The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Awareness (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Lobo, balducci remained within the status quo frame of reference when he said he was happy if Helen continued to keep deer. Fear of bears, cougars, is status quo. Seeing deer as safe is status quo. Citing human deaths as significant is status quo. Favoring the "trained biologist" over someone who's worked hands on for 46+ years is status quo.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Believing that the status quo is preferable does not suggest that one is unwilling or unable to rationally and honestly consider alternatives.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
The initial pot...kettle pointed out the sheer number of animals "conservation officers" have killed in the past four years in comparison to the several human deaths balducci cited. I had answered the question. Fearful humans the pot, bears the kettle.

Again, you say I haven't addressed issues that I have, and I get frustrated when the points I've made are ignored and I end up repeating myself.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2016, magicalaurie wrote:

John, I'll just refer you back to the fact that more people are killed by cows, and having worked fairly extensively with cattle, I can see why. C


There are about 5 million head of cattle in Alberta, and fewer than 1000 grizzlies. On a per-capita basis, the grizzlies are far more dangerous.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
I'll address the grizzly you mentioned, John. You cited the "Largest bear in area

"Bear 122 is the largest, most dominant grizzly bear on the landscape," the park official said. "Last fall, I would estimate his weight at 650 to 700 pounds, which is enormous for the Rocky Mountains — about as big as grizzly bears get around here."

Michel said the black bear was likely a fifth the size of the grizzly."

Most yearling cow calves weigh as much or more than that grizzly. An adult cow easily 1500 pounds, a bull can be a ton.

The subject of the OP is an orphaned, starved, underweight, juvenile female black bear.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2016, magicalaurie wrote:

John, I'll just refer you back to the fact that more people are killed by cows, and having worked fairly extensively with cattle, I can see why. C


There are about 5 million head of cattle in Alberta, and fewer than 1000 grizzlies. On a per-capita basis, the grizzlies are far more dangerous.


The ratio of cows that get interacted with up close and personally to grizzlies that get interacted with up close and personally is probably much greater than 5000 to 1, too.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2016, magicalaurie wrote:

The subject of the OP is an orphaned, starved, underweight, juvenile female black bear.



Good point, Laurie.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Thank you. Now a link for the cows...

"Cows don't have to intend anyone's death in order to kill them. Any fifteen hundred pound animal can do a lot of damage, which is why some motorists, driving beside cliffs in rural country, have been amused by signs warning them about falling cows. It wasn't so much of a joke when, in Switzerland, over the course of a few weeks, twenty-eight cows either fell or jumped over a cliff. A man in Brazil was killed by a cow that fell on his car."

http://io9.gizmodo.com/cows-are-deadlier......90950434
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
There's sort of an unspoken semantic thing going on here with the word "dangerous," too. What does it mean for an animal to be "dangerous"? If 100 people see 100 horses on a farm and go up and pet them, and 5 get killed, and 100 people see 100 bears and avoid them because, well, they're bears, is it correct to say that the horses are more dangerous, because they killed more people than the bears? I don't know that there's a wrong answer, but I'm kind of inclined to think that which one is more dangerous depends on what happens if you try to pet 100 bears.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
That's making things human centred again, Lobo. Why must humans pet any of them in the first place? And my point generally is, our bodies can be killed. So what? Why must bears be persecuted because of that? And, particularly, the bear in the OP? I've said throughout bears aren't the automatic killers people have been taught they are. They have other things to do. The mindset reminds me of those who think every skunk they see has nothing better to do than ambush and spray the first human who comes along. It's a myth.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2016, magicalaurie wrote:
That's making things human centred again, Lobo. Why must humans pet any of them in the first place? And my point generally is, our bodies can be killed. So what? Why must bears be persecuted because of that?


It's not being "human centered"; it's being rational about the statistics that you're throwing around. IMO, it's very misleading to suggest that because few people are killed by bears, therefore they aren't particularly dangerous, when in fact, a good part of the reason that few human beings are killed by bears is that human beings avoid bears specifically because they're dangerous. I apologize for my lack of clarity if you really thought I was suggesting that people should (let alone "must" pet bears.

