Eastern Sierra News
Written by Benett Kessler Friday, 04 September 2009 11:57
The Town of Mammoth and the Department of Fish and Game, at major odds over bear management for many years, still have their differences. USDA trapped and killed a bear and her two cubs this week. According to one Mammoth official, Town Council members found out Friday. They were not happy. 
They later learned that the Forest Service and Fish and Game apparently arranged to destroy the bears without bothering to communicate with the Town.
For weeks, Mammoth Town officials had tried to get Fish and Game to take care of a bear dubbed Blondie, who had broken into dozens of homes repeatedly. Officials feared someone would get hurt. Fish and Game refused to act or to give the town permission to take care of Blondie.
Then, out of the blue, council members said the Town Manager informed them that Fish and Game had come to Mammoth to shoot three bears. Councilman Skip Harvey wanted the public to know that neither the Town Council, the Wildlife Sub-Committee, Steve Searles nor the Police Chief knew about Fish and Game’s plans or about the destruction of the bears. Assistant Town Manager Karen Johnston said her understanding of the incident was that the Forest Service had received a complaint about the three bears from a Lakes Basin property owner. Johnston said the Forest Service worked with the USDA and Fish and Game to kill the bears.
Harvey was disturbed that Fish and Game had consistently refused to help with Blondie the Bear and for whatever reason killed three other bears with no explanation. Of the Forest Service and Fish and Game, Harvey said both agencies "know we're supposed to work together on this kind of thing."
Harvey and others were mystified that Fish and Game representatives, present at the Wednesday Wildlife Sub-Committee meeting, said nothing about killing the three bears, particularly considering the current climate over handling of bear issues in Mammoth. Harvey said, “It appears Fish and Game doesn’t want to work with the Town. I want it to be really clear,” said Councilman Harvey, “None of us knew about this.”
No one answered any Fish and Game phone we tried today for their response. We have called the Forest Service and await further information.
Update: 8:00 pm, Friday September 4.
Deputy District Forest Service Ranger for the Mammoth District, Mike Schlaffman, explained that a private property owner in the Lakes Basin, who had suffered "thousands of dollars" in property damage after bear break-ins, asked for a depradation permit. Fish and Game issues the permit, Schlaffman explained, but the Forest Service does advise homeowners of their ability to obtain a depradation permit. In many cases the homeowner would carry out the deed, and shoot the bear, but in the interest of safety, Schlaffman reports that Fish and Game covered the cost of hiring the USDA trappers.
Schlaffman didn't know precisly when the bears were trapped and killed, but did say that the permit was issued starting August 24.
On the issue of the communication breakdown between the Town and the State and Federal Agencies, Schlaffman says that the issue, "slipped through the cracks," but adds that there was "no effort to keep quiet," on this issue. Schlaffman says that he was not present at the Town's Wildlife Subcomittee meeting on Wednesday. He says that he told Town staff at a meeting on Thursday. He says he was suprised that Town staff didn't know about the effort at that time.
Add this story to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Hits: 3460
Comments
(37)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
written by Annoyed , September 04, 2009
written by Annoyed , September 04, 2009
You shouldn't run a story if you're not going to report it accurately. DFG authorized a depredation permit on the three bears (legitimately signed by a citizen) and the USFS took care of deed. It really has nothing to do with the town. The town does not own the bears. It was an issue between a private citizen and the appropriate agencies.
Also, depradation permits can only be requested by private citizens, not cops or town governments. They can only act if an animal threatens people. The reason bears like "Blondie" are allowed to do so much damage is, as long as they don't threaten people, a citizen who has suffered property damage has to sign the permit.
For anyone else who is interested, this kind of info is online if you just look (not here, though). DFG regulations about depredation/public safety bears is on their web site. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife...ation.html
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Whoever you are, and we would appreciate your identifying yourself, we reported what officials have said, and we have continued to update the story as we get information. If Fish and Game and/ or the Forest Service had bothered to communicate with the Town, this difficult to report story would have been more complete.
We live in a community together. Fish and Game, Forest Service and the Town have been in talks for weeks and even years over bears. Why not be neighbors with one another? Pick up the phone and call when you know an incident is about to happen that Town officials need to understand, so they can help the public understand.
Bureaucrats do have a duty to talk to the public.
Benett Kessler
Votes: +1
Also, depradation permits can only be requested by private citizens, not cops or town governments. They can only act if an animal threatens people. The reason bears like "Blondie" are allowed to do so much damage is, as long as they don't threaten people, a citizen who has suffered property damage has to sign the permit.
For anyone else who is interested, this kind of info is online if you just look (not here, though). DFG regulations about depredation/public safety bears is on their web site. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife...ation.html
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Whoever you are, and we would appreciate your identifying yourself, we reported what officials have said, and we have continued to update the story as we get information. If Fish and Game and/ or the Forest Service had bothered to communicate with the Town, this difficult to report story would have been more complete.
