mconnell wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Sacramento.

Seconded.

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Maybe outside the park! Seriously, though, Yosemite Valley in summer compares only to Grand Canyon South Rim for a zoo-like atmosphere, and I don't mean the wildlife. It's not that there are facilities; it's that there are way too many.

Vitaliy M wrote:

Koalas are not cute! When is the hunting season for these blood suckers?

LOL

mrchad9 wrote:Where exactly are you saying Yosemite visitor facilities should be?

Yosemite or Yellowstone? Does it really matter ..

So in two pages we got to 'we should close down all Yosemite visitor facilities, to protect the bears. Only backpackers and climbers allowed in there. But everywhere else we can shoot them.'

I wasn't expecting that!

Relocating the bears to areas OUTSIDE the Park makes sense.

Especially to Yosemite squirrels :

First: Is the intial comment serious? Road signs aren't simply put up to protect the bears. A MV colision with a bear is major sh#t. Totals your car. F#cks up your day. Could even prove fatal. The signs are there to educate Joe Driver. Many of whom wouldn't slow down for their own safety, but when put in the context of "think of the poor bears" drive more responsibly. That's a good thing.


Second: Where did you obtain your population data? ("60, 000") Most DFG and private estimates tend to be in the 30,000-34,000 range.

Third: PM me for a good bear chili recipe.

The reason we can use vehicles for food storage here in Wyoming is that being Red there aren't any Toyota Camrys here for Bears to pop open.

In all seriousness they just haven't figured vehicles out here yet. One did in Colorado recently though, so you never know.

Although I'm a proponent of more agressive management of wolves than most outside the GYE I do back the re-lisitng of Grizzlies...for now. The bad berry crop aside Whitebark Pines are dieing [beetle kill] at an alarming rate. As a major source of protein for both Grizzlies and Blackies [up to 80 pounds of cones/nuts in their sotmaches at a time] we could be looking at some serious mortality in the next few years. Fragilty of food sources will always make bears more susceptible to larger [percentage wise] die offs.

They say wolves here in the GYE kill an average of 22 elk a year EACH. Despite fairytales these Canadian wolves here do not hunt just for subsistence, and Grizzlies have benefitted from wolf kills tremendously. If in a few years numbers have not dropped significantly I think they should again be de-listed and hunted on an extremely limited and well managed basis, but target specific of "problem" bears like they do in the upper Midwest.

As to being "cute." Friggin' TR. There are commercials for soft drinks that depict Polar Bears as cute and cuddly. Pretty stupid given Polar Bears are without question the most dangerous "land" predator and Grizzlies are not far behind. Not the best artistic license when it comes to the safety of children.

We in fact have had some very nasty Bear issues these past three weeks here in the Crowley and MML area. Breaking into houses and barns attacking and killing farm animals and pets.

One was put down in Mammoth two weeks ago for repeated dangerous behavior towards locals and another was being sought here in the Hilton Creek area for the same.

Until you have actually had one of these dangerous bear encounters and seen how destructive/dangerous they can actually get, I suggest you keep your cityfied non-knowing opinions to yourself.

These dudes can in fact get really nasty and dangerous.

A buddy of mine had to haul ass home earlier this spring as his wife called describing an actual moment scene in their barn as a huge male B-Bear was attacking two newborn colts. When he got home, they were both mauled to death and the bear had wandered off with the head of one of em.

Not cool.

That's exactly what I do not understand.

Why is a bear in Mammoth put down only for repeated dangerous behavior? Seem to me if it is a game animal anyway, it should be put down for a single dangerous act.

Agree w/ Fletch though... it is pretty cool.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:It musta been Bear 46... he got the taste for the Colts by raiding haulbags at the base of the Captain.

DMT

I had to think about this one for a minute. Ha ha!

The Chief wrote:We in fact have had some very nasty Bear issues these past three weeks here in the Crowley and MML area. Breaking into houses and barns attacking and killing farm animals and pets.

One was put down in Mammoth two weeks ago for repeated dangerous behavior towards locals and another was being sought here in the Hilton Creek area for the same.

Until you have actually had one of these dangerous bear encounters and seen how destructive/dangerous they can actually get, I suggest you keep your cityfied non-knowing opinions to yourself.

These dudes can in fact get really nasty and dangerous.

A buddy of mine had to haul ass home earlier this spring as his wife called describing an actual moment scene in their barn as a huge male B-Bear was attacking two newborn colts. When he got home, they were both mauled to death and the bear had wandered off with the head of one of em.

Not cool.

Nobody made you move to bear country.

Contrary to popular belief, there are indeed bears in the City! Here is one in San Francisco. He might even let you pet him (esp. if you're a tough mountain man)!