. And I got 93 of their 94 Patent Claims rejected by the US Patent Office. And there are still 9 lawsuits in other states to go yet.
God bless,
T.R.
