Maryland bear-hunt only lasts 1 day

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 01:15pm

Maryland bear hunt lasts only one day
Tuesday, October 26, 2004 Posted: 10:30 AM EDT (1430 GMT)

OAKLAND, Maryland (AP) -- Maryland's first bear hunt in 51 years started -- and surprisingly ended -- in a day.

As of 8 p.m. Monday, 20 dead bears had been registered at Department of Natural Resources checking stations, according to the DNR kill tally hot line. Officials then called a halt to any more killing.

Calling the one-day harvest rate "overwhelming," and expressing concern that allowing the bear hunt to continue a second day would exceed the 30-bear limit, the DNR refused to allow the hunt to continue.

The deadline for registering Monday's kills is Tuesday afternoon.

"While we regret any inconvenience, our first responsibility is to manage Maryland's natural resources, and we were concerned that opening the hunt a second day would put us over our conservative harvest target of 30 bears, and potentially jeopardize future hunts and black bear management opportunities," said Paul A. Peditto, director of the wildlife and heritage service for DNR.

The hunt in far western Maryland was scheduled to last six days.

The first kill, an 84-pound female less than a year old, was claimed by David Ciekot, a freelance outdoor writer from the Eastern Shore. Ciekot, 35, said he probably will have the bear mounted.

"It's a pretty neat thrill. It's pretty historic to get the first one in Maryland in modern times," Ciekot said. He added that he wasn't bothered by the animal's small size.

"They wanted the bears taken for management reasons, so I was going to take whatever came by. I was actually kind of happy it wasn't too big and we didn't have to drag a 500-pound bear out of the woods," he said.

Harry Spiker, the DNR's black bear project manager, said the small animal was "proof in hand that we did not design this hunt as a trophy hunt. This is a management hunt, and this certainly is fulfilling our purpose.

But Pierre Grzybowski, grass-roots coordinator for The Fund for Animals, said Ciekot's kill proved that "bear hunters are so eager to shoot a bear that they will shoot any bear they come across. And regardless of the size of the bear, it's a trophy hunt nonetheless."

Animal-welfare advocates dispute the state's population estimate of 500 bears, compared with a handful in the 1950s. They also disagree with the DNR's assertion that the hunt is needed to reduce human-bear conflicts, such as the 17 highway deaths of bears in Maryland this year.

Spiker said 381 people were participating in the tightly regulated hunt, including 183 permit-holders chosen by lottery, 149 companions and 49 landowners who could join teams hunting on their property.

Could someone reassure me that most hunters are not like this Ciekot clown and would avoid shooting a baby bear? What kind of sicko would proudly put a trophy of a baby bear head on his wall?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-26 01:22pm

He's a fucking idiot. You NEVER shoot the young ones like that. Thats part of the principle of hunting. You don't take the young EVER.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-26 01:26pm

Well, there seems little to be proud of in the killing of a cub, and it's certainly abhorrent to sentimentality, but objectively if you're going to kill a cub or the mother the cub's dependent on, it's better to kill the cub than the mother (though still abhorrent), because the cub will die without the mother's care and meanwhile the mother has been removed from the breeding population. It's best to take neither the mother nor the dependent cub, though. (Speaking of which, I wonder what Mama Bear did afterwards...)

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-26 02:21pm

Even if I were a hunter, I wouldn't be bragging about shooting a cub. It may have been fine given the state's purpose for allowing the hunt (population management), but bragging about it makes you look like an ass.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-10-26 02:31pm

I've known quite a few hunters, and most of them were pretty good about it. Of course, most of them were deer hunters who actually ate the deer they shot by gun or bow and didn't just shoot the deer to mount the head on the wall.

But yes, there are always morons out there who would proudly display their baby bear (or the equivalent).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 02:31pm

Glocksman wrote:Even if I were a hunter, I wouldn't be bragging about shooting a cub. It may have been fine given the state's purpose for allowing the hunt (population management), but bragging about it makes you look like an ass.

