I am one of more than 100,000 people who have been enthusiastically following the precious lives of Lily and her cub Hope – both bears living somewhere in Minnesota and participating in the important research of Lynn Rogers and Sue Mansfield of the North American Bear Center. Our ‘community’ meets regularly on the Lily the Bear facebook site and has experienced the rollercoaster journey of these two precious bears as they live their lives each day. With so much to be learned about the animal world, Lily and Hope have become mentors and teachers and have brought attention as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars to your part of the world in the past seven months.
Hunting season is upon us. The tension, anticipation and fear of those us who follow and have grown to love Lily and Hope mount daily and will continue throughout the next six weeks. Colored ribbons are being placed on the collars of each of the research bears to identify the bears to prospective hunters.
Do hunters understand the depth of knowledge and attention that Lily and Hope continue to provide? Will they value, honor and recognize the impact that this little family of black bears has had and will continue to have on so many people around the world?
From Winnipeg, Manitoba, I send this message directly to those of you who will be hunting...and ask that you please respect the work of the North American Bear Center, and the thousands of ‘fans’ who circle and support the lives of the bears involved.....and let them continue to live. The devastation of losing any of these animals that we have come to know would reverberate around the world - literally. Please help protect Lily, Hope and the other animals who wear collars.
Marsha Dozar
Winnipeg, Manitoba
I know that it is people's right to do and say what they want. I have to agree with Marsha on this one. There is no reason to shoot a collared bear. They are being used to help everyone understand the life of these animals. I guess i was rasied better than some people to respect humans as well as animals. Unlike some people who feel the need to tell someone to shut up!!! So orrcountry please have alittle more respect for others who care about these animals..
I also have to agree with Marsha on this one. There is absolutely no reason to shoot radio-collared bears... not only because of their value to science but also because of the sheer numbers of bears that are supposed to exist. If you shoot a radio-collared bear then you are doing so because you want to and not because you have to fulfill a tag. The data supports this if you want to research the numbers. This is no different than any other sport or any other state where hunting is legal. What is different, depending the research bear that is destroyed, the animal destroyed may have been the one that provides an answer for a cure for bone disease or kidney disease or foretells how long a creature may live without such influences as a gun or arrow. This may not mean anything to you now but someday in your old age it may or may now to a endeared family member who is on dialysis or breaks a bone going up the stairs. I am not against hunting but the nature of the study of these animals should give them value enough to anyone so they are not hunted. No one has ever said these are pets but they are not just any animal either because so much time and money and lives are invested in their study. Personally, I do not not know anyone, even those that are very poor, that would ever think of such destruction because all of them carry a code of honor typical of a "true hunter"! Even the DNR is encouraging hunters not to shoot them, as well as, hunting organizations. Hopefully, you see the value in following the advice of organizations and officials that dictate the rules of the hunt and also the value of these animals is much greater alive to more than one but an entire community.
@ orrcountry, I am an avid hunter also, Have been for 35 years. You sir sound like you are not a true hunter . Even the DNR asks that you spare radio collared bears.I love wildlife and like to learn all I can about wildlife. The more we learn about these animals, the better off we all are. The work that the NorthAmerican Bear Center and the Wildlife Reaserch Institute benifits everyone that includes hunters. 14 bears are radio collared, . And YES I would pass up a collared bear. With all of the thousands of bears in Minnesota, you are telling me that you can't find an uncollared bear. You sir are not a true hunter... Respect hunting, don't abuse it. Grow up. Be a human being.
hunter2: I do not hunt anymore and have never hunted bear. I don't agree with domesticating wildlife, whether bear, deer, ducks or wolves. Maybe I need to "grow down" so I can be on your level.
@orrcountry: You must be misinformed about this bears as they are not domesticated.
Bears don't belong to anyone
Ely Echo Editorial
A bear that was part of a research study involving Lynn Rogers and the North American Bear Center appears to have been legally killed by a hunter last week. The headline on the StarTribune website: "Researcher near Ely says hunter killed one of his bears."
We didn't find a quote attributed to local researcher Lynn Rogers, but it wouldn't be surprising if he did say the bear was his. That's where Rogers is wrong. Bears in the woods, collared or not, do not belong to anyone. Period.
