[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST LETTERS

Living with wildlife

Monday, May 7 at 9:45 AM

Barb Adams of Parker writes:

It seems that the first thought of the Division of Wildlife when there is a wildlife-human encounter is to shoot and kill the animal. It is humans who are constantly encroaching on their habitat and they are paying the heaviest price. Their territories are getting smaller and smaller with suburban sprawl. They are being cornered with no where to go (the Conifer Why doesn’t the Division of Wildlife carry tranquilizer guns and move threatening animals or use other non-lethal means? Instead of deadly bullets in the guns, why not rock salt in shotgun shells to scare the animal away? The point is, there are other options!
Its doubtful that native Americans handled wildlife threats in this manner. White man has a lot to learn from the Native Americans on how to live in harmony with wildlife.
Even in the 21st century, we’re still seem to be carrying over some of the mindset of shooting buffalo from trains.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

DoW doesn't have a shoot to kill first mentality. The bear in Conifer was shot when it charged the DoW officer (after having attacked a woman no less), so it sounds to me like the officer was properly armed and handled the situation correctly.

I have lived in the Conifer area for several years and have know of many bear encounters the DoW has handled. They use lethal force only when there is no choice.

The problem most likely arose because the bear got used to human food put in the snowbanks during the power outages here. Had it not been for that, the bear probably wouldn't have attacked the woman and still be alive today.

Don't blame the DoW for a situation it didn't create (in fact it strongly warns against it for this very reason). Be thankful the DoW officer wasn't injured in what was obviously a very dangerous situation.

Posted by on May 7, 2007 02:43 PM

What do you want them to do Barb? Shoot the people? I guess that would solve the encroachment issue...but would make for alot of pissed off tax payers.

Posted by on May 7, 2007 06:04 PM