As to your general point, one might simply follow your rationale and say simply that bears can be killed. So what?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Lobo read the link balducci provided. Bears rarely kill people, even when they "attack". Why are there so few bears? Must I remind you? Who's "dangerous"? Are you ignoring the cows? It's not logical to persecute bears because we fear death. Bears avoid humans because humans are "dangerous", keep that in mind while you're saying humans avoid bears.

Yes, Lobo, so what, except see people raise a fuss over human injuries and deaths. That's what. That's where humans try to unbalance the playing field. Then try to force others to resist nature. They try to remove us from Nature. That opens the door for me to say have a closer look. And question their "logic" and rationality. Because, as I've stated throughout, they are acting from fear rather than a point of logic or rationality. And while they're doing so, they're trying to convince others that people like me are the ones who aren't looking at reality. So they open the door for me twice, at least.

There's a great story in Terry DeBruyn's Walking with Bears that indicates just how likely it is any of us who live where bears do have walked past many more than we ever knew were right there beside us. They hide, they stay quiet, they avoid conflict. Momma sends the babies up a tree and she hides in the bushes, sort of thing.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Laurie, you say I 'discounted' Helen's opinion. I'm really not sure I did, at least not in the sense I think you mean.

However, in the OP you very clearly discounted the opinions of the "conservation officers" and the government supporting them.

And you did not even acknowledge that a trained biologist disagreed with Helen's opinion.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Thanks for your response, balducci. I appreciate it and your willingness to engage in this conversation from early on. I linked the article, didn't I? Where did you find out that a trained biologist disagreed with Helen?

I'm willing to gladly retract that you refuse to look outside your own frame of reference. I can see why that might have offended, but I also think, as Lobo mentioned, we all, obviously myself included, have work to do- awareness, including self awareness, is a constant work in progress.

So, really what I'm wanting people to consider is not just one's own frame but morseso the indoctrinated status quo. I was taught to fear bears. There was a time when I considered them to be a potential threat to my personal safety. I bought a bear bell. Since then, I've learned from watching and reading the accounts of people who've actually lived with them and that changed my view about them. All of this ties in to what I've also learned about the nature of domination structures and our culture/society and the motivations of fear and love.

The blog review I linked to re. Kevin Van Tighem points to it:

"In 2002, Charlie Russell made waves when his book Grizzly Heart postulated that bear aggression toward humans was often linked to human aggression toward bears...and presented solid evidence in support. In the decade since, a few others have picked up on the same connection but typically one would have to go outside the world of scientists and biologists (who often have their own interests to protect considering that many of them work for agencies who have adopted the "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mentality of wildlife management) to hear the idea expressed. With more and more researchers now risking careers to promote more and more "unorthodox" views about bears, this way of thinking may no longer be relegated to obscurity."

Here's a pic of me with my bearbell in 2008:

Image
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On Apr 7, 2016, magicalaurie wrote:

Thanks for your response, balducci. I appreciate it and your willingness to engage in this conversation from early on. I linked the article, didn't I? Where did you find out that a trained biologist disagreed with Helen?

The very article you linked to says: "They took Patricia to one of their biologists and had her assessed. She was judged healthy enough to survive on her own."

Whereas Helen and Lawrence claimed the opposite.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Yes, balducci, my point was I linked the article and that is where you learned from me that a biologist disagreed with Helen. After which you say I didn't even acknowledge the biologist. My linking the article was an acknowledgement of the biologist's statement, was my point in the portion you're quoting, which includes: "I linked the article didn't I?"

I do think you guys are very quick to try to find fault with me and that clouds your interpretation of what I've written. Now it seems you're assuming I haven't read the article, which, of course, I had. If I didn't want to acknowledge the biologist, you can rest assured I wouldn't have linked to the article.