We live in a community together. Fish and Game, Forest Service and the Town have been in talks for weeks and even years over bears. Why not be neighbors with one another? Pick up the phone and call when you know an incident is about to happen that Town officials need to understand, so they can help the public understand.
Bureaucrats do have a duty to talk to the public.
Benett Kessler
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Marianne O'Connor - Bear-With-Us.org , September 04, 2009
written by Marianne O'Connor - Bear-With-Us.org , September 04, 2009
I wish to be the first to comment on this article. Let the chips, the attacks, the disgust fall where they may. To be perfectly clear, the position of Bear-With-Us regarding Blondie has been to use her as a catalyst to get the agencies (who are now responsible for this ugly killing of a sow with two nursing cubs) at the table to have reasonable, logical, fruitful and long-lasting discussion and decisions made about how to cooperate with one another to form a comprehensive plan for the bears. Whether it is to depradate the public safety bears, or to help communities deal with the bears. To have this killing take place while the local DFG officer, and a trapper from USDA Wildlife Services sat at the Town Wildlife SubCommittee meeting on Wednesday afternoon (which I was NOT ALLOWED to attend on behalf of the community) discussing how to find ways to cooperate with one another knowing full well what had already been done, or was about to be done, and NOT informing the other members of the Wildlife Subcommittee could not more clearly point out the dysfunction of the bear management program, and the fact there is no "good working relationship" going on between DFG and the Town. Then to be at an EMERGENCY Special Town Council Meeting where several persons in the room were aware the killing had taken place and NOT announce the truth to the people attending the meeting, the entire Town Council, and the people speaking at the podium is why Bear-With-Us, a volunteer community wildlife program, has been pushing so hard on the "Save Blondie" issue. This slogan "SAVE BLONDIE" reaches far beyond our efforts to save the life of a bear that the authorities want to kill rather than get her safely out of town. This should have happened over a month ago to protect our community from further damage by her. Our belief behind saving her life is that she is the product of the very problem you see here in this article. There has to be a wholesale change in how the bears are handled here in Mammoth and statewide. If someone doesn't push an issue (and know that you are going to hear both sides), then how do you call the community's attention to a system that has gone terribly wrong? This can be fixed with effort from ALL parties (including community programs)and it needs to happen right now, not after another year of round table discussion. The Town of Mammoth absolutely has to take the lead, has to take urgent action and has to make a commitment to discover what all it will take to truly have the "good working relationships" Town Council and the Wildlife Subcommittee keeps telling us they have. SAVE BLONDIE IS AN INITIATIVE. We have always hoped we could save the life of a bear allowed to develop the unacceptable behavior she has had at the hands of human dysfunction. We knew the odds going into this effort, but feel the effort and the sentiment of the community will push this initiative forward, well beyond the Town Council and their Wildlife Subcommittee. We have been called ineffective. I cannot see anything more ineffective and outrageous as this.
Votes: +3
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by SuzK , September 04, 2009
written by SuzK , September 04, 2009
And this is why I didn't book Twin Lakes Lodge Cabins again for my Fall Vacation.
Votes: -2
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Tourbillon , September 04, 2009
written by Tourbillon , September 04, 2009
Folks, think about the larger issues exposed by this episode. Two government agencies in close contact and proximity with each other can't even coordinate or inform each other about what bears they intend to kill - even when they meet for the umpteenth time to discuss the problem. And we are supposed to trust their colleagues with our health care?
I would not let a government bureaucrat walk my dog to a fire hydrant, let alone manage my health. No matter how well-spoken he seems.
Votes: +1
I would not let a government bureaucrat walk my dog to a fire hydrant, let alone manage my health. No matter how well-spoken he seems.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by you annoy me , September 04, 2009
written by you annoy me , September 04, 2009
Annoyed,
In response to....."Also, depradation permits can only be requested by private citizens, not cops or town governments. They can only act if an animal threatens people."
What did the cubs do? Did they threaten to naw someone to death?
Votes: +4
In response to....."Also, depradation permits can only be requested by private citizens, not cops or town governments. They can only act if an animal threatens people."
What did the cubs do? Did they threaten to naw someone to death?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by got it , September 05, 2009
written by got it , September 05, 2009
where and when were they trapped?
EDITOR'S NOTE:
We don't know. We are trying to find out.
Benett Kessler
Votes: +0
EDITOR'S NOTE:
We don't know. We are trying to find out.
Benett Kessler
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Brad , September 05, 2009
written by Brad , September 05, 2009
You know this is a sad situation. I think they didn't follow all the rules of State wide policy http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife...licy.html. If they don't relocate then why have it on their website that they do? Killing the two cubs is just WRONG... I don't live in Mammoth but visit a lot each year, and we have kinda the same problem. Nobody wants to set up a plan. everyone wants to throw it to the other person. here's how our meeting went thanks to jeese. Sounds kinda like yours I bet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JUPa3MEpPY
Just Sad
Votes: -1
Just Sad
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Dudley Nightshade , September 05, 2009
written by Dudley Nightshade , September 05, 2009
I can't imagine why the Mammoth City Council feels that it should have any say whatsoever in the controlling of bears in the area. Bear control is not a political issue it is a safety issue, the last thing that is needed is a bunch of brain-dead politicians trying to score political points with such a sensitive issue.