I still can't believe he actually told reporters that he plans to make a trophy out of the baby bear's head. What a fuckhead.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-10-26 02:48pm

Darth Wong wrote: I still can't believe he actually told reporters that he plans to make a trophy out of the baby bear's head. What a fuckhead.

Well the idiots killed the cub anyway, might as well make the most of it. It'll stand as a monument to his stupidity.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-26 03:18pm

Well this just inspires me to yell "it's coming right for us!" What an ass. I'd imagine this won't bode well for public opinion, or at least it wouldn't here. I dunno how apathetic marylanders are towards stuff like this.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-26 03:20pm

Rye wrote:I dunno how apathetic Marylanders are towards stuff like this.

What can we do about it? Honestly?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-26 03:46pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Rye wrote:I dunno how apathetic Marylanders are towards stuff like this.
What can we do about it? Honestly?

Lobby for legislation on the bear hunts, like "don't shoot pregnant/nursing females and their cubs, I would've thought.

Guy N. Cognito · Post by **Guy N. Cognito** » 2004-10-26 04:05pm

You know, the more stories I hear of like this, the more I think it would be better if people didn't have the high powered rifles with scopes, scent killing sprays, etc. ad nauseum. Make them use something to make it a challenge. Give them a spear, a bow and arrow. A musket so the range isn't very far. Something so the animal has better then a snowballs chance in hell of getting out alive. Truly saddens me to see the art of hunting so brutally destroyed by a bunch of trigger happy, no skill, trophy hunters.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-26 04:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Even if I were a hunter, I wouldn't be bragging about shooting a cub. It may have been fine given the state's purpose for allowing the hunt (population management), but bragging about it makes you look like an ass.
I still can't believe he actually told reporters that he plans to make a trophy out of the baby bear's head. What a fuckhead.

It would be evil if he stuffed it and named it Teddy.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-26 04:24pm

Guy N. Cognito wrote:You know, the more stories I hear of like this, the more I think it would be better if people didn't have the high powered rifles with scopes, scent killing sprays, etc. ad nauseum. Make them use something to make it a challenge. Give them a spear, a bow and arrow. A musket so the range isn't very far. Something so the animal has better then a snowballs chance in hell of getting out alive. Truly saddens me to see the art of hunting so brutally destroyed by a bunch of trigger happy, no skill, trophy hunters.

That's why a lot of hunters use handguns. Though you couldn't really use one for a bear without a high chance of leaving a wounded animal wandering around, which is something you absolutely do not want and is a strong argument for using very high powered rifles.

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2004-10-26 05:58pm

During my married days I hunted for deer with my father in law.

You NEVER kill a cub, a yearling, a fawn.. all young creatures are to be left alone. I never heard any rednecks in that area ever say anything different, either.

For this knob to come on out and say 'Look maw! I kilt a yunngun!' probably puts paid to any hope of having a bear season in Maryland for a while.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-26 06:04pm

I really don't see what's so fucking macho about downing a bear, deer or whatever from 50 metres with a high-powered rifle or handgun from the bushes as it is, but this is totally disagreeable. I wonder if he'd go and stomp on some kittens as well for an encore.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-26 06:09pm

And in other news, the fatality rate of Deer around Silver Spring continues to skyrocket

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2004-10-26 06:38pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Guy N. Cognito wrote:You know, the more stories I hear of like this, the more I think it would be better if people didn't have the high powered rifles with scopes, scent killing sprays, etc. ad nauseum. Make them use something to make it a challenge. Give them a spear, a bow and arrow. A musket so the range isn't very far. Something so the animal has better then a snowballs chance in hell of getting out alive. Truly saddens me to see the art of hunting so brutally destroyed by a bunch of trigger happy, no skill, trophy hunters.
That's why a lot of hunters use handguns. Though you couldn't really use one for a bear without a high chance of leaving a wounded animal wandering around, which is something you absolutely do not want and is a strong argument for using very high powered rifles.

Additionally, a lot of hunters already use muskets and bow and arrow-- just modern versions of the latter for the most part, to be sure, but the fact remains that they still willingly use "old-fashioned" weapons, and are recognized as such by the states, which often have special seasons for these kind of weapons.

However, as Skimmer noted, many of these weapons are underpowered compared to a high-powered rifle, especially the blackpowder rifle/musket. A compound bow can be highly lethal-- but accuracy with it is slightly iffy even in ideal conditions.

Add to that the fact that bears are not exactly going to just run off when you shoot them-- the young will, true, but unless you're in a tree stand or some such, or are a fair distance away from them, you stand a very real danger of being attacked if you don't drop it with the first shot. Admittedly, doesn't happen much with the black bear-- which, I presume, would be those hunted in Maryland-- but brown and grizzly bears are tougher creatures. You NEED something powerful against them.

It's simple logic-- match the power of your weapon to the animal you're shooting. Pygmies in the Congo use spears against elephants, true-- but offered assault rifles by poachers, they invariably go for the gun. Only a complete fuckwit, or someone who was highly confident in his own ability, would go up against potentially dangerous creatures with low-powered weapons. There's a reason why safari guides in Africa always carry heavy rifles, even when their clients are on a pistol hunt...

LapsedPacifist · Post by **LapsedPacifist** » 2004-10-26 06:51pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
but accuracy with it is slightly iffy even in ideal conditions.

Something that's been happening in Oregon is that hunters will try to draw a rifle tag, fail, and take up archery at the last minute to try to get an animal. Many of them do not have the skill necessary to shoot well under any circumstances.

Of course plenty of guys don't even sight in their rifles.

LP

Guy N. Cognito · Post by **Guy N. Cognito** » 2004-10-26 07:10pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Guy N. Cognito wrote:You know, the more stories I hear of like this, the more I think it would be better if people didn't have the high powered rifles with scopes, scent killing sprays, etc. ad nauseum. Make them use something to make it a challenge. Give them a spear, a bow and arrow. A musket so the range isn't very far. Something so the animal has better then a snowballs chance in hell of getting out alive. Truly saddens me to see the art of hunting so brutally destroyed by a bunch of trigger happy, no skill, trophy hunters.
That's why a lot of hunters use handguns. Though you couldn't really use one for a bear without a high chance of leaving a wounded animal wandering around, which is something you absolutely do not want and is a strong argument for using very high powered rifles.
Additionally, a lot of hunters already use muskets and bow and arrow-- just modern versions of the latter for the most part, to be sure, but the fact remains that they still willingly use "old-fashioned" weapons, and are recognized as such by the states, which often have special seasons for these kind of weapons.

However, as Skimmer noted, many of these weapons are underpowered compared to a high-powered rifle, especially the blackpowder rifle/musket. A compound bow can be highly lethal-- but accuracy with it is slightly iffy even in ideal conditions.

Add to that the fact that bears are not exactly going to just run off when you shoot them-- the young will, true, but unless you're in a tree stand or some such, or are a fair distance away from them, you stand a very real danger of being attacked if you don't drop it with the first shot. Admittedly, doesn't happen much with the black bear-- which, I presume, would be those hunted in Maryland-- but brown and grizzly bears are tougher creatures. You NEED something powerful against them.

It's simple logic-- match the power of your weapon to the animal you're shooting. Pygmies in the Congo use spears against elephants, true-- but offered assault rifles by poachers, they invariably go for the gun. Only a complete fuckwit, or someone who was highly confident in his own ability, would go up against potentially dangerous creatures with low-powered weapons. There's a reason why safari guides in Africa always carry heavy rifles, even when their clients are on a pistol hunt...

I realize the need to be able to kill the animal that attacks you or the one you are hunting. Animals wounded by human hands should be finished off, and quickly. I don't argue with using high powered rifles to down animals either, I only have problems with people who don't 'hunt', but mearly shoot the first thing they see. I wasn't refering to all hunters in my dialogue, merely the ones who just shoot what they see, unfortunately, it didn't come out as clear as it should have.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-26 08:31pm

I killed a large whitetail with an axe when I was sixteen. I wasn't even hunting. My cousin's Dalmatians bolted from the back of the truck and took off into the brush. I heard barking, then the deer came running right at me. My cousin was chopping wood, pissed his pants, pitched me the axe and jumped into the bed of the truck. The deer got tangled in a clump of brush and the dogs started biting it. I had enough, so I swung overhand and that was it. It flopped for a minute, then the dogs started snapping at it. We had some 'splainin to do when a deputy sheriff showed up and spotted two teenagers, one with a bloody axe, one with wet pants, and two Dalmatians with blood-soaked muzzles.

Luckily we didn't have guns or other weapons (we were waiting on friends for a cookout) or we faced $1000 fines. The deputy said that hunting a deer with dogs was illegal, as was hunting out of season. Shooting does and fawns would have carried a bigger fine and the possibility of being arrested!

Maryland should make cubs and females off limits, and ride herd on peckerwoods like the Great Cub-Killer.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2004-10-26 08:34pm

LapsedPacifist wrote:
Elheru Aran wrote:
but accuracy with it is slightly iffy even in ideal conditions.

Something that's been happening in Oregon is that hunters will try to draw a rifle tag, fail, and take up archery at the last minute to try to get an animal. Many of them do not have the skill necessary to shoot well under any circumstances.

Of course plenty of guys don't even sight in their rifles.

LP

Well, now that's just damn irresponsible!

I meant that... if they can't shoot straight, they can't guarantee a clean kill. When you do that to the animal, you're basically just torturing it-- killing it slowly and painfully. Much better to drop it, or deal a fatal wound, one that'll kill in a very short time-- my first deer was of that ilk. Shot it at an angle through the chest cavity; bullet exited rear left abodminal area. It bounded maybe fifty feet, and then collapsed, within sight of the stand. It didn't die instanteously once I shot it, but it was definitely dead within a short time, because I used a well-sighted-in rifle with the proper caliber (7mm-- which may sound rather powerful for deer, but believe me, it's average).

A responsible hunter always makes sure that he'll be able to reliably kill his quarry. These fucks you speak of in Oregon... bah. It's a wonder they don't have more deer up there...

[/rant off]

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-10-27 05:47pm

Why do I suddenly have flashes from the movie '9 to 5'?

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2004-10-27 11:33pm

Guys ease up a bit, this was the first bear hunt in 51 years and I am sure that those invovled had to go through a waiting list or pay a high price for the right to hunt. Think about it there were only 381 hunters and only 20 bears were killed. Is it a shame that a cub was taken sure, but read the article again. That 84 pound female was the FIRST bear taken, it was also probably the first bear seen on the hunt. so the hunters were not sure what a full grown bear looks like. It may sound dumb but it is true. I have hunted for the last 19+ years and it is still difficult for me (at times) to tell the size of a single doe. why? because you have nothing to size it up too, now when two or more are present(of different sizes) it is a heck of alot easier. As for the guy saying he is going to mount it, well why not? again it was the first bear hunt in 51 years, it may be another 51 years before another hunt happens, so I bet I would be mounting it too.
it is a general rule that you do not take the young because you want them to be the future hunting fodder in generations to come, the rule may not apply to this bear hunt because like I said it may be along time before the next hunt.
so please ease up and get off the high horse.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-28 05:26am

You're seriously arguing that this guy couldn't tell the difference between an adult bear and a cub?

He didn't sound like a guy who made a mistake; he said it was actually more convenient to drag a small carcass around than big one, and bragged that he planned to mount the little head on his wall. That doesn't sound like a guy who made an honest mistake, and anyone who would go on a bear hunt without even knowing anything about bears is too fucking stupid to be allowed to own a rifle.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-28 05:35am

Darth Wong wrote:...and anyone who would go on a bear hunt without even knowing anything about bears is too fucking stupid to be allowed to own a rifle.

Or even a water-pistol.