There are three facts that need to be pointed out:
1. Bears are wild animals.
2. Bears belong to the state of Minnesota.
3. Bear hunting is a legal activity authorized by the state of Minnesota (including shooting collared bears).
We have researchers in the Ely area that have collars on animals in the woods besides bears, specifically moose, wolves and deer.
Yet, we have never heard the local deer researcher bemoan and whine about a collared deer being legally shot. We wouldn't expect that. Hunting is part of a wild animal's life in the woods.
But Rogers has pushed the limits of research. His methods are different from others. Some would say his ability to get close to bears and be able to follow them in the woods is groundbreaking. Others would say he is interfering with and altering the life pattern of the bear.
Our opinion on bears, research or otherwise, has been and continues to be bears should exist in the forest just like the moose, deer or even the wolf. There should be management of the population through hunting seasons. If there are too many, allow more hunting and if there are too few, lower the quotas or go without a hunting season.
If a collared animal is killed, the researcher should note the time, location and if known, the cause of death. Should the animal be killed legally by a hunter, the death would be noted the same as if it died after being hit by a car.
What we have in the case of the collared bear that made headlines this past week, is nature and man interacting. From information we've been able to gather, a hunter legally shot a collared bear and returned the collar to the DNR. The story should end with "and the researcher noted the date of death."
Instead we have Rogers and his supporters attacking a bear hunter who to this point is nameless. Did he/she know the bear was wearing a collar when it was shot? Unknown.
In addition to Rogers, the DNR also has collared bears. In fact, two of the DNR's collared bears have been shot this year.
According to the StarTribune, a DNR collared bear was shot last week by a 12-year-old girl hunting for the first time with her father. They saw the collar and decided to harvest the bear.
There was nothing unethical and nothing wrong with what this young hunter did. Bears are bears are bears. They don't belong to researchers, they belong to the state of Minnesota. They get hit by cars and even shot by hunters. They live and they die.
This bear that Rogers is upset about was one year old. The research time invested was minimal. In terms of one year old animals in the woods, it was young and unwise. Likely because of that it got shot. That should be part of the research.
Altering reality for economic gain is not part of science. If we have to choose between economic gains and keeping wild animals wild, the choice is simple.
We also heard a bit of advice that some may not take kindly to, but it holds true: If you don't want bears with names to get shot, stop naming bears.
A bear was shot during bear season — outrageous!
In the Sept. 8 story, “Ely-area research bear killed,” Wildlife Research Institute and North American Bear Center biologist Sue Mansfield wondered why anyone would shoot Sarah, a radio-collared black bear. She went so far as to suggest the hunter was unethical. What’s unethical? A bear was shot legally during season and the tracking device was later returned to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
The real question is why funds are being used by the North American Bear Center to study these so-called “wild bears.” Mansfield claims information is being used to compare and contrast the behavior of Internet sensation Lily and her cub Hope. This is nothing more than junk science. The behavior of these animals has been altered by repeated human interaction.
The bear center is a glorified, taxpayer-supported petting zoo. All the bears even have cute names instead of numbers used in actual scientific research.
Now I ask who is unethical here? The hunter who legally harvested one bear or the researchers at the bear center wasting resources that could be for the betterment of all bears?
Louie Hippolt
Duluth
Tags: readers views, opinion, editorials
Bear hunters are not hunters. They are taking potshots at a shy, omnivore that they have "lured" to their trap. Collared bears are nearly tame and I hope the DNR makes shooting them illegal with HUGE fines. Be a real hunter, go track something or shoot something swimming or flying that has 1/2 a chance.
The North American Bear Center is not tax supported to any great extent and therefore, your comment about it being such is mute. It is supported through donations. As a scientist I just wanted you to know that there are a number of research studies that "name" their research animals. In fact, most of them do. You may be more familiar with those that do not but most that study the "lives" of animals meaning they study their behaviors, compare behaviors through generations, usually do use names. Probably the most influential in my education was Dian Fossey and the still-living Jane Goodall. Just in case you're interested I could give you the name of one of my mentors teaching in a well-respected university and he would tell you the same thing. Also, if you want more information about the research, I am sure I could contact one of the people that I know that would be able to discuss the importance of animal behavior research like Dr. Rogers and Sue Mansfield. Right of hand, I could refer you to several at the University of San Diego and the University of Los Angeles. In addition, many zoos have adjunct researchers and professors that study animal behavior both in zoos and the field.