In many mountain areas there are simply too many bears. I for one have suffered over $20,000 in property damage caused by problem bears over the years, despite taking all the right precautions. My new policy is if I see a bear on my property, I will kill it and deal with any legal ramifications after the fact and I couldn't care less what the City Council's opinion is on the issue.
Votes: +2
In many mountain areas there are simply too many bears. I for one have suffered over $20,000 in property damage caused by problem bears over the years, despite taking all the right precautions. My new policy is if I see a bear on my property, I will kill it and deal with any legal ramifications after the fact and I couldn't care less what the City Council's opinion is on the issue.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Tigre , September 05, 2009
written by Tigre , September 05, 2009
Tourbillon- We are talking about wildlife management here. If you don't like government, move to Somalia, or Yemen, or the Amazon. No government there to hassle you. Leave us Americans to figure out how to govern ourselves.
What we have here are two systems that are do not accommodate each other at this time. The Town of Mammoth doesn't want to shoot bears if it's not necesary. This is understandable by a lot of people.
If the state doesn't want the in-depth, labor intensive methods that Searles provides, fine. But don't stop the town from trying a different management style. DFG- please work with the town. If their strategy fails, you can always shoot the bears. The regular laws will still apply.
These bears were trouble and everybody knew it. I don't care who kills the trouble bears, but if the Town wants to manage wildlife with minimal killing, Searles needs to be allowed to work outside the technical borders of the town. Bears don't know where the city limit is.
Votes: +0
What we have here are two systems that are do not accommodate each other at this time. The Town of Mammoth doesn't want to shoot bears if it's not necesary. This is understandable by a lot of people.
If the state doesn't want the in-depth, labor intensive methods that Searles provides, fine. But don't stop the town from trying a different management style. DFG- please work with the town. If their strategy fails, you can always shoot the bears. The regular laws will still apply.
These bears were trouble and everybody knew it. I don't care who kills the trouble bears, but if the Town wants to manage wildlife with minimal killing, Searles needs to be allowed to work outside the technical borders of the town. Bears don't know where the city limit is.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Mary Westlake , September 05, 2009
written by Mary Westlake , September 05, 2009
I am so sorry to hear that a mother bear and two cubs were killed. Why? Did any of them savagely attack and rob a young man as I have read about in Lone Pine in the last few days? What did they do that was considered to be so wrong as to require the death penalty? Think about it. Charles Manson and Richard Allen Davis are still living. I really hate this double standard.
When are we humans going to realize that WE are the problem. Leave the bears out of it.
Votes: +5
When are we humans going to realize that WE are the problem. Leave the bears out of it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by someone who knows too much , September 06, 2009
written by someone who knows too much , September 06, 2009
This whole bear thing is once again getting out of hand. It's not unreasonable to wonder why these agencies won't work together. Do ya think maybe that they just don't trust each other? That each and every party is not telling the truth. Each party is trying to "one up" the other on deception.
How is it that after all these years that someone who knows the bear situation intimately feeds the bear 30 lbs. of food a day.
How is that this feeding went un-noticed to town officials? I think a lot more folks knew and were keeping quiet. I would not be surprised that more than one person high up in the town knew.
How is it that one of our chief proponents for saving bears allows a bear to co-habitat under their house/deck for several years? Who in their right mind would think that having a bear live under their home is a good thing? Allowing that bear to think that it can live in such close proximity to people is outrageous. I am not referring to a bear living in the forest adjacent to the Home but, actually living under the home of this person. The bear growing accustom to hearing the daily lives of people above. This is outrageous. The only thing a bear should hear while in a Den is the sound of wind blowing on a blustery winter day. How can this happen when it hears the day to day in the life of the owner above. How can it fear humans? A bear needs to fear Humans in order to survive near where humans live and recreate. This has been the whole purpose of Steve the bear guy's methods.
How can you expect to come to the Round table when you are hiding the truth? How can you expect the State and Federal agencies to cooperate when you do not cooperate with them.
This whole thing that has been going on is a farce. It demoralizes and discredits all the effort of Steve Searles and the entire town population that has been supporting his efforts.
Votes: +4
How is it that after all these years that someone who knows the bear situation intimately feeds the bear 30 lbs. of food a day.
How is that this feeding went un-noticed to town officials? I think a lot more folks knew and were keeping quiet. I would not be surprised that more than one person high up in the town knew.