I'd like to see the point I made in the first post, which was my intended point of the thread, and which I've been supporting throughout, addressed:

"I think to 'let nature run its course' includes allowing a rehabber to rehab a bear. These 'conservation officers', and the government behind them are dismissing the truth that we're included in Nature, I think, and that caring for our family and our neighbours is natural."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Laurie, you are imagining / putting words in my mouth / thoughts in my mind.

I never said or assumed you did not read the article. I said you did not acknowledge (i.e. discounted) the biologist's opinion. How? Specifically, you posted a link and I think you excerpted and highlighted everyone's opinion in the article EXCEPT that of the biologist.

It was only YOUR OWN comments ("I linked the article, didn't I? Where did you find out that a trained biologist disagreed with Helen?") that suggested you did not read the entire thing carefully. And fwiw I still never said or claimed you did not read it, I am just now commenting for the first time about how your own post two or three posts above mine reads that way. I figured you probably read the article in full, but your comment certainly suggested you forgot the line about the biologist.

Perhaps my last word on the subject ... I don't particularly fear or not fear bears any more or less than I do other large wild animals.

But I would not want any of these animals to be raised by a octagenarian neighbour (who by the way is recently widowed, now without her long term helper, and now doing the work two people used to do) who is dependent on charity drives and welfare to support her beasties. As much for her own safety and well-being as for that of anyone else.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Quote:
On Apr 9, 2016, balducci wrote:
I figured you probably read the article in full, but your comment certainly suggested you forgot the line about the biologist.


There it is again. And I'm saying my question was a direct attempt to point out to you that if I had wanted to avoid acknowledging the biologist I would never have linked the article. ie. Where did you find out? From the information I gave you.

Nor would I have posted the link to the cached article after original link no longer showed the story.

I expect those interested in looking at the issue will read the links provided.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
2834 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Maybe we can discuss the biologist further. Let's see what we've got on the biologist: "They took Patricia to one of their biologists and had her assessed. She was judged healthy enough to survive on her own."

The biologist was one of their biologists. That's what we've got. One of their biologists... perhaps "they" provide context for us. If so, what do we know about "them"?

"The conservation officers told her that if she didn’t unlock the gate they would have to shoot it where it was." They would have to shoot it.

"The conservation office told the Star they didn't believe Patricia was a 'conflict bear' and gave her the 'benefit of the doubt' by releasing her. Across BC, bears older than a year are not allowed to be rehabilitated, and the conservation office's strategy in situations involving older bears is to 'let nature run its course.'"

They didn't believe she was a conflict bear, yet they felt releasing her was giving her the benefit of the doubt. What doubt? And what if they had decided not to "give her the benefit" of the doubt they didn't have? The implication is that they did her a favour by allowing her to live.

"They took Patricia to one of their biologists and had her assessed. She was judged healthy enough to survive on her own."

What actually happened to the bear we don't know. But we do know the "conservation officers" were quite willing to kill her, even though their own biologist would go on to say she was healthy enough to survive on her own. We also know "Over the past four years, B.C. conservation officers killed 1,872 black bears and relocated 126, killed 352 cougars and relocated six, and killed 72 grizzly bears and relocated 24. A total of 137 black bears and six grizzlies were taken to rehabilitation facilities.

How much weight does their biologist's opinion carry with the CO's themselves? And how about considering whether it might be more transparent to bring her to an independent biologist rather than one of "their"s? And given the info we have, why not emphasize that Helen has 46+ years hands on experience raising wild animals including bears? Do you expect "their" biologist has that kind of experience? And then some? How old is s/he? Working in the field "professionally", holding a "title" is no guarantee of that at all. The veterinary field is a prime example, and one I've seen first hand. Human medicine's another.

My viewpoint has also been supported with the references I've provided throughout. By trained biologists, even.

Are you including Patricia's safety and wellbeing when you say, "But I would not want any of these animals to be raised by a octagenarian neighbour (who by the way is recently widowed, now without her long term helper, and now doing the work two people used to do) who is dependent on charity drives and welfare to support her beasties. As much for her own safety and well-being as for that of anyone else." or was that for humans alone?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Awareness (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL