You hear all the time about them relocating a problem bear. Why not this bear? Too small of a cage does not cut it for a excuse if that is it. We all know they knew about it. Now they just got to try to sweep it under a rug.

As for the hunter good for him for killing it if not him someone else would have. Im sure he is getting just as many bad comments as congrats.

another "no win" situation for the PGC....

had they relocated a bear that was not causing any trouble to anyone in the community they would have got hammered for removing the community's "mascot". According to reports BOZO was not causing any harm or endangering anyone for 17 years.... remember the finch ???

then a local decides to try for his 10 minutes of "fame" and kills the bear with 6-9 arrows and or bolts... then the story has changed several times, and now folks are trying to put the blame on the PGC for not removing the bear...

gheezz... the anti PGC folks must just love this topic... they get to blast the PGC either way....

the shooter knew of the bear and should have used common sense and took a minute to think of the reaction from the area residents for killing BOZO... on another site one of the family is saying they are waiting to "sell the story" before the whole story comes out... this was strictly a play for "10 minutes of fame" ... in my opinion... and has nothing to do with the sport of hunting.....

"There really is no excuse for them not to take it out of harms way, for its and the peoples safety."
 
Essentially they did take it out of the way for people's safety -- they permitted it to be shot.

From what I understand this was a habituated bear but it was not a problem bear other then being habituated and as such more likely to eventually hurt someone. So, I don’t know why anyone would think the Game Commission should have moved this bear?
 
The bear was habituated to humans no matter if he had been moved or not. Moving him would not have removed the fact he was habituated to people and would have only increased the probability of him hurting someone when he found himself in a strange area where he couldn’t find food at his usual places. Why would anyone not be wise enough to figure out that all moving him would have done is put him in contact with a different bunch of people as he came around looking for a handout. What if he thought they should feed him and they didn’t? Wouldn’t that have just increased the probability of him hurting someone?
 
The other problem with moving bears is that it GREATLY increases the probability of them being killed. Either by being shot by someone who isn’t familiar with or willing to accept the fact it is walking around near their home looking for them to feed it, or as it crosses highways trying to get back to its home range or even being shot for damage to property when he tries getting food from someone’s crop fields or buildings.
 
The only real logical option the Game Commission could have used with this bear is to have deemed him as a public safety concern and have killed him. How would that have been met with public opinion? Nope, as I see it this bear being harvested by a legal hunter WAS the best thing that could have happened. All other methods of solving the concerns associated with this habituation problem bear would have been even worse, perhaps FAR worse.
 R.S. Bodenhorn   

You are exactly right here bings, the facts don't lie !

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

Don't think the oldman put 7/9 bolts into the thing, finished it off with head and neck shots, WTF is that ??

Actually feeding the bear for the first ten years was legal, I think the PGC are the ones that really dropped the ball here..World record bear could be a good thing for them if handled properly..

They knew that bear was being fed, They just cited the oldman for it.
Any trail leading to his place, the Resort, Pizza shop, those should have been designated Baited areas when they found the feeding at the oldmans..

This bear could have been moved as many of you have said, Danger Danger, he could hurt someone some day, still speculation, got by for17 years ok..Check your bear attack stats for the state..

Was the old fella wrong for feeding the bear, YES..

All you fellas that would go shoot this bear knowing it was a docile creature and unafraid of humans hand fed pet of some old dude. Just to get your name up in lights, That's sad state of our hunting community....


That's why I beleive the PGC has okayed the hunt, They wanted this bear gone..

Think it may have backfired for them...

PS. any of you try and tell me I would shoot that bear knowing of his background is full of **** ..

Posting the area as a baiting site would of been the right thing to do. Lots of people were feeding this bear and the PGC knew this.This is a violation of the Pa game law but the PGC choose to do nothing. Can you find an excuse why the area wasn't posted as a baited area?

ORIGINAL: RSB

From what I understand this was a habituated bear but it was not a problem bear other then being habituated and as such more likely to eventually hurt someone. So, I don’t know why anyone would think the Game Commission should have moved this bear?
 
The bear was habituated to humans no matter if he had been moved or not. Moving him would not have removed the fact he was habituated to people and would have only increased the probability of him hurting someone when he found himself in a strange area where he couldn’t find food at his usual places. Why would anyone not be wise enough to figure out that all moving him would have done is put him in contact with a different bunch of people as he came around looking for a handout. What if he thought they should feed him and they didn’t? Wouldn’t that have just increased the probability of him hurting someone?
 
The other problem with moving bears is that it GREATLY increases the probability of them being killed. Either by being shot by someone who isn’t familiar with or willing to accept the fact it is walking around near their home looking for them to feed it, or as it crosses highways trying to get back to its home range or even being shot for damage to property when he tries getting food from someone’s crop fields or buildings.
 