How is it that one of our chief proponents for saving bears allows a bear to co-habitat under their house/deck for several years? Who in their right mind would think that having a bear live under their home is a good thing? Allowing that bear to think that it can live in such close proximity to people is outrageous. I am not referring to a bear living in the forest adjacent to the Home but, actually living under the home of this person. The bear growing accustom to hearing the daily lives of people above. This is outrageous. The only thing a bear should hear while in a Den is the sound of wind blowing on a blustery winter day. How can this happen when it hears the day to day in the life of the owner above. How can it fear humans? A bear needs to fear Humans in order to survive near where humans live and recreate. This has been the whole purpose of Steve the bear guy's methods.
How can you expect to come to the Round table when you are hiding the truth? How can you expect the State and Federal agencies to cooperate when you do not cooperate with them.
This whole thing that has been going on is a farce. It demoralizes and discredits all the effort of Steve Searles and the entire town population that has been supporting his efforts.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Well Done , September 06, 2009
written by Well Done , September 06, 2009
Let's see, you have idiots interfering with bears' natural feeding habits and patterns by feeding them dog food, then you have town council, which has no authority to manage bears or any wild animal, which is under jurisdiction as being Property of the State of California, due to bears being game animals, wanting to illegally manage bears in Mammoth Lakes. Just a bunch of idiots, all thinking they know what is best for the bears, none with degrees in biology.
Instead of pointing fingers every which way, the town should sue whoever started and paid for feeding the bears dog food daily and turning the bears into nothing more than welfare recipients, a plan which utterly sealed the fate of the mama bear and her cubs, who were taught the same habits for failure.
Lay blame where it belongs, leave wild bears wild, without human intervention, unless you want them destroyed.
Votes: +10
Instead of pointing fingers every which way, the town should sue whoever started and paid for feeding the bears dog food daily and turning the bears into nothing more than welfare recipients, a plan which utterly sealed the fate of the mama bear and her cubs, who were taught the same habits for failure.
Lay blame where it belongs, leave wild bears wild, without human intervention, unless you want them destroyed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Michael Levine , September 07, 2009
written by Michael Levine , September 07, 2009
Does DFG even have a public relations department? In the past they have totally ignored any public input and have shown a total disregard for any community concern. When one of their wardens living in our neighborhood, shot and killed my neighbors dog for chasing a deer, that in no way could it catch, it shows their total disregard for the local communities.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Marianne O'Connor - Bear-With-Us.org , September 07, 2009
written by Marianne O'Connor - Bear-With-Us.org , September 07, 2009
To "someone who knows too much": You have many valid points in your comments and we appreciate your insight into many of the problems causing this terrible situation with the bears. However, it is important to straighten out your opinion about the bear living under my deck (in Old Mammoth). It is only assumed by us that a sow gave birth to two cubs under the deck (about 2 1/2 years ago) after we noticed (and took photos of) her with the cubs in the Spring after the snow melted in the yard. Once she realized we were watching her play with the cubs on the lawn and then heard the dog, she took her cubs and was gone. She brought them back several times, even though we have no bird feeders or other attractants, and the dog is always in the house when we are not home. When we went under the deck to retrieve gardening pots a couple of weeks later we noticed each pot had been overturned and plant roots dug up, the drip system under the deck used to water the plants on the deck was all chewed up and there was a flattened "nesting" type indention in the earth way under the deck (that is not below the living space of the house). If the sow had been under the deck denning for the winter, we had no idea she was there. Had we known, the first person we would have contacted is our good friend Steve Searles. We totally agree that the bears need to be wild. It is the tame bears that are finding themselves in front of the gun. In times like these it becomes all too common to see and hear a lot of finger-pointing. We are interested in getting the facts, getting the influential parties together, and getting all of our heads together to come up with a solution for this ongoing problem. Any positive help or support anyone feels they can provide is more than welcome.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Cause and Effect , September 07, 2009
written by Cause and Effect , September 07, 2009
To Well Done:
The Town does not illegally manage bears. Former Chief of Police Mike Donnelly negoiated an MOU with DFG that allows the Town to manage bears and other wild animals, legally. The same type of MOU exists in Tahoe. This type of understanding and Steve Searles methods, have been adopted by several other states and Canada. Christy Todd Whitman, when she was governor of New Jersey, flew Searles out there to teach her state. This is because his methods work!
You are correct that the biggest problems are people like the foolish and stupid lady that set up the bear feeding station in her backyard. She is really a bear killer. She is a millionare who now threatens to sue the Town and Searles if they come on her property. Who has the money to fight that! The Town needs to creat it's own ordinance making it a misdemeanor with a hefty fine and jail time for re-offending. Then the cops and the District Attorney can deal with her. Perhaps they can seek a legal injuction against her.
Why have the bears been out of control for the last two years? The cause is that Chief Schienle fired Searles two years ago saying to some, "In three months no one will know who Steve Searles is". When the Town Council hired Searles back against Schienle's wishes, Schienle did everything in his power to make Searles fail by not allowing Searles to use his shotgun with rubber bullets and his flash bang scare devices. All he could do is yell at the bears and hit them with a stick. Finally at the end of last year, the Town Council forced Schienle to allow Searles to use his shotgun and other methods. That is the cause for all the bear problems we are having today. The effect is that young bears have not been trained for two years and are out of control.
In the great wisdom of the Town, they started the bear subcommittee. Schienle and Rob Clark were able to make sure that the bear expert, Searles was not on the bear subcommittee and not allowed to attend the meetings! They began making bear policy with input from DFG who hates Searles and says his methods do not work. (Even though several states and Canada have adopted them). To make matters worse, clueless Windy Sigamura is on the committee and since she took biology in college she thinks that she is an expert. She stated that the US Forest Service was on board with everything the town is doing with bears and they have been fully informed. The problem is that no one at the US Forest Service knows what Wendy is talking about so they will not allow Searles to work on USFS lands and will arrest him if he does. The sow and her two killer, gym bag size cubs, were primaily offending in the Lakes Basin, USFS land. Searles could not train them and could only watch them or risk being arrested, or worse.
Why the problem with the USFS after over 10 years of success with the Town's bear management program? Schienle and Rob Clark made sure that Searles would not work for the Police Department as he did in the past, so they made Searles a private contractor. Since he has no authority now because he does not work for the Police Department, the District Ranger will not allow him to work on their lands. Again, cause and effect.
Bottom Line: The Town Council does not have the balls to deal with Schienle and Clark who continue to do everything in their power to prevent Searles and the bear program from being successful.
Lastly, the reason that our Town has a bear management program is that the people of our community want to coexist with the bears in a safe manner. They want visitors to see bears and other wildlife coexisting with people in the community. (I think this may be called marketing) The Town Council has heard their voices and they have been generally responsive, but do not have the political will to buck obstructionists like Clark and Schienle. What is amazing is that these guys are "at will" employees.
Someone really needs to write a book on all of this. You can't make this stuff up! It would be a best seller.
Votes: +3
The Town does not illegally manage bears. Former Chief of Police Mike Donnelly negoiated an MOU with DFG that allows the Town to manage bears and other wild animals, legally. The same type of MOU exists in Tahoe. This type of understanding and Steve Searles methods, have been adopted by several other states and Canada. Christy Todd Whitman, when she was governor of New Jersey, flew Searles out there to teach her state. This is because his methods work!
You are correct that the biggest problems are people like the foolish and stupid lady that set up the bear feeding station in her backyard. She is really a bear killer. She is a millionare who now threatens to sue the Town and Searles if they come on her property. Who has the money to fight that! The Town needs to creat it's own ordinance making it a misdemeanor with a hefty fine and jail time for re-offending. Then the cops and the District Attorney can deal with her. Perhaps they can seek a legal injuction against her.
Why have the bears been out of control for the last two years? The cause is that Chief Schienle fired Searles two years ago saying to some, "In three months no one will know who Steve Searles is". When the Town Council hired Searles back against Schienle's wishes, Schienle did everything in his power to make Searles fail by not allowing Searles to use his shotgun with rubber bullets and his flash bang scare devices. All he could do is yell at the bears and hit them with a stick. Finally at the end of last year, the Town Council forced Schienle to allow Searles to use his shotgun and other methods. That is the cause for all the bear problems we are having today. The effect is that young bears have not been trained for two years and are out of control.
In the great wisdom of the Town, they started the bear subcommittee. Schienle and Rob Clark were able to make sure that the bear expert, Searles was not on the bear subcommittee and not allowed to attend the meetings! They began making bear policy with input from DFG who hates Searles and says his methods do not work. (Even though several states and Canada have adopted them). To make matters worse, clueless Windy Sigamura is on the committee and since she took biology in college she thinks that she is an expert. She stated that the US Forest Service was on board with everything the town is doing with bears and they have been fully informed. The problem is that no one at the US Forest Service knows what Wendy is talking about so they will not allow Searles to work on USFS lands and will arrest him if he does. The sow and her two killer, gym bag size cubs, were primaily offending in the Lakes Basin, USFS land. Searles could not train them and could only watch them or risk being arrested, or worse.
Why the problem with the USFS after over 10 years of success with the Town's bear management program? Schienle and Rob Clark made sure that Searles would not work for the Police Department as he did in the past, so they made Searles a private contractor. Since he has no authority now because he does not work for the Police Department, the District Ranger will not allow him to work on their lands. Again, cause and effect.
Bottom Line: The Town Council does not have the balls to deal with Schienle and Clark who continue to do everything in their power to prevent Searles and the bear program from being successful.
Lastly, the reason that our Town has a bear management program is that the people of our community want to coexist with the bears in a safe manner. They want visitors to see bears and other wildlife coexisting with people in the community. (I think this may be called marketing) The Town Council has heard their voices and they have been generally responsive, but do not have the political will to buck obstructionists like Clark and Schienle. What is amazing is that these guys are "at will" employees.
Someone really needs to write a book on all of this. You can't make this stuff up! It would be a best seller.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Emma , September 07, 2009
written by Emma , September 07, 2009
I am completely ashamed of this action, our "Town Council" and where the hell was Steve Searles whom we all supported and fought for when this action took lace? Babies cubs killed? W T F? Really sick.
Votes: +1
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Jon Boyer , September 08, 2009
written by Jon Boyer , September 08, 2009
Re: "No effort to keep quiet"
BULL.
Votes: +0
BULL.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by THE BIG QUESTION , September 08, 2009
written by THE BIG QUESTION , September 08, 2009
The Big Question is: How many bears have the USFS, DFG and USDA killed in the Town of Mammoth Lakes in the last 30 days????
There are bears missing from Shady Rest.
Votes: +1
There are bears missing from Shady Rest.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by someone who knows too much , September 08, 2009
written by someone who knows too much , September 08, 2009
I totally agree with Cause and effect.Your points are right on the money. As far as the law and that lady who was feeding the bears go, I read that the State of Ca. already has a law against feeding Wild animals I think it carries a hefty fine and maybe Jail. So I really don't see what the issue is. The police had the right to pass on this ladies land. She can go to the big farm in the sky if she wants.
On a second note. To Ms. O'Connor You have been instrumental in keeping bear issue a top priority. I was not aware that it was your deck that a bear was living under. I had heard that a bear had been living under a home or deck for three seasons in a row. Maybe this was not you. To the person who that was this was a bad thing. It might be cute but it obviously is not good for the bear.
I read those DFG links that someone posted here. Those were great info. It Seems that DFG allows it's personnel to use the same Hazing and deterrents that Steve uses,rubber bullets, and stuff. If it's good for them why is it so bad for Steve.
This town need to get real, Stop the bickering and get the job done.
Signed
SWKTM
Votes: +1
On a second note. To Ms. O'Connor You have been instrumental in keeping bear issue a top priority. I was not aware that it was your deck that a bear was living under. I had heard that a bear had been living under a home or deck for three seasons in a row. Maybe this was not you. To the person who that was this was a bad thing. It might be cute but it obviously is not good for the bear.
I read those DFG links that someone posted here. Those were great info. It Seems that DFG allows it's personnel to use the same Hazing and deterrents that Steve uses,rubber bullets, and stuff. If it's good for them why is it so bad for Steve.
This town need to get real, Stop the bickering and get the job done.
Signed
SWKTM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Well Done , September 08, 2009
written by Well Done , September 08, 2009
To Cause and Effect.
It is obvious that the Township of Mammoth Lakes and it's city council /government, has failed to live up to the standards set up in it MOU with The Resources Agency, and has in essence breached its contractual agreement, making the MOU null and void. You do as you say, or you don't do, and lose the MOU. Typical of the town of Mammoth, along the lines of selling illegal development rights alongside an airport and then the town getting sued $30 million for development rights they could not provide, superceded by FAA regulations. FAIL! Again and again and again.
Votes: +2
It is obvious that the Township of Mammoth Lakes and it's city council /government, has failed to live up to the standards set up in it MOU with The Resources Agency, and has in essence breached its contractual agreement, making the MOU null and void. You do as you say, or you don't do, and lose the MOU. Typical of the town of Mammoth, along the lines of selling illegal development rights alongside an airport and then the town getting sued $30 million for development rights they could not provide, superceded by FAA regulations. FAIL! Again and again and again.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Danny Denton , September 08, 2009
written by Danny Denton , September 08, 2009
Im not sure why everbody is so worked up about this. These bears are not rare and when they interfer with humans, they must be killed. In June lake when bears come into town, F&G does there job and kills them without having to call the puzzle palace. Thats what they do. F&G does not need a podunk town concil to tell them how to do there job! Good job guys...
Votes: -3
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by someone who knows too much , September 09, 2009
written by someone who knows too much , September 09, 2009
I totally agree with Cause and effect.Your points are right on the money. As far as the law and that lady who was feeding the bears go, I read that the State of Ca. already has a law against feeding Wild animals I think it carries a hefty fine and maybe Jail. So I really don't see what the issue is. The police had the right to pass on this ladies land. She can go to the big farm in the sky if she wants.
On a second note. To Ms. O'Connor You have been instrumental in keeping bear issue a top priority. I was not aware that it was your deck that a bear was living under. I had heard that a bear had been living under a home or deck for three seasons in a row. Maybe this was not you. To the person who that was this was a bad thing. It might be cute but it obviously is not good for the bear.
I read those DFG links that someone posted here. Those were great info. It Seems that DFG allows it's personnel to use the same Hazing and deterrents that Steve uses,rubber bullets, and stuff. If it's good for them why is it so bad for Steve.
This town need to get real, Stop the bickering and get the job done.
Signed
SWKTM
Votes: +2
On a second note. To Ms. O'Connor You have been instrumental in keeping bear issue a top priority. I was not aware that it was your deck that a bear was living under. I had heard that a bear had been living under a home or deck for three seasons in a row. Maybe this was not you. To the person who that was this was a bad thing. It might be cute but it obviously is not good for the bear.
I read those DFG links that someone posted here. Those were great info. It Seems that DFG allows it's personnel to use the same Hazing and deterrents that Steve uses,rubber bullets, and stuff. If it's good for them why is it so bad for Steve.
This town need to get real, Stop the bickering and get the job done.
Signed
SWKTM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by someone who knows too much , September 09, 2009
written by someone who knows too much , September 09, 2009
To Mr. Denton
We are up in arms because this town cares about it's wildlife and has gone through great measure to implement policy. To constantly be set up for failure by certain individuals. Either we give up or create a sustainable policy that will last decades.
We don't need certain folks creating a feeding trough in their backyards. We don't need someone preventing Hazing techniques because they crossed some boundary. Wee need truth and cooperation amongst parties. Otherwise we should let the wildlife be as it is , The public as it is and then kill of the bad bears as they start killing people.
Votes: +1
We are up in arms because this town cares about it's wildlife and has gone through great measure to implement policy. To constantly be set up for failure by certain individuals. Either we give up or create a sustainable policy that will last decades.
We don't need certain folks creating a feeding trough in their backyards. We don't need someone preventing Hazing techniques because they crossed some boundary. Wee need truth and cooperation amongst parties. Otherwise we should let the wildlife be as it is , The public as it is and then kill of the bad bears as they start killing people.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Jon Boyer , September 09, 2009
written by Jon Boyer , September 09, 2009
To Cause and Effect,
Why don't YOU write the book you suggested? Sell it as fiction.
Votes: -1
Why don't YOU write the book you suggested? Sell it as fiction.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by someone who knows too much , September 09, 2009
written by someone who knows too much , September 09, 2009
to Mr.Boyer,
Are you related to the retired cop?
DO you have intimate knowledge that the rest of do not know.
I think Cause and effect is right on the money. This whole thing about wildlife management is way out of control. This on and off again control system is ridiculous, I have never heard such till Mammoth. One day Searles is on the job another he's off. next year on two years off. following year on but only armed with a hat. In the end the day the only things that are damaged is Searles reputation and the bears life.
We live is a crazy town with brainless public servants.
Votes: +2
Are you related to the retired cop?
DO you have intimate knowledge that the rest of do not know.
I think Cause and effect is right on the money. This whole thing about wildlife management is way out of control. This on and off again control system is ridiculous, I have never heard such till Mammoth. One day Searles is on the job another he's off. next year on two years off. following year on but only armed with a hat. In the end the day the only things that are damaged is Searles reputation and the bears life.
We live is a crazy town with brainless public servants.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Recon Don , September 09, 2009
written by Recon Don , September 09, 2009
To Mr. Boyer: Now we know why the Mammoth cops nicknamed you "BoBo the Clown"!
Semper Fi
Votes: +1
Semper Fi
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Steve , September 09, 2009
written by Steve , September 09, 2009
I remember all the nature shows I used to watch when I was a kid. They always tranquilized the wayward animal, and simply moved it to another location. Why have our agencies stopped this simple practice? Please don't say it's a cost thing. It's just a little tranquilizer in a dart, a fueled up truck, and a day of driving. You DFG & FS people drive around the wilderness and pay your employees anyway. Shooting cubs seems a bit lazy to me.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by getitright , September 11, 2009
written by getitright , September 11, 2009
HEY "RECON DON"
A YOU A RECON MARINE? IF SO WHEN AND WHERE.
Votes: +0
A YOU A RECON MARINE? IF SO WHEN AND WHERE.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Ryan , September 11, 2009
written by Ryan , September 11, 2009
Nature shows on TV are not reality. It's against the law to relocate bears in California and it doesn't work. Even the Park Service gave up on moving bears decades ago. Anything is possible on TV with the right script - its called fiction.
Votes: -1
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Observer , September 11, 2009
written by Observer , September 11, 2009
Regarding the two cubs and the sow being killed, they were part of the problem of the many break-ins around the basin area, they have been eye witnessed inside and breaking into homes. They also were habituated toward human food, human residences, and humans, they were instructed by their mother to do so, which is all they know, a very dangerous combination when a young bear is learning his boundaries in life.
Anytime well meaning humans feed bears, and when bears are allowed to associate food with humans and their residences, it is a death sentence for that bear and it's young. The property damage alone is a justification to depredate them, let alone the fact that people in those homes, or in campsites, etc were potentially at risk.
Regarding Searles' bear techniques, I've seen Yosemite Park use the same exact techniques, it's even been shown on tv on the Travel Channel's profile of National Parks shown in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxmLWtkrXoI
Votes: +0
Anytime well meaning humans feed bears, and when bears are allowed to associate food with humans and their residences, it is a death sentence for that bear and it's young. The property damage alone is a justification to depredate them, let alone the fact that people in those homes, or in campsites, etc were potentially at risk.