The only real logical option the Game Commission could have used with this bear is to have deemed him as a public safety concern and have killed him. How would that have been met with public opinion? Nope, as I see it this bear being harvested by a legal hunter WAS the best thing that could have happened. All other methods of solving the concerns associated with this habituation problem bear would have been even worse, perhaps FAR worse.
 R.S. Bodenhorn   

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

One of the people in the hunting group knew about the bear as he only worked 2 miles from Lewis's place. Wasn't there a WCO with these guys that was a friend of the familt ? All this will soon come out as this story goes nation wide.

ORIGINAL: rollcaster

Sounds like everyone in the area knew about the bear. The people are stoopid for feeding it but the only real persons at blame would be the PGC for not removing the bear. There really is no excuse for them not to take it out of harms way, for its and the peoples safety.

Ok, say they posted it as a baited area.  The bear was harvested a 1/4 mile away.  You'd find something else to scratch at.
I feel like entertaining you today.

Ironhed

As much as I disagree with the reasons , methods, and type of people involved in the deer herd reduction program I have to say on this issue I believe the PGC was in a no win situation and this outcome was probably the best that could have come about other than the bear crossing a state line and being killed with a rifle. I like having bears around my place but not one that is used to handouts so don't trap and transfer him here. Fine some dirt poor guy for feeding his pet and the media would have had a field day. Shoot him as a nusience bear and there would be protesters at the PGC headquarters with media coverage. Do nothing and he hurts someone and watch the lawyers decend. When people try to humanize a wild animal by naming him and try to tame him with handouts the end result is usually not pretty.

Only 1/4 mile away. That speaks for itself.

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

One of the people in the hunting group knew about the bear as he only worked 2 miles from Lewis's place. Wasn't there a WCO with these guys that was a friend of the familt ? All this will soon come out as this story goes nation wide.

ORIGINAL: rollcaster

Sounds like everyone in the area knew about the bear. The people are stoopid for feeding it but the only real persons at blame would be the PGC for not removing the bear. There really is no excuse for them not to take it out of harms way, for its and the peoples safety.

Ok, say they posted it as a baited area.  The bear was harvested a 1/4 mile away.  You'd find something else to scratch at.
I feel like entertaining you today.

Ironhed

OA,

The bear was shot on gamelands. If you hunted the area ( I suspect Bozo wasn't the ONLY bear around ), and the PGC closed a portion of a gameland because some schmuck in town was feeding a bear. You would be on here throwing a hissy over THAT.

PSU,

Like horse meat, bear meat is exremely tough, and requires vigorous tenderizing.

Feeding bears in Pa has been legal except for the past few years. Hunting an area in which bears are fed is illegal to date. Many of the town residents also fed the bear. Rethink your statement.

ORIGINAL: DanesDad

ORIGINAL: akitadog

im gonna tell you if i was bear hunting and a bear come through my hunting spott, im gonna shoot the bear.

**** skippy. The only person who did anything wrong in this story was the dope that fed the bear for 17 years.

ORIGINAL: BIGHEAD

First off Sonof My Ethics are NOT Tainted or in question here in any way. Fact is that the bear was Taken by a hunter on legal hunting grounds and no law was broke. Ethical or not isn't bring the BEAR back. And as far as the type of person I am.HMMMMMMM MAYBE YOU should find out for your self. Before you go popping off . Dave

ORIGINAL: SonofZ3

ORIGINAL: BIGHEAD

I think OPINIONS are much A-holes everyone has ONE!!!! Whether this guy knew this WILD ANIMAL was hand fed or not. He took this bear on LEGAL HUNTING GROUND and the PGC sees ( NO ) Illegal action taken when/how/where this bear was harvested PERIOD!!!! Now personally I would not have killed the WILD bear just don;t like the taste and would not kill anything I will not eat. And I don;t think I could drag this bear out of the woods LOL

So because it was legal that makes it right? I hope you're not the type of person who ever complains about tax rates, welfare, search and seizure laws, or anything else thats legal but still an annoyance to some. Because hey, if its a LEGAL ACTIVITY undertaken in the LEGAL manner then it must be ethical too. Right?

I never said anything about bringing the bear back. What YOU posted in a PUBLIC forum is an argument that its a good kill because its a legal kill. I pointed out that the same line of thinking fails in reference to many other things, implying it also fails in relation to this incident. If you don't like what someone can extrapolate from what you posted, don't post it.

Don't really care about this one way or the other, but anyone that flips a stick at a nearly 900 pound bear and then trails it and shoots it multiple times with more sticks has got to be a little crazy....