Regarding Searles' bear techniques, I've seen Yosemite Park use the same exact techniques, it's even been shown on tv on the Travel Channel's profile of National Parks shown in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxmLWtkrXoI
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by S. Sam , September 12, 2009
written by S. Sam , September 12, 2009
Read this article about what happened to a Colorado women who was feeding black bears: http://www.latimes.com/news/na...4193.story
The same scenario could have happened in Mammoth...
Votes: +0
The same scenario could have happened in Mammoth...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Realist , September 12, 2009
written by Realist , September 12, 2009
Just think of the other possible outcome. People who are against the extermination of these bears are the same people who would point the finger in outrage if these bears were to attack and kill an innocent human being. It's a lose-lose situation for the USDA. The USDA made the right decision. If these same bears were kept on the loose and eventually killed somebody, it would also be the USDA's fault. Kill bears or humans? Which option sounds more appropriate....
Votes: -2
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Really Realist , September 14, 2009
written by Really Realist , September 14, 2009
We have to face the fact that we are lower on the natural food chain then these bears.
Votes: +2
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Don Baird , September 20, 2009
written by Don Baird , September 20, 2009
The area is considered a Bear Habitat... while it doesn't say "protected" habitat it is clear that the human being is the intruder. This is plain and simple. If folks don't like bears breaking in once in awhile, then MOVE! Bears were first: people second. The western mind remains that if it is in the way, a nuisance and etc., kill it. That's why there are no grizzlies in Cali even though the Grizzly Bear remains on the flag. The stupidity continues. The man, in my opinion, that asked for the bear to be killed should be asked to sell, leave and/or be tried along with dfg for murder. We have NO RIGHT to kill bears even if government explains they do. Legal right is one thing (man made)... the actual right is another.
It is my feeling that at this point, the bears in mammoth need full protection from the killers and seemingly senseless people who cry about some property damage while living in a Bear Habitat.
This makes me sick. That home owner makes me sick. And, the folks that killed the bears are trained trackers/killers who get paid to do it. Money for death. They should all be put on trial violating the bears rights..... oh, that's right..... they don't have any...?
Votes: +2
It is my feeling that at this point, the bears in mammoth need full protection from the killers and seemingly senseless people who cry about some property damage while living in a Bear Habitat.
This makes me sick. That home owner makes me sick. And, the folks that killed the bears are trained trackers/killers who get paid to do it. Money for death. They should all be put on trial violating the bears rights..... oh, that's right..... they don't have any...?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Don Baird , September 21, 2009
written by Don Baird , September 21, 2009
To Realist:
...and how does the murder of the two suckling cubs come into play? Never in the history of California has that happened before.
In a hundred years, there have only been 13 deaths by Black Bear in the USA. Your bathroom can't even claim that excellent track record; nor can your bike, car, radio (bathtub), walking through a park at night, cars and etc. times a zillion. Strange: we kill a bear with the thought they may hurt someone (though they haven't) and yet we do almost nothing, really, to people who drink and drive ... who have been proven to kill thousands of people.... weird sense of justice. Trust me... bears are being killed for almost no reason because they have no real meaning to the selfish human race.
Votes: +1
...and how does the murder of the two suckling cubs come into play? Never in the history of California has that happened before.
In a hundred years, there have only been 13 deaths by Black Bear in the USA. Your bathroom can't even claim that excellent track record; nor can your bike, car, radio (bathtub), walking through a park at night, cars and etc. times a zillion. Strange: we kill a bear with the thought they may hurt someone (though they haven't) and yet we do almost nothing, really, to people who drink and drive ... who have been proven to kill thousands of people.... weird sense of justice. Trust me... bears are being killed for almost no reason because they have no real meaning to the selfish human race.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Native Californian , September 21, 2009
written by Native Californian , September 21, 2009
Once again, a man and his greed is responsible for the ills of another animal. Bottom line this is about the cost of the property damage caused and an unwillingness to spend money to properly address the property owners problem.
The Big Bad Bear is going to eat me routine is just a con to solve his problem as cheaply as possible.
Remember next election the " Leadership" shown on this issue before you cast a ballot for those responsible.
Votes: +0
The Big Bad Bear is going to eat me routine is just a con to solve his problem as cheaply as possible.
Remember next election the " Leadership" shown on this issue before you cast a ballot for those responsible.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Regarding comments on this web site
- Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
- Comments on this site do not in any way reflect the views or opinions of the Sierra Wave.
- Please fill in the name field with your real name or initials. We have found that people who use their names carry on more engaging, respectful conversations.
Advertisement
Advertisement
I smell the USFS at the bottom of this. The Momma and cubs have be offending in the Lakes Basin. The USFS threatens to arrest and possibly shoot Steve Searles for using his methods to train these bears not to be bad bears on USFS land, then because the bears cannot be worked on, they continue to offend and the USFS determines that they must be shot. Government at it's best?
The article fails to mention if town manager Rob Clark knew about this shoot down. Did he pay for it with town funds???? How do they know if they shot the right bears without consulting with Searles???
Was it the USDA or the California DFG that killed momma and